Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 6-007
LINK SUNY BUFFALO DAMPER WITH NONLINEAR VELOCITY EXPONENT

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
This example comes from Section 5 of Scheller and Constantinou 1999 (the
SUNY Buffalo report). It is a two-dimensional, three-story moment frame with
diagonal fluid viscous dampers that have nonlinear force versus velocity
behavior. The model is subjected to horizontal seismic excitation using a scaled
version of the S00E component of the 1940 El Centro record (see the section
titled Earthquake Record later in this example for more information). The
SAP2000 results for modal periods, interstory drift and interstory force-
deformation are compared with experimental results obtained using shake table
tests. The experimental results are documented in the SUNY Buffalo report.

The SAP2000 model is shown in the figure on the following page. Masses
representing the weight at each floor level, including the tributary weight from
beams and columns, are concentrated at the beam-column joints. Those masses,
2.39 N-sec2/cm at each joint, act only in the X direction. In addition, small
masses, 0.002 N-sec2/cm, are assigned to the damper elements. The small masses
help the nonlinear time history analyses solutions converge. Diaphragm
constraints are assigned at each of the three floor levels.

Beams and columns are modeled as frame elements with specified end length
offsets and rigid-end factors. The rigid-end factor is typically 0.6 and the end
length offsets vary as shown in the figure. The frame elements connecting the
lower end of the dampers to the Level 1 and Level 2 beams are assumed to be
rigid. This is achieved in SAP2000 by giving those elements section properties
that are several orders of magnitude larger than other elements in the model. See
the section titled Frame Element Properties later in this example for additional
information.

The dampers are modeled using two-joint, damper-type link elements. Both
linear and nonlinear properties are provided for the dampers because this
example uses both linear and nonlinear analyses. See the section titled Damper
Properties and the section titled Discussion of Nonlinear Damper Stiffness
Used in SUNY Buffalo Report later in this example for additional information.

This problem is solved using a nonlinear modal time history analysis and also
using a nonlinear direct integration time history analysis. See the section titled
Load Cases Used later in this example for additional information.

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 1
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

120.5 cm
10 cm 10 cm

7 2XST2X3 8 Level 3
Joints constrained as
e r
diaphragm, typical at mp

10 cm
Levels 1, 2, and 3 Da
ST2X385

ST2X385

76.2 cm
40.25 cm

13

10 cm
26 cm
Stiff

5 12 2XST2X3 6 Level 2
Da
Frame element end mp
e ST2X385

10 cm
r
length offsets, typical.
Rigid-end factor is 0.6
ST2X385

76.2 cm
40.25 cm

11
26 cm
Stiff

15 cm

3 2XST2X3 10 4 Level 1
10 cm

2.39 N-sec2/cm mass at r

e
joints 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 amp
D
acting in X direction only
1STCOL
1STCOL

100.5 cm

8 cm
9 Y
20 cm
18.8

X
cm

1 2 Base

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

FRAME ELEMENT PROPERTIES

The frame elements in the SAP2000 model have the following material
properties.

E = 21,000,000 N/cm2
= 0.3

The frame elements in the SAP2000 model have the following section properties.

1STCOL
A = 9.01 cm2
I = 14.614 cm4
Av = 4.42 cm2

ST2X385
A = 6.61 cm2
I = 5.95 cm4
Av = 2.02 cm2

2XST2X3
A = 13.22 cm2
I = 11.9 cm4
Av = 2.02 cm2

STIFF
A = 10,000 cm2
I = 100,000 cm4
Av = 0 cm2 (shear deformations not included)

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 3
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

DAMPER PROPERTIES
The damper elements in the SAP2000 model have the following properties.

Linear (k is in parallel with c)

k = 0 N/mm
c = 0 N-sec/mm

Nonlinear (k is in series with c)

k = 2,000 N/mm
c = 220 N-sec/mm at Level 3
= 235 N-sec/mm at Level 2
= 300 N-sec/mm at Level 1
exp = 0.5

As described in Scheller and Constantinou 1999, the c values were determined by

test. See the following section titled Nonlinear Damper Stiffness Used in the
SUNY Buffalo Report for additional information.

NONLINEAR DAMPER STIFFNESS USED IN THE SUNY BUFFALO REPORT

The results for the SAP2000 model used in the SUNY Buffalo report (Scheller
and Constantinou 1999) significantly underestimated the interstory
displacements. We believe this significant difference occurred because the
damper modeled in the SUNY Buffalo SAP2000 model did not match that used
in the experiment. We believe that an inappropriate nonlinear stiffness, k, was
used in the SUNY Buffalo SAP model.

The SUNY Buffalo report ran the SAP2000 analysis multiple times using k
values of 100,000 N/mm and 25,000 N/mm. Those damper stiffnesses are
approximately 10 to 50 times larger than the 2,000 N/mm stiffness used in this
verification problem. This section describes why we believe that the 2,000 N/mm
stiffness is a more appropriate value.

The SUNY Buffalo report makes several references to the damper force-velocity
relationship. It indicates that the dampers were tested and found to exhibit a
behavior described by
0.5
F Cv sign(v)

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 4
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

except that for velocities below approximately 15 mm/sec, the force-velocity

behavior was essentially linear. In the preceding equation sign(v) = -1 if v < 0,
sign(v) = +1 if v > 0 and sign(v) = 0 if v = 0.

The figure below plots the force-velocity characteristics for a damper with
c = 220 N-(sec/mm)0.5, a velocity exponent of 0.5 and various values of k, the
damper stiffness, in N/mm units. Similar plots can be obtained for dampers with
c = 235 N-(sec/mm)0.5 and c = 300 N-(sec/mm)0.5.

1800
c=220 N-(sec/mm)^0.5, exp=0.5
Suny Buffalo report used k=100,000 N/mm and k=25,000 N/mm
1600

1400

1200
Force (N)

1000

800

600

k=100 N/mm
400
k=1000 N/mm
k=2000 N/mm
k=10000 N/mm
200
F=CV^0.5 (k=infinity)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Velocity (mm/sec)

The plots in the figure were obtained by subjecting a damper to a linearly

increasing velocity. This was achieved using a displacement time history. The
time history had a load that was a unit displacement at one end of the damper and
a function that specified the displacement value as proportional to the square of
the time value. The SAP2000 model named Example 6-007 Damper Study was
used to obtain the data for the figure.

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 5
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

In the figure the F=cv0.5 line is equivalent to a k of infinity. The k=10,000 N/mm
line and the F=cv0.5 line are essentially identical. Thus for stiffnesses of 10,000
N/mm and above, the damper will be well described by F=cv0.5. The SUNY
Buffalo report SAP2000 models used k values of 100,000 N/mm and 25,000
N/mm. Thus both of those models were inconsistent with the properties of the
dampers observed in experimental testing because their force-velocity
relationship did not deviate from the F line at velocities below 15 mm/sec.

For this verification problem we have chosen a damper stiffness, k, of 2,000

N/mm. This value of k provides a force-velocity relationship that deviates from
the F=cv0.5 line at velocities below 15 mm/sec and matches the F=cv0.5 line well
at velocities above 15 mm/sec.

See the section titled Study of the Sensitivity of Results to the Damper
Stiffness later in this example for more information.

LOAD CASES USED

Three different load cases are run for this example. They are described in the
following table.

Load Case Description

MODAL Modal load case for ritz vectors. Ninety-nine modes are
requested. The program will automatically determine that a
maximum of ten modes are possible and thus reduce the
number of modes to ten. The starting vectors are Ux
acceleration and all link element nonlinear degrees of
freedom.

NLMHIST1 Nonlinear modal time history load case that uses the modes
in the MODAL load case. This case includes modal
damping in modes 1, 2 and 3.

NLDHIST1 Nonlinear direct integration time history load case. This

case includes proportional damping.

The modal time history analysis used 2.71%, 1.02% and 1.04% modal damping
for modes 1, 2 and 3, respectively. As described in Scheller and Constantinou

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 6
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

1999, those modal damping values were determined by experiment for the frame
without dampers.

The direct integration time 0.05

Mass
history used mass and Stiffness
Rayleigh
stiffness proportional damping 0.04

that is specified to have 2.71%

Damping Ratio
damping at the period of the 0.03

first mode and 1.02%

damping at the period of the
0.02

second mode. The solid line in 0.01

the figure to the right shows
the proportional damping used 0
in this example. 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Period (sec)

EARTHQUAKE RECORD
The following figure shows the earthquake record used in this example. As
described in Scheller and Constantinou 1999, it is the S00E component of the
1940 El Centro record compressed in time by a factor of two. It is compressed to
satisfy the similitude requirements of the quarter length scale model used in the
shake table tests.

The earthquake record is provided in a file named EQ6-007.txt. This file has one
acceleration value per line, in g. The acceleration values are provided at an equal
spacing of 0.01 second.

0.3

0.2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
Time (sec)

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 7
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

Damper links with nonlinear velocity exponents
Frame end length offsets
Joint mass assignments
Modal analysis for ritz vectors
Nonlinear modal time history analysis
Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis
Generalized displacements

RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are experimental results from shake table testing presented in
Section 5, pages 61 through 73, of Scheller and Constantinou 1999.

The following table compares the modal periods obtained from SAP2000 and the
experimental results.

Independent Percent
Modal Period Load Case SAP2000 Experimental Difference
Mode 1 sec 0.438 0.439 0%
Mode 2 sec MODAL 0.135 0.133 +2%
Mode 3 sec 0.074 0.070 +6%

The following three figures plot the SAP2000 analysis results and the
experimental results for the story drift versus time for each of the three story
levels for the NLDHIST1 load case. Similar results are obtained for the other
time history load case.

The story drift for Level 3 is calculated by subtracting the displacement at joint 5
from that at joint 7 and then dividing by the Level 3 story height of 76.2 cm and
multiplying by 100 to convert to percent. Similarly, the story drift for Level 2 is
calculated by subtracting the displacement at joint 3 from that at joint 5 and then
dividing by the Level 2 story height of 76.2 cm and multiplying by 100. The
story drift for Level 1 is calculated by dividing the displacement at joint 3 by the
Level 1 non-rigid story height of 81.3 cm and multiplying by 100. The interstory
displacement results are obtained using SAP2000 generalized displacements.

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 8
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

0.8

0.6
Level 3 Story Drift (%)

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6 NLDHIST1
Experimental
-0.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (sec)

0.8

0.6
Level 2 Story Drift (%)

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4
NLDHIST1
-0.6
Experimental
-0.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)

0.8

0.6
Level 1 Story Drift (%)

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4
NLDHIST1
-0.6
Experimental
-0.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (sec)

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 9
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

The following table compares the maximum and minimum values of story drift
obtained from SAP2000 and the experimental results at each story level for each
of the two time history load cases.

Output Independent Percent

Parameter Load Case Story Level SAP2000 Experimental Difference
Level 1 0.542 0.526 +3%
NLMHIST1 Level 2 0.589 0.631 -7%
Maximum Level 3 0.313 0.323 -3%
Story Drift Level 1 0.543 0.526 +3%
NLDHIST1 Level 2 0.588 0.631 -7%
Level 3 0.312 0.323 -3%
Level 1 -0.610 -0.572 +7%
NLMHIST1 Level 2 -0.719 -0.746 -4%
Minimum Level 3 -0.424 -0.488 -13%
Story Drift Level 1 -0.610 -0.572 +7%
NLDHIST1 Level 2 -0.719 -0.746 -4%
Level 3 -0.424 -0.488 -13%

The three figures on the following page plot the SAP2000 analysis results and the
experimental results for the story drift versus normalized story shear for each of
the three story levels for the NLDHIST1 load case. Similar results are obtained
for the other time history load case. The SAP2000 story shears are normalized by
dividing them by 14,070 N.

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 10
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

0.4
Level 3 Story Shear / Weight

Structure Weight for Shear Normalization = 14,070 N

0.3
Story Height for Drift = 76.2 cm
0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2
Experimental
-0.3
NLDHIST1
-0.4
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Level 3 Story Drift (%)

0.4
Level 2 Story Shear / Weight

Structure Weight for Shear Normalization = 14,070 N

0.3
Story Height for Drift = 76.2 cm
0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2
Experimental
-0.3
NLDHIST1
-0.4
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Level 2 Story Drift (%)

0.4
Level 1 Story Shear / Weight

Structure Weight for Shear Normalization = 14,070 N

0.3
Story Height for Drift = 81.3 cm
0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2
Experimental
-0.3
NLDHIST1
-0.4
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Level 1 Story Drift (%)

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 11
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

The following table compares the maximum and minimum values of normalized
story shear obtained from SAP2000 and the experimental results at each story
level for each of the two time history load cases.

Output Independent Percent

Parameter Load Case Story Level SAP2000 Experimental Difference
Level 1 0.302 0.287 +5%
NLMHIST1 Level 2 0.223 0.216 +3%
Maximum
Level 3 0.119 0.115 +3%
Normalized
Story Shear Level 1 0.302 0.287 +5%
NLDHIST1 Level 2 0.222 0.216 +3%
Level 3 0.119 0.115 +3%
Level 1 -0.364 -0.363 0%
NLMHIST1 Level 2 -0.294 -0.285 +3%
Minimum
Level 3 -0.173 -0.177 -2%
Normalized
Story Shear Level 1 -0.364 -0.363 0%
NLDHIST1 Level 2 -0.294 -0.285 +3%
Level 3 -0.172 -0.177 -3%

STUDY OF THE SENSITIVITY OF RESULTS TO THE DAMPER STIFFNESS

The results obtained for this example appear to be sensitive to the value used for
the damper stiffness, k. The following table shows the percentage difference
between the experimental results and those obtained for various k values.

Damper Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum

Stiffness Interstory Interstory Normalized Normalized
k Story Level Drift Drift Story Shear Story Shear
Level 1 +24% +31% +23% +17%
1,000 N/mm Level 2 +13% +20% +21% +22%
Level 3 +21% +14% +21% +19%
Level 1 +3% +7% +5% 0%
2,000 N/mm Level 2 -7% -4% +3% +3%
Level 3 -3% -13% +4% -2%
Level 1 -4% -1% -3% -7%
3,000 N/mm Level 2 -14% -12% -4% -4%
Level 3 -13% -23% -4% -10%

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 12
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

The results obtained for a k value of 1000 N/mm range from +13% to +31%
different from (larger than) the experimental results. Using a k value of 1000
N/mm results in a structure that is underdamped compared to the experimental
structure.

The results obtained for a k value of 3000 N/mm range from -1% to -23%
different from (smaller than) the experimental results. Using a k value of 3000
N/mm results in a structure that is overdamped compared to the experimental
structure.

The results obtained for a k value of 2000 N/mm, which was the chosen stiffness
for this verification problem, range from -13% to +7% different from (smaller
than) the experimental results.

The figure below shows the velocity across the Level 2 damper versus time.
Similar plots are obtained for the other dampers. One reason this example is so
sensitive to the damper k value is that the velocities across the dampers are
typically in the range of +20 mm/sec to -20 mm/sec, except for a few peaks. The
k value affects the behavior of the damper at those low velocities as illustrated in
the figure and described in the section titled Nonlinear Damper Stiffness Used
in SUNY Buffalo Report earlier in this example.

60

40
Velocity Across Level 2 Damper (mm/sec)

20

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (sec)

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 13
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

COMPUTER FILES: Example 6-007, Example 6-007 Damper Study

CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent
results. The clearest comparison of results is evident in the graphical
comparisons.

The nonlinear damper stiffness, k, used in the SUNY Buffalo SAP2000 model
gives a damper force-velocity relationship that did not appear to match the tested
force-velocity behavior of the dampers. This explains why the SUNY Buffalo
SAP2000 model significantly underestimates the displacements.

The results obtained for this example are sensitive to the value used for the
damper stiffness, k. For example, there is approximately a 20% difference in the
results obtained using a k value of 1,000 N/mm compared to using a k value of
2,000 N/mm. Thus when using dampers with nonlinear velocity exponents, it
appears important to obtain accurate information on the force-velocity behavior
of the damper, particularly at low velocities

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 14