Information and Pool Sap2000 Manuals English Problem 6 011

C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
R Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 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 .
REVISION NO.: 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 .
REVISION NO.: 0
GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES
3 @ 4' = 12 ' Active degrees of

freedom for model are
Level 7
Ux, Uz and Ry
29 30 31 32
Ux and Uz mass equal

Level 6 to 1/6 of floor mass at
25 26 27 28 exterior joints and 1/3
of floor mass at
interior joints typical at
Level 5
Levels 1 through 7
21 22 23 24
End offsets typical for

Level 4 all frame members at
17 18 19 20
7 @ 3' = 21'
all joints.
Level 3
13 14 15 16
Floor joints are
constrained as a
Level 2
diaphragm, typical for
9 10 11 12 Levels 1 through 7
Level 1
5 6 7 8 Building weight is
7.92 k 15.83 k Z 15.83 k 7.92 k applied directly to the
Base and top of the isolators
X Isolator Level
1, 33 2, 34 3, 35 4, 36
Joint numbers, typical Base level has two joints in the same location at the
bottom of each column. Zero length friction pendulum
elements (and in Model B also vertical damper elements)
connect joints 1 to 33, 2 to 34, 3 to 35 and 4 to 36. Joints
1, 2, 3 and 4 are connected to the bottoms of the
columns. Joints 33, 34, 35 and 36 are connected to
ground, that is, restrained.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 3
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 0
FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 7

FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
47 48 49
26
27
28
25
Frame element
number
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
44 45 46
21
22
23
24
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
41 42 43 Frame section name

17
18
20
19

FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
38 39 40
15
16
13
14

FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
35 36 37
10
11
12
9

FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
FSEC2
32 33 34
6
8
5

29 30 31
FSEC1
FSEC1
FSEC1
FSEC1
Z
3
4
1
Base and
X Isolator Level
Section Area Moment of Inertia Shear Area

Name A (in2) I (in4) Av (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 .
REVISION NO.: 0
ANALYSIS CASES USED

The following two tables describe the analysis cases used in this example for
each model.
MODEL A
Analysis Case Description

RITZ Modal analysis case for Ritz vectors. Ninety-nine modes
are requested. The program will automatically determine
that a maximum of forty-three modes are possible and thus
reduce the number of modes to forty-three. The starting
vectors are Ux acceleration, Uz acceleration, and all link
element nonlinear degrees of freedom.
MGRAV Nonlinear modal time history analysis case that applies the
gravity load to the isolators using a ramp function. The
NLMHIST1A and NLMHIST2A modal time history
analysis cases are started from the final condition of this
analysis case.
DGRAV Nonlinear static analysis case used to apply the gravity load
to the isolators. The NLDHIST1A direct integration time
history analysis case is started from the final condition of
this analysis case.
NLMHIST1A Nonlinear modal time history analysis case that uses the
modes in the RITZ analysis case and starts from the final
conditions of analysis case MGRAV. This case includes
proportional damping that is defined to provide damping
similar to, but not exactly the same as, the 0.59% modal
damping used in Scheller and Constantinou 1999. It is the
same damping specification as that used in analysis case
NLDHIST1 for Model A. See the section titled
Proportional Damping for Time Histories in Model A
later in this example for more information.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 5
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 0
MODEL A

0.59% modal damping in all modes, except modes 40, 41,
42 and 43 (the modes associated with the vertical excitation
of the isolators) are assigned 99.9% modal damping.
0.59% modal damping in all modes with no modal damping
overwrites.
NLDHIST1A Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis case that

starts from the final conditions of analysis case DGRAV.
This case includes proportional damping that is defined to
provide damping similar to, but not exactly the same as, the
0.59% modal damping used in Scheller and Constantinou
1999. It is the same damping specification as that used in
analysis case NLMHIST1 for Model A. See the section
titled Proportional Damping for Time Histories in Model
A later in this example for more information.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 6
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 0
MODEL B

RITZ Same as Model A.
MGRAV Same as Model A. This is a nonlinear modal time history

analysis case that applies the gravity load to the isolators
using a ramp function. The NLMHIST1B and
NLMHIST2B modal time history analysis cases are started
from the final condition of this analysis case.
DGRAV Same as Model A. This is a nonlinear static analysis case

used to apply the gravity load to the isolators. The
NLDHIST1B direct integration time history analysis case is
started from the final condition of this analysis case.
NLMHIST1B Nonlinear modal time history analysis case that uses the
proportional damping that is defined to provide damping
similar to, but not exactly the same as, the 0.59% modal
damping used in Scheller and Constantinou 1999. It is the
same damping specification as that used in analysis case
NLDHIST1 for Model B. See the section titled
Proportional Damping for Time Histories in Model B
later in this example for more information.
NLMHIST2B Nonlinear modal time history analysis case that uses the
0.59% modal damping in all modes with no modal damping
overwrites.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 7
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 0
MODEL B

NLDHIST1B Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis case that
starts from the final conditions of analysis case DGRAV.
This case includes proportional damping that is defined to
provide damping similar to, but not exactly the same as, the
0.59% modal damping used in Scheller and Constantinou
1999. It is the same damping specification as that used in
analysis case NLMHIST1 for Model B. See the section
titled Proportional Damping for Time Histories in Model
B later in this example for more information.
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 .
REVISION NO.: 0
PROPORTIONAL DAMPING FOR TIME HISTORIES IN MODEL A

In Model A the nonlinear direct integration time history analysis case
NLDHIST1A and the nonlinear modal time history analysis case NLMHIST1A
use mass and stiffness proportional damping. The proportional damping for those
analysis cases should approximate 0.59% modal damping for all periods, except
that the higher frequencies (lower periods) should be more highly damped. For
model A the proportional 0.05
damping is selected by 0.045

Mass
Stiffness
Rayleigh
setting the damping at 0.04
periods of 1 second and 0.1 0.035
second to 0.59%. This yields

Damping Ratio
0.03
a mass proportional 0.025
coefficient of 0.0674 and a 0.02
stiffness proportional 0.015
coefficient of 1.707E-04. 0.01
The resulting damping is 0.005
displayed in the figure to the 0
right. Period (sec)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
PROPORTIONAL DAMPING FOR TIME HISTORIES IN MODEL B

In Model B the nonlinear direct integration time history analysis case
NLDHIST1A and the nonlinear modal time history analysis case NLMHIST1A
use mass and stiffness proportional damping. The proportional damping for those
analysis cases should approximate 0.59% modal damping for all periods, except
the higher frequencies (lower periods) should not be more highly damped. For
model B the proportional damping is selected by setting the damping at a period
of 1 second to 0.59% and 0.05
the damping at a period of 0.045

Mass
Stiffness
Rayleigh
0 second to 0%. This 0.04
yields a mass proportional 0.035
coefficient of 0.0741 and a

Damping Ratio
0.03
stiffness proportional 0.025
coefficient of 0. The 0.02
resulting mass 0.015
proportional damping is 0.01
displayed in the figure to 0.005
the right. 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Period (sec)
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 9
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 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
Ground Acceleration (g)
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
0 5 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 .
REVISION NO.: 0
FRICTION PENDULUM ISOLATOR PROPERTIES

This section presents the properties used for the friction pendulum link elements
in the model. All link elements in the model are oriented such that the positive
local 1 axis is parallel to the positive global Z axis, the positive local 2 axis is
parallel to the positive global X axis and the positive local 3 axis is parallel to the
positive global Y axis. Different properties are specified for the interior and
exterior link elements.
The properties for the exterior friction pendulum link are:
Linear analysis properties

ke U1 = 20,000 k/in
ke U2 = 1.05 k/in
ke R3 = 10,000 k-in/radian
Nonlinear analysis properties

k U1 = 20,000 k/in
k U2 = 31.6667 k/in
Friction coefficient, slow U2 = 0.04
Friction coefficient, fast U2 = 0.06
Rate parameter U2 = 1.0897 sec/in
Radius of sliding surface U2 = 9.75 in
The properties for the interior friction pendulum link are:
Linear analysis properties

ke U1 = 20,000 k/in
ke U2 = 2.10 k/in
ke R3 = 10,000 k-in/radian
Nonlinear analysis properties

k U1 = 20,000 k/in
k U2 = 63.3333 k/in
Friction coefficient, slow U2 = 0.04
Friction coefficient, fast U2 = 0.06
Rate parameter U2 = 1.0897 sec/in
Radius of sliding surface U2 = 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 .
REVISION NO.: 0
VERTICAL DAMPER PROPERTIES

The damper element nonlinear properties used in Model B are the same as those
used in Scheller and Constantinou 1999. The damping coefficient, c, is selected
on the basis of providing a damping ratio of 0.10 for the total building weight of
47.5 kips and the total vertical stiffness of 80,000 kip/in (four isolators, each at
20,000 kip/in). Thus,
k kW
4c = 2 m = 2 m = 2 km = 2
m g
kW 0.10 80,000 * 47.5

c= = = 5 kip-sec/in
2 g 2 386
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.
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

Friction pendulum link elements
Damper link elements
Zero-length, two-joint link elements
Diaphragm constraints
Frame end length offsets
Modal analysis for ritz vectors
Nonlinear modal time history analysis
Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis
Joint masses
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 12
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 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 .
REVISION NO.: 0
0.3 0.3
Model A Weight = 47.5 kips Model B Weight = 47.5 kips
Nonlinear modal time history Nonlinear modal time history
0.2 Proportional damping 0.2 Includes vertical damper elements
Base Shear / Weight
Base Shear / Weight

Analysis case NLMHIST1A Analysis case NLMHIST1B
0.1 0.1
0 0
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 -0.2
Experimental Experimental
SAP2000 SAP2000
-0.3 -0.3
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Level 1 Displacement (in) Level 1 Displacement (in)
0.3 0.3
Nonlinear modal time history Nonlinear modal time history
0.2 Modal damping w/ overwrites 0.2 Includes vertical damper elements
Base Shear / Weight
Base Shear / Weight

Analysis case NLMHIST2A Analysis case NLMHIST2B
0.1 0.1
0 0
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 -0.2
SAP2000 SAP2000
-0.3 -0.3
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0.3 0.3
Nonlinear direct integration time history Nonlinear direct integration time history
0.2 Proportional damping 0.2 Includes vertical damper elements
Base Shear / Weight
Base Shear / Weight
Analysis case NLDHIST1A Analysis case NLDHIST1B
0.1 0.1
0 0
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 -0.2
SAP2000 SAP2000
-0.3 -0.3
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0.3
Model A Weight = 47.5 kips
Nonlinear modal time history
0.2 Modal damping w/o overwrites
Base Shear / Weight
Analysis case NLMHIST3A
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
Experimental
SAP2000
-0.3
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Level 1 Displacement (in)
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 14
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 0
Output Analysis Independent Percent

Parameter Model Case SAP2000 Experimental Difference
NLMHIST1A -2.020 -2%
NLMHIST2A -2.034 -1%
A
Minimum NLMHIST3A -2.147 +5%
Level 1
NLDHIST1A -2.020 -2.053 -2%
Displacement
(in) NLMHIST1B -2.017 -2%
B NLMHIST2B -2.081 +1%
NLDHIST1B -1.988 -3%
NLMHIST1A 1.982 -3%
NLMHIST2A 1.981 -3%
A
Maximum NLMHIST3A 2.000 -2%
Level 1
NLDHIST1A 1.968 2.043 -4%
Displacement
(in) NLMHIST1B 1.996 -2%
B NLMHIST2B 2.021 -1%
NLDHIST1B 1.967 -4%
NLMHIST1A -0.250 +2%
A
Minimum NLMHIST3A -0.252 +3%
Base NLDHIST1A -0.245 -0.245 0%
Shear/Weight NLMHIST1B -0.258 +5%
B NLMHIST2B -0.263 +7%
NLDHIST1B -0.253 +3%
NLMHIST1A 0.253 +2%
NLMHIST2A 0.258 +4%
A
Maximum NLMHIST3A 0.270 +9%
Base NLDHIST1A 0.266 0.248 +7%
Shear/Weight NLMHIST1B 0.237 -4%
B NLMHIST2B 0.240 -3%
NLDHIST1B 0.235 -5%
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 15
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 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 .
REVISION NO.: 0
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
2 Proportional damping
1.5
Level 1 Displacement (in)
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Experimental
-2
SAP2000
-2.5
0 5 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 .
REVISION NO.: 0
2
Exterior isolator at joints 1 and 33
1
0
Isolator Shear Force (kip)
-1
-2
-3
Model A
-4 Proportional damping
-5
-6
-7 Experimental
SAP2000
-8
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Isolator Displacement (in)
4
Interior Isolator at Joints 2 and 34
3 Model A
Proportional damping
Isolator Shear Force (kip)
2 Analysis case NLMHIST1A
-1
-2
-3
Experimental
SAP2000
-4
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Isolator Displacement (in)
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 .
REVISION NO.: 0

Exterior Isolator NLMHIST2A -1.814 +8%
(Joints 1 and 33) A
NLMHIST3A -1.959 +16%
NLDHIST1A -1.796 -1.686 +7%
Minimum +7%
NLMHIST1B -1.808
Deformation
(in) B NLMHIST2B -1.855 +10%
NLMHIST1A 1.961 +3%
Exterior Isolator NLMHIST2A 1.976 +4%
(Joints 1 and 33) A
NLMHIST3A 2.015 +6%
NLDHIST1A 1.946 1.909 +2%
Maximum +4%
NLMHIST1B 1.981
Deformation
(in) B NLMHIST2B 2.004 +5%
NLDHIST1B 1.950 +2%
NLMHIST1A -5.672 -17%
Exterior Isolator NLMHIST2A -5.726 -17%
(Joints 1 and 33) A
NLMHIST3A -5.922 -14%
NLDHIST1A -5.782 -6.872 -16%
Minimum -5.683 -17%
NLMHIST1B
Shear Force
(kip) B NLMHIST2B -5.834 -15%
NLDHIST1B -5.543 -19%
NLMHIST1A 0.911 -23%
Exterior Isolator NLMHIST2A 0.904 -24%
(Joints 1 and 33) A
NLMHIST3A 3.416 +189%
NLDHIST1A 1.064 1.183 -10%
Maximum 0.933 -21%
NLMHIST1B
Shear Force
(kip) B NLMHIST2B 0.919 -22%
NLDHIST1B 0.894 -24%
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 19
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 0

Interior Isolator NLMHIST2A -1.940 +8%
(Joints 2 and 34) A
NLDHIST1A -1.923 -1.796 +7%
Minimum +7%
NLMHIST1B -1.925
Deformation
(in) B NLMHIST2B -1.983 +10%
NLMHIST1A 1.854 +4%
Interior Isolator NLMHIST2A 1.853 +4%
(Joints 2 and 34) A
NLMHIST3A 1.873 +5%
NLDHIST1A 1.836 1.786 +3%
Maximum +5%
NLMHIST1B 1.871
Deformation
(in) B NLMHIST2B 1.896 +6%
NLDHIST1B 1.842 +3%
NLMHIST1A -3.493 0%
Interior Isolator NLMHIST2A -3.564 +2%
(Joints 2 and 34) A
NLDHIST1A -3.429 -3.498 -2%
Minimum +1%
NLMHIST1B -3.542
Shear Force
(kip) B NLMHIST2B -3.504 0%
NLDHIST1B -3.384 -3%
NLMHIST1A 3.909 +17%
Interior Isolator NLMHIST2A 3.973 +19%
(Joints 2 and 34) A
NLMHIST3A 4.412 +32%
NLDHIST1A 4.036 3.346 +21%
Maximum 3.859 +15%
NLMHIST1B
Shear Force
(kip) B NLMHIST2B 3.811 +14%
NLDHIST1B 3.795 +13%
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 20
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 0
COMMENTS ON SUNY BUFFALO REPORT

The SUNY Buffalo report (Scheller and Constantinou 1999) indicates the use of
an extremely small value for the axial linear effective stiffness, ke U1, of the
friction pendulum isolators to achieve acceptable results. The SUNY Buffalo
report used a value of 0.0001 kip/in for ke U1. This verification example uses a
realistic value of 20,000 kip/in for ke U1 and achieves acceptable results.
The comparisons of SAP2000 isolation system displacement with experimental

results appear better in this verification example than they do in the SUNY
Buffalo report. In Section 4-4 on page 50 of that report, the isolation system
displacement is defined as the displacement of the first floor with respect to the
ground; that is, the isolator displacement plus the displacement in the first level
column. This displacement is called the Level 1 Displacement in the plots shown
in this verification example.
When the SAP2000 isolator displacement is plotted versus the base shear, the
resulting plot is very similar to that shown in the SUNY Buffalo report. Thus, it
appears that the report may in some instances be making comparisons where the
experimental displacement is for Level 1 and the SAP2000 displacement is for
the Isolator Level. This would explain why the comparisons appear better in this
verification example.
SOLUTION PARAMETERS FOR DIRECT INTEGRATION TIME HISTORY

The nonlinear direct integration time histories in this example were run using a
maximum substep size of 0.0005 second. A larger maximum substep size of
0.005 second was tried and found to yield larger displacements than the 0.0005
second step size. A smaller maximum substep size of 0.00005 second was tried
and found to yield the same solution as the 0.0005 second step size. Thus, it was
concluded that a 0.0005 second maximum step size was appropriate for this
example.
Similarly, the nonlinear direct integration time histories in this example were run
using a relative iteration convergence tolerance of 1E-4. A smaller relative
iteration convergence tolerance was tried and found to yield the same results.
Thus the 1E-4 tolerance was deemed to be sufficient.
In general, parameter studies, such as described herein, should be performed for

nonlinear analyses. This helps to build confidence that appropriate results have
been obtained.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 21
C O M P U TE R S &
S TR U C TU R ES
IN C .
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPUTER FILES: Example 6-011a, Example 6-011b
CONCLUSION
In general, the SAP2000 results show an acceptable comparison with the
independent results. For analysis case NLMHIST3A, which has no damper
elements and no additional damping at the higher frequencies, the comparison of
peak values for the isolator force-deformation curves is poor. Additional
damping associated with the high frequencies improves the comparison.
For nonlinear modal time history analysis cases, modal damping, proportional
damping and added dampers can all be used to significantly reduce the high
frequency fluctuations that can occur in the models with friction pendulum
isolators.
For nonlinear direct integration time history analysis cases, proportional

damping or added dampers can both be used to significantly reduce the high
frequency fluctuations that can occur in the models with friction pendulum
isolators. However, it is important to realize that proportional damping will not
completely eliminate the fluctuations because the stiffness proportional
component of the damping will be zero when the isolators are uplifted, and it is
the stiffness proportional component of the damping that is effective in damping
out the high frequency behavior. Thus, if nonlinear direct integration time
histories are used, added damper elements may be a better alternative than
proportional damping in the analysis case to reduce the high frequency
fluctuations in the results.
EXAMPLE 6-011 - 22

Information and Pool Sap2000 Manuals English Problem 6 011

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Information and Pool Sap2000 Manuals English Problem 6 011

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

C O M P U TE R S &

Diaphragm constraints are assigned at each of the seven floor levels. A

GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

3 @ 4' = 12 ' Active degrees of

Ux and Uz mass equal

End offsets typical for

FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 7

41 42 43 Frame section name

FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 4

FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 3

FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 2

FSEC3 FSEC3 FSEC3 Level 1

Section Area Moment of Inertia Shear Area

ANALYSIS CASES USED

Analysis Case Description

Analysis Case Description

NLDHIST1A Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis case that

Analysis Case Description

MGRAV Same as Model A. This is a nonlinear modal time history

DGRAV Same as Model A. This is a nonlinear static analysis case

Analysis Case Description

In the nonlinear direct integration time history analysis cases, a maximum

PROPORTIONAL DAMPING FOR TIME HISTORIES IN MODEL A

damping is selected by 0.045

periods of 1 second and 0.1 0.035

second to 0.59%. This yields

a mass proportional 0.025

coefficient of 0.0674 and a 0.02

stiffness proportional 0.015

coefficient of 1.707E-04. 0.01

The resulting damping is 0.005

displayed in the figure to the 0

right. Period (sec)

PROPORTIONAL DAMPING FOR TIME HISTORIES IN MODEL B

the damping at a period of 0.045

0 second to 0%. This 0.04

yields a mass proportional 0.035

coefficient of 0.0741 and a

stiffness proportional 0.025

coefficient of 0. The 0.02

resulting mass 0.015

proportional damping is 0.01

displayed in the figure to 0.005

Inside SAP2000 the earthquake record is multiplied by a factor of 386.22 to

FRICTION PENDULUM ISOLATOR PROPERTIES

The properties for the exterior friction pendulum link are:

Linear analysis properties

Nonlinear analysis properties

The properties for the interior friction pendulum link are:

Linear analysis properties

Nonlinear analysis properties

VERTICAL DAMPER PROPERTIES

kW 0.10 80,000 * 47.5

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

Base Shear / Weight

Base Shear / Weight

Base Shear / Weight

Analysis case NLDHIST1A Analysis case NLDHIST1B

Analysis case NLMHIST3A

Output Analysis Independent Percent

As a consequence, over the full course of the analysis, analysis case

As described in Scheller and Constantinou 1999, The gravity loads on the

2 Analysis case NLMHIST1A

Output Analysis Independent Percent