Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
EXAMPLE 6-011
LINK SUNY BUFFALO SEVEN-STORY BUILDING WITH FRICTION PENDULUM ISOLATORS
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
This example is presented in Section 4, pages 43 through 59, of Scheller and
Constantinou 1999 (the SUNY Buffalo report). It is a seven-story building that
is seismically isolated using a friction pendulum isolation system. The model is
subjected to a recorded, scaled horizontal ground acceleration history from the
1940 El Centro earthquake. See the section titled Earthquake Record later in
this example for more information. The SAP2000 results for base shear versus
Level 1 displacement and isolator force-deformation are compared with
experimental results obtained using shake table tests.
The SAP2000 model is shown in the figures on pages 3 and 4 of this example.
The total building weight, including the tributary weight from beams and
columns, is estimated to be 47.5 kips. The weight of each floor is estimated to be
7.6 kips at Level 1, 6.7 kips at Levels 2 through 6 and 6.4 kips at Level 7. The
gravity load associated with the total building weight is applied at the top joint of
the friction pendulum isolator elements. The gravity loads applied are 7.92 kips
at the exterior isolators and 15.83 kips at the interior isolators.
Masses representing the weight at each floor level are concentrated throughout
the height of the structure at the beam-column joints. One-sixth of the floor mass
is lumped at the exterior joints at that level and one-third is lumped at the interior
joints. The mass is active in the Ux and Uz directions. In addition, small masses
are applied directly to the isolator elements. The isolator masses are set to
0.0002 k-sec2/in. This mass is chosen to be about two orders of magnitude
smaller than the typical joints masses. Thus it has essentially no effect on the
overall dynamics, of the structure but it does provide modes associated with the
isolators that help the convergence of the modal time history analysis.
Diaphragm constraints are assigned at each of the seven floor levels. A
diaphragm constraint is not provided at the top of the isolators.
As shown in the figure on the page 3, beams and columns are modeled as frame
elements with specified end length offsets and rigid-end factors. The rigid-end
factor is 0.45 for all beams and columns. All beams and columns have a 4.5 inch
end offset at each end, except for the Level 1 columns, which have a 4.5 inch end
offset at their lower ends (just above the isolators) and a 5.5 inch end offset at
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 1
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
there upper ends (at Level 1). The frame section properties are shown in the
figure on page 4 of this example.
The friction pendulum isolators are modeled using two-joint, zero-length, link
elements. Both linear and nonlinear properties are provided for the isolators. The
linear properties are used for the linear modal analysis case and the nonlinear
properties are used for the nonlinear time history analysis cases. See the section
titled Friction Pendulum Isolator Properties later in this example for additional
information.
The analysis results for models using friction pendulum isolators sometimes
exhibit high frequency fluctuations in the response. Typically those high
frequency fluctuations have not been observed in experimental results. This is the
case in this example. It appears that the high frequency fluctuations in the model
are a result of the instantaneous opening and closing of the vertical gap element
inherent in the friction pendulum and, to a lesser degree, a result of the
instantaneous stick/slip friction behavior in the horizontal direction.
The high frequency fluctuations can be damped out in the analysis either by
specifying appropriate damping in the time history analysis case or by including
vertical dampers in the model at the isolator level. Both methods are considered
in this example.
Two models are created for this example. The models are identical, except that
Model A does not have vertical dampers included at the isolator level and Model
B does have vertical isolators at the damper level. The damper element nonlinear
properties used in Model B are the same as those used in the SUNY Buffalo
report. See the section titled Vertical Damper Properties later in this example
for additional information.
Both a nonlinear modal time history analysis case and a direct integration time
history analysis case are considered in this example. See the section titled
Analysis Cases Used later in this example for additional information.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 2
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
30
31
32
Level 6
25
26
27
28
Level 5
21
22
23
24
7 @ 3' = 21'
Level 4
17
18
19
20
Active degrees of
freedom for model are
Ux, Uz and Ry
Ux and Uz mass equal
to 1/6 of floor mass at
exterior joints and 1/3
of floor mass at
interior joints typical at
Levels 1 through 7
End offsets typical for
all frame members at
all joints.
Level 3
13
14
15
16
Level 2
10
11
12
Level 1
5
7.92 k
15.83 k Z
15.83 k
7.92 k
Base and
Isolator Level
X
1, 33
2, 34
3, 35
Building weight is
applied directly to the
top of the isolators
4, 36
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 3
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
28
FSEC2
24
FSEC2
20
FSEC2
16
FSEC2
FSEC2
12
8
4
31
FSEC1
30
2
29
Level 1
FSEC1
FSEC2
34
FSEC3
FSEC1
Level 2
FSEC2
FSEC3
Z
Level 3
FSEC2
11
10
6
FSEC2
FSEC2
33
37
FSEC3
1
FSEC1
FSEC2
FSEC2
32
36
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
35
9
FSEC2
FSEC2
40
15
14
39
Frame element
number
Level 5
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
38
13
FSEC2
FSEC2
43
19
18
42
Level 6
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
41
17
FSEC2
FSEC2
46
23
22
45
Level 7
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
21
FSEC2
44
49
27
26
48
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
47
25
FSEC2
FSEC2
SAP2000
0
Base and
Isolator Level
Section
Name
Area
A (in2)
FSEC1
7.46
12.18
4.375
FSEC2
3.34
5.04
1.02
FSEC3
5.58
13.58
2.608
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 4
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
Description
RITZ
MGRAV
DGRAV
NLMHIST1A
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 5
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
MODEL A
Analysis Case
Description
NLMHIST2A
NLMHIST3A
NLDHIST1A
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 6
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
MODEL B
Analysis Case
RITZ
Description
Same as Model A.
MGRAV
DGRAV
NLMHIST1B
NLMHIST2B
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 7
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
MODEL B
Analysis Case
Description
NLDHIST1B
In Model A the damping is set high for modes associated with the vertical
excitation of the isolators. This is not the case in Model B, which includes
vertical damper elements at the isolator level.
In the nonlinear direct integration time history analysis cases, a maximum
substep size of 0.0005 second is used and the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor integration
factor, alpha, is set to -1/3.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 8
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
SAP2000
0
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
Mass
Stiffness
Rayleigh
0.045
0.04
Damping Ratio
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Mass
Stiffness
Rayleigh
0.045
0.04
Damping Ratio
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Period (sec)
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 9
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
EARTHQUAKE RECORD
The following figure shows the earthquake record used in this example. It is the
S00E component of the 1940 El Centro earthquake record scaled up to a peak
acceleration of 0.57g. This is twice the recorded level of the earthquake. The
time scale is also compressed by a factor of two to satisfy the similitude
requirements of the experiment.
The earthquake record is provided in a file named EQ6-011.txt. This file has one
acceleration value per line, in g. The acceleration values are provided at an equal
spacing of 0.01 second.
Inside SAP2000 the earthquake record is multiplied by a factor of 386.22 to
convert from g to in/sec2.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time (sec)
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 10
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
0.04
0.06
1.0897 sec/in
9.75 in
0.04
0.06
1.0897 sec/in
9.75 in
The ke U1 property of 20,000 k/in used in this example is different from that used
in the Scheller and Constantinou 1999 SAP2000 model where a value of 0.0001
k/in was used.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 11
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
c=
k
kW
m = 2 km = 2
m
g
The damper stiffness, k, is set to 10,000 kip/in to achieve pure damping behavior
in the damper. This means that the characteristic time of the spring-dashpot
system, given by = c / k = 5 / 10000 = 0.0005 sec, is approximately one to two
orders of magnitude smaller than the size of the load steps, which is 0.01 second
in this case. This characteristic time should give pure damping behavior.
The linear properties of the damper are set to zero so that the damper has no
effect on the modal analysis.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 12
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are experimental results from shake table testing presented in
Section 4, pages 43 through 59, of Scheller and Constantinou 1999.
The figures on page 14 of this example plot base shear versus Level 1
displacement for the four time history cases in Model A, which has no added
damper elements, and for the three time history cases in Model B, which does
have added damper elements.
The plot shown at the bottom center of page 14 is for Model A, analysis case
NLMHIST3A. Recall that Model A does not have vertical dampers at the isolator
level and that analysis case NLMHIST3A has 0.59% modal damping for all
modes with no increased damping in the higher frequencies. This plot shows
substantial high frequency fluctuations in the response. Note that the other plots,
all of which have some increased damping for the higher frequencies (as modal
damping, mass and stiffness proportional damping, or added vertical damper
elements), show significantly fewer of those high frequency fluctuations. In all
cases the peak response values compare well with the experimental values. This
comparison is tabulated in the table on page 15.
The top left plot on page 14 shows the base shear versus Level 1 displacement
for analysis case NLMHIST1A which is a nonlinear modal time history with
proportional damping. The plot third down on the left shows the same base shear
versus Level 1 displacement plot for analysis case NLDHIST1A which is a
nonlinear direct integration time history with proportional damping. The
proportional damping specified for these two analysis cases is identical. The plot
for NLDHIST1A has much less high frequency fluctuation than that shown in the
plot for NLMHIST3A (bottom center), and more high frequency fluctuation than
that shown in the plot for NLMHIST1A (top left). The difference between the
plots for NLMHIST1A and NLDHIST1A is caused by the differences in how
proportional damping is handled in the nonlinear modal and direct integration
time history analysis cases.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 13
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
SAP2000
0
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
0.2
Model A
Nonlinear modal time history
Proportional damping
Analysis case NLMHIST1A
0.3
0.3
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
Experimental
SAP2000
-0.3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
Model B
Nonlinear modal time history
Includes vertical damper elements
Analysis case NLMHIST1B
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
Experimental
SAP2000
-0.3
-2.5
2.5
-2
-1.5
0.2
Model A
Nonlinear modal time history
Modal damping w/ overwrites
Analysis case NLMHIST2A
0.3
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
Experimental
SAP2000
-0.3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
-0.1
-0.2
Experimental
SAP2000
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
0.2
1.5
2.5
-0.1
-0.2
Experimental
SAP2000
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
Model B
Nonlinear direct integration time history
Includes vertical damper elements
Analysis case NLDHIST1B
0.2
1.5
2.5
0
-0.1
-0.2
Experimental
SAP2000
-0.3
-2.5
2.5
0.1
-2
-1.5
0.3
-2
0.5
0.1
-0.3
-2.5
0.1
-0.3
-2.5
2.5
0.2
Model A
Nonlinear direct integration time history
Proportional damping
Analysis case NLDHIST1A
-0.5
Model B
Nonlinear modal time history
Includes vertical damper elements
Analysis case NLMHIST2B
0.2
-1
0.3
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-2.5
Experimental
SAP2000
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 14
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
Independent
Experimental
Percent
Difference
PROGRAM NAME:
Output
Parameter
Minimum
Level 1
Displacement
(in)
Model
Maximum
Level 1
Displacement
(in)
A
Minimum
Base
Shear/Weight
B
A
Maximum
Base
Shear/Weight
B
Analysis
Case
SAP2000
NLMHIST1A
-2.020
-2%
NLMHIST2A
-2.034
-1%
NLMHIST3A
-2.147
+5%
NLDHIST1A
-2.020
NLMHIST1B
-2.017
-2%
NLMHIST2B
-2.081
+1%
NLDHIST1B
-1.988
-3%
NLMHIST1A
1.982
-3%
NLMHIST2A
1.981
-3%
NLMHIST3A
2.000
-2%
NLDHIST1A
1.968
NLMHIST1B
1.996
-2%
NLMHIST2B
2.021
-1%
NLDHIST1B
1.967
-4%
NLMHIST1A
-0.250
+2%
NLMHIST2A
-0.251
+2%
NLMHIST3A
-0.252
+3%
NLDHIST1A
-0.245
NLMHIST1B
-0.258
+5%
NLMHIST2B
-0.263
+7%
NLDHIST1B
-0.253
+3%
NLMHIST1A
0.253
+2%
NLMHIST2A
0.258
+4%
NLMHIST3A
+9%
NLDHIST1A
0.270
0.266
NLMHIST1B
0.237
-4%
NLMHIST2B
0.240
-3%
NLDHIST1B
0.235
-5%
-2.053
2.043
-0.245
0.248
-2%
-4%
0%
+7%
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 15
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
In nonlinear modal time history analysis cases with proportional damping, the
proportional damping is converted to modal damping based on the initial
stiffness of the analysis. This damping does not change as the analysis proceeds.
In nonlinear direct integration time history cases with proportional damping, the
stiffness proportional component of the damping can change during the course of
the analysis as the stiffness of the structure changes. If the stiffness goes to zero
during a portion of the analysis, the associated stiffness proportional component
of the damping also goes to zero.
In this example, analysis case NLMHIST1A has its damping based on the initial
conditions of the analysis. For those conditions, the isolator is under axial
compression and it is not sliding. Thus, nonzero vertical and horizontal stiffness
is present at the isolators. Therefore, vertical and horizontal stiffness proportional
damping is present at the isolators throughout the entire analysis.
Analysis case NLDHIST1A has damping that changes as the analysis proceeds.
When the isolator is under axial compression and it is not sliding, vertical and
horizontal stiffness proportional damping is present at the isolators. When the
isolators begin to slide, the horizontal stiffness proportional damping disappears.
When the isolator uplifts (as it is sliding), both the vertical and horizontal
stiffness proportional damping at the isolators disappears.
As a consequence, over the full course of the analysis, analysis case
NLDHIST1A is less damped than analysis case NLMHIST1A. This is why more
high frequency fluctuations are evident in the plot for NLDHIST1A than that for
NLMHIST1A.
The plot for NLMHIST2A shows some small high frequency fluctuations that are
not present for NLMHIST1A. Recall that NLMHIST1A uses mass and stiffness
proportional damping previously described in the section titled Proportional
Damping for Time Histories in Model A. NLMHIST2A uses constant 0.59%
modal damping, with the damping overwritten to 99.9% for the four highest
frequency modes, which all have periods of approximately 0.0004 second. The
proportional damping used in NLMHIST1A provides 0.59% damping at a period
of 0.1 second and increases to approximately 134% damping as the period is
decreased to 0.0004 second. The damping is increased over the entire range from
0.1 second to 0.0004 second rather than just at 0.0004 second as is the case in
NLMHIST2A. Thus, more high frequency damping is present in NLMHIST1A
than in NLMHIST2A. This explains why the plot for NLMHIST2A shows some
small high frequency fluctuations that are not present for NLMHIST1A. If
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 16
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
SAP2000
0
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
increased damping were provided for the modes between 0.1 second and 0.0004
second in NLMHIST2A, the results for NLMHIST2A would appear more similar
to those for NLMHIST1A.
The following figure compares the Level 1 displacement versus time for analysis
case NLMHIST1A to the experimental results. The comparison is similar for the
other analysis cases.
2.5
Model A
Nonlinear modal time history
Proportional damping
Analysis case NLMHIST1A
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Experimental
SAP2000
-2
-2.5
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time (sec)
The following figures show isolator force-deformation plots for an exterior and
an interior isolator for analysis case NLMHIST1A. The exterior isolator is
located at joints 1 and 33. The interior isolator is located at joints 2 and 34.
As described in Scheller and Constantinou 1999, The gravity loads on the
bearings [during the experiment] were not exactly known and they could very
well have been different than assumed in the [SAP2000] analysis. This could
contribute to the difference in the experimental and SAP2000 results for the
force-deformation response of the exterior isolator.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 17
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
SAP2000
0
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Model A
Nonlinear modal time history
Proportional damping
Analysis case NLMHIST1A
-4
-5
-6
Experimental
SAP2000
-7
-8
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Experimental
SAP2000
-4
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
The following table compares the peak values of the isolator force and
deformation with the experimental values for the NLMHIST1A analysis case.
Similar results are obtained for other time history analysis cases with damping at
the high frequencies.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 18
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
Output
Parameter
Exterior Isolator
(Joints 1 and 33)
Minimum
Deformation
(in)
Exterior Isolator
(Joints 1 and 33)
Maximum
Deformation
(in)
Exterior Isolator
(Joints 1 and 33)
Minimum
Shear Force
(kip)
Exterior Isolator
(Joints 1 and 33)
Maximum
Shear Force
(kip)
Model
Independent
Experimental
SAP2000
0
Analysis
Case
SAP2000
NLMHIST1A
-1.799
Percent
Difference
+7%
NLMHIST2A
-1.814
+8%
NLMHIST3A
-1.959
+16%
NLDHIST1A
-1.796
NLMHIST1B
-1.808
+7%
NLMHIST2B
-1.855
+10%
NLDHIST1B
-1.772
+5%
NLMHIST1A
1.961
+3%
NLMHIST2A
1.976
+4%
NLMHIST3A
2.015
+6%
NLDHIST1A
1.946
NLMHIST1B
1.981
+4%
NLMHIST2B
2.004
+5%
NLDHIST1B
1.950
+2%
NLMHIST1A
-5.672
-17%
NLMHIST2A
-5.726
-17%
NLMHIST3A
-14%
NLDHIST1A
-5.922
-5.782
NLMHIST1B
-5.683
-17%
NLMHIST2B
-5.834
-15%
NLDHIST1B
-5.543
-19%
NLMHIST1A
0.911
-23%
NLMHIST2A
0.904
-24%
NLMHIST3A
3.416
+189%
NLDHIST1A
NLMHIST1B
1.064
0.933
NLMHIST2B
0.919
-22%
NLDHIST1B
0.894
-24%
-1.686
1.909
-6.872
1.183
+7%
+2%
-16%
-10%
-21%
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 19
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
Output
Parameter
Interior Isolator
(Joints 2 and 34)
Minimum
Deformation
(in)
Interior Isolator
(Joints 2 and 34)
Maximum
Deformation
(in)
Interior Isolator
(Joints 2 and 34)
Minimum
Shear Force
(kip)
Interior Isolator
(Joints 2 and 34)
Maximum
Shear Force
(kip)
Model
Independent
Experimental
SAP2000
0
Analysis
Case
SAP2000
NLMHIST1A
-1.924
Percent
Difference
+7%
NLMHIST2A
-1.940
+8%
NLMHIST3A
-1.959
+9%
NLDHIST1A
-1.923
NLMHIST1B
-1.925
+7%
NLMHIST2B
-1.983
+10%
NLDHIST1B
-1.892
+5%
NLMHIST1A
1.854
+4%
NLMHIST2A
1.853
+4%
NLMHIST3A
1.873
+5%
NLDHIST1A
1.836
NLMHIST1B
1.871
+5%
NLMHIST2B
1.896
+6%
NLDHIST1B
1.842
+3%
NLMHIST1A
-3.493
0%
NLMHIST2A
-3.564
+2%
NLMHIST3A
-3.787
+8%
NLDHIST1A
-3.429
NLMHIST1B
-3.542
+1%
NLMHIST2B
-3.504
0%
NLDHIST1B
-3.384
-3%
NLMHIST1A
3.909
+17%
NLMHIST2A
3.973
+19%
NLMHIST3A
4.412
+32%
NLDHIST1A
NLMHIST1B
4.036
3.859
NLMHIST2B
3.811
+14%
NLDHIST1B
3.795
+13%
-1.796
1.786
-3.498
3.346
+7%
+3%
-2%
+21%
+15%
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 20
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 21
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 22