You are on page 1of 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

EXAMPLE 1-022
FRAME TWO-DIMENSIONAL MOMENT FRAME WITH STATIC AND DYNAMIC LOADS EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION This example is a seven-story, two-dimensional, fixed base frame structure subjected to lateral earthquake loads. The lateral earthquake load is modeled in four different ways: as a static lateral load, as a response spectrum, as a modal time history and as a direct integration time history. The results are compared with the results from another computer program presented in the reference by Engineering/Analysis Corporation and Computers/Structures International. The earthquake excitation used in this example is the N-S component of the 1940 El Centro earthquake. The response spectrum function for this earthquake, shown later, is input directly into the model. The digitized base acceleration is in the file named ELCENTRO, which is read by the model when the analysis is run. Important Note: Only the Ux, Uz and Ry degrees of freedom are active in the SAP2000 model. Also, only bending and axial deformations are considered in the analysis. Shear deformations are ignored. This is achieved in this example by setting the shear area to 0 for all frame objects. All framing and loads in this example are identical to those used in the above mentioned reference. Static lateral loads are input as joint loads. The lateral (X) displacements of the columns at each story level are constrained together using a separate diaphragm constraint at each story level. Also 0.49 kip-sec2/in masses are specified only in the lateral (X) direction at each story level. These modeling techniques are commonly used to reduce the size of the equation system and were used in the independent solution by Engineering/Analysis Corporation and Computers/Structures International. The diaphragm constraints eliminate all axial deformations in the beams. This and the absence of mass specification in the vertical direction reduce the dynamic problem to seven modes of vibration. All seven modes are included in the response spectrum analysis and the modal time history analysis. The independent solution uses the SRSS (square root sum of the squares) modal combination technique for the response spectrum analysis. Two response spectrum analyses are run in SAP2000, one using the SRSS modal combination technique and the other using the CQC (complete quadratic combination) modal combination technique. The CQC modal combination method is the default for SAP2000 and is the recommended method.

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 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

The independent solution uses the modal time history analysis technique with 5% damping for all modes. Two time history analysis cases are run in SAP2000. The first is a modal time history analysis technique with 5% damping for all modes. The second is a direct integration time history using the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor alpha method for time integration with an alpha factor of zero. The challenge that arises when including the direct integration time history in this example is to get a good match between the 5% damping used in the modal time history analysis and the mass and stiffness proportional damping specified for the direct integration time history. In this example a mass proportional damping coefficient of 0.3686 and a stiffness proportional coefficient of 0.005127 were used. These coefficients are calculated by assuming that the damping for the first two modes is 5%; that is, that the damping at periods of 1.2732 and 0.4313 seconds is 5%. The table below shows a comparison of the modal and proportional damping for all seven modes. Note that the proportional damping has considerably more damping in the higher modes but the modal participating mass ratio for the higher modes is low. Thus the higher damping should have only a small influence on the results. Comparison of Modal Damping used in Response Spectrum and Modal Time History Analyses to Proportional Damping used in Direct Integration Time History Analysis Participating Modal Proportional Period (sec) Mode Mass Ratio Damping Damping 1 1.2732 0.800 0.05 0.05 2 0.4313 0.113 0.05 0.05 3 0.2420 0.042 0.05 0.073 4 0.1602 0.021 0.05 0.105 5 0.1190 0.014 0.05 0.139 6 0.0951 0.007 0.05 0.172 7 0.0795 0.003 0.05 0.205

In the SAP2000 time history analyses the output sampling time interval used is 0.02 seconds and response is calculated for the first 8 seconds of the record. The independent analysis has an output sampling time interval of 0.1 seconds. Important Note: The AISC section properties in the database file SECTIONS8.PRO are not used in this example and the required section properties are explicitly entered. This is intentional because most of the sections used in the example are older sections not in the current AISC database.

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 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

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING


20 k W14X176 22 7 19 6 16 5 13 4 10 3 7 2 4 1 1 30' X Joint Mass Applied to Joints 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 and 23 m =0.49 kip-sec2/in in the X direction only W24X160 22 W24X160 23 W24X130 24 W24X130 25 W24X110 26 W24X110 27 W24X110 W14X211 28 23 14 20 13 17 12 14 11 11 10 8 9 5 8 2 30' W24X160 29 W24X160 30 W24X130 31 W24X130 32 W24X110 33 W24X110 34 W24X110 W14X176 35 24 21 21 20 18 19 15 18 12 17 9 16 6 15 3 13' - 6" 13' - 6" 13' - 0" 13' - 0" 13' - 0" 13' - 0" 13' - 0" Roof Material Properties E = 29,500 k/in2 Section Properties W14X176 A = 51.7 in2 I = 2,150 in4 W14X211 A = 62.1 in2 I = 2,670 in4 Level 5 W14X246 A = 72.3 in2 I = 3,230 in4 Level 4 W14X287 A = 84.4 in2 I = 3,910 in4 Level 3 W24X110 A = 2.5 in2 I = 3,330 in4 Level 2 W24X130 A = 38.3 in2 I = 4,020 in4 Ground W24X160 A = 47.1 in2 I = 5,120 in4

15 k

Level 7

12.5 k

W14X176

W14X211

W14X176

Level 6

W14X211

10 k

W14X246

7.5 k

W14X211

W14X246

W14X246

5k

W14X287

W14X246

2.5 k

W14X287

W14X246

W14X287

W14X246

W14X246

W14X246

W14X211

W14X211

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 3

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

RESPONSE SPECTRUM FUNCTION DEFINITION Period (sec) 0.0769 0.0795 0.0800 0.0833 0.0870 0.0909 0.0951 0.0952 0.1000 0.1053 0.1111 0.1176 0.1190 0.1250 0.1333 0.1429 0.1538 Accel (g) 0.505311 0.519598 0.520045 0.518093 0.493366 0.477599 0.527825 0.530631 0.581609 0.564412 0.523663 0.572438 0.588211 0.627807 0.665413 0.636531 0.905796 Period (sec) 0.1602 0.1667 0.1818 0.2000 0.2222 0.2420 0.2500 0.2857 0.3333 0.4000 0.4313 0.5000 0.6667 1.0000 1.2730 2.0000 Accel (g) 0.804605 0.787220 0.943909 1.005620 0.746135 0.704753 0.798052 0.718264 0.880624 0.882996 0.921167 1.046620 0.641750 0.482251 0.258617 0.160189

1.2

Acceleration (g)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Period (sec)

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 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

TIME HISTORY BASE EXCITATION DEFINITION


0.4

0.3

0.2

Ground Acceleration (g)

0.1

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

Time (sec)

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED Diaphragm constraint Joint force assignments Joint mass assignments Modal analysis for eigenvalues Response spectrum analysis Modal time history analysis for base excitation Direct integration time history analysis for base excitation

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 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

RESULTS COMPARISON The independent results are published in the reference by Engineering/Analysis Corporation and Computers/Structures International.

Time Periods (Analysis case MODAL) Output Parameter Mode 1 period (sec) Mode 2 period (sec) Mode 3 period (sec) Mode 4 period (sec) Mode 5 period (sec) Mode 6 period (sec) Mode 7 period (sec) SAP2000 1.2732 0.4313 0.2420 0.1602 0.1190 0.0951 0.0795 Independent 1.2732 0.4313 0.2420 0.1602 0.1190 0.0951 0.0795 Percent Difference 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Static Lateral Analysis Results (Analysis case LAT) Output Parameter Ux at joint 22 (in) Axial force in frame 1 (kip) Moment in frame 1 at joint 1 (k-in) SAP2000 1.45076 69.99 2324.68 Independent 1.45076 69.99 2324.68 Percent Difference 0% 0% 0%

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 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

The first table below shows the response spectrum results when the SRSS modal combination technique is used. The second table below is for the CQC modal combination technique. Note that the independent response spectrum analysis results are based on the SRSS modal combination technique.

Response Spectrum Analysis Results (Analysis case SPECSRSS) Output Parameter Ux at joint 22 (in) Axial force in frame 1 (kip) Moment in frame 1 at joint 1 (k-in) SAP2000 5.436 261.7 9864 Independent 5.438 261.8 9868 Percent Difference -0.04% -0.04% -0.04%

Response Spectrum Analysis Results (Analysis case SPECCQC) Output Parameter Ux at joint 22 (in) Axial force in frame 1 (kip) Moment in frame 1 at joint 1 (k-in) SAP2000 5.431 261.5 9916 Independent 5.438 261.8 9868 Percent Difference -0.13% -0.11% +0.49%

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 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

The first table below shows the modal time history results and the second table below shows the direct integration time history results.

Modal Time History Results (Analysis case MHIST1) Output Parameter Ux at joint 22 (in) Axial force in frame 1 (kip) Moment in frame 1 at joint 1 (k-in) SAP2000 5.486 263.0 9104 Independent 5.46 258.0 8740 Percent Difference +0.48% +1.94% +4.16%

Direct Integration Time History Results (Analysis case DHIST1) Output Parameter Ux at joint 22 (in) Axial force in frame 1 (kip) Moment in frame 1 at joint 1 (k-in) SAP2000 5.485 263.2 9183 Independent 5.46 258.0 8740 Percent Difference +0.46% +2.02% +5.07%

The differences between the SAP2000 results and the independent results occur because the output sampling time interval used for SAP2000 is 0.02 seconds whereas the output sampling time interval for the independent results is 0.1 seconds. Thus the independent results are not able to capture some of the peak values that SAP2000 captures.

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 8

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

COMPARISON OF SAP2000 MODAL AND DIRECT INTEGRATION TIME HISTORY RESULTS The above presented results show some small differences between the SAP2000 modal time history results and the SAP2000 direct integration time history results. These differences occur because the damping used in the two analyses is slightly different and because the 0.02 second output sampling time interval is too coarse for the results to have converged. To directly compare the two time history methods, two new analysis cases are created where the output sampling time interval is reduced to 0.001 seconds and the damping for the modal time history case is changed to proportional damping that matches the proportional damping in the direct integration time history (see table on page 2 of this example). These new analysis cases are named MHIST2 and DHIST2. The table below presents the results of these two cases. Note that they are identical. Modal Time History Compared to Direct Integration Time History (0.001 second output sampling time interval) SAP2000 Modal TH (MHIST2) 5.499 264.0 9200 SAP2000 Direct TH (DHIST2) 5.499 264.0 9200 Percent Difference 0% 0% 0%

Output Parameter Ux at joint 22 (in) Axial force in frame 1 (kip) Moment in frame 1 at joint 1 (k-in)

COMPUTER FILE: Example 1-022 CONCLUSION The SAP2000 and independent results show exact comparison for the static analysis and mode shapes and acceptable comparison for the dynamic results. Also the SAP2000 modal time history and direct time history methods converge to the same results when the output sampling time is sufficiently small.

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 9

You might also like