Problem 6 007

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 6-007
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 forcedeformation 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 Analysis Cases Used later in this example for additional information.
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 1
SAP2000 0
GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

120.5 cm 10 cm 7 Joints constrained as diaphragm, typical at Levels 1, 2, and 3 ST2X385 40.25 cm 26 cm 13 5 Frame element end length offsets, typical. Rigid-end factor is 0.6 Stiff 12 2XST2X3
mp Da er
10 cm 8 10 cm Level 3
ST2X385
2XST2X3 ST2X385
6 10 cm
10 cm
76.2 cm Level 2 4 15 cm 76.2 cm Level 1 10 cm 2 20 cm 100.5 cm Base

EXAMPLE 6-007 - 2
Da m
ST2X385
pe
40.25 cm 26 cm 1STCOL 8 cm 9 18.8 cm Y X 11
3 2.39 N-sec2/cm mass at joints 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 acting in X direction only 1STCOL
2XST2X3
Stiff 10
mp Da
er
SAP2000 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
SAP2000 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 F =Cv
0.5
sign(v)
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 4
SAP2000 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
1000
800
600
400
200
k=100 N/mm k=1000 N/mm k=2000 N/mm k=10000 N/mm 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
SAP2000 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. ANALYSIS CASES USED Three different analysis cases are run for this example. They are described in the following table. Analysis Case MODAL Description Modal analysis 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. Nonlinear modal time history analysis case that uses the modes in the MODAL analysis case. This case includes modal damping in modes 1, 2 and 3. Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis case. This case includes proportional damping.
NLMHIST1
NLDHIST1
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
SAP2000 0
1999, those modal damping values were determined by experiment for the frame without dampers. The direct integration time history used mass and stiffness proportional damping that is specified to have 2.71% damping at the period of the first mode and 1.02% damping at the period of the second mode. The solid line in the figure to the right shows the proportional damping used in this example.
0.05 Mass Stiffness Rayleigh
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0 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
Acceleration (cm/sec )
0.2 0.1 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 7
SAP2000 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. Analysis Case Independent Experimental 0.439 0.133 0.070 Percent Difference 0% +2% +6%
Modal Period Mode 1 sec Mode 2 sec Mode 3 sec
SAP2000 0.438
MODAL
0.135 0.074
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 analysis case. Similar results are obtained for the other time history analysis 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
SAP2000 0
0.8
Level 3 Story Drift (%)
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

NLDHIST1 Experimental
Time (sec)
0.8
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (sec)
0.8
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (sec)
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 9
SAP2000 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 analysis cases.
Output Parameter
Analysis Case NLMHIST1
Story Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
SAP2000 0.542 0.589 0.313 0.543 0.588 0.312 -0.610 -0.719 -0.424 -0.610 -0.719 -0.424
Maximum Story Drift NLDHIST1
NLMHIST1 Minimum Story Drift NLDHIST1
Independent Experimental 0.526 0.631 0.323 0.526 0.631 0.323 -0.572 -0.746 -0.488 -0.572 -0.746 -0.488
Percent Difference +3% -7% -3% +3% -7% -3% +7% -4% -13% +7% -4% -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 analysis case. Similar results are obtained for the other time history analysis case. The SAP2000 story shears are normalized by dividing them by 14,070 N.
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 10
SAP2000 0
Level 3 Story Shear / Weight
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Experimental NLDHIST1 Structure Weight for Shear Normalization = 14,070 N Story Height for Drift = 76.2 cm
Level 2 Story Shear / Weight
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -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 (%) Level 1 Story Shear / Weight

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 11
SAP2000 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 analysis cases. Output Parameter Analysis Case NLMHIST1 Independent Experimental 0.287 0.216 0.115 0.287 0.216 0.115 -0.363 -0.285 -0.177 -0.363 -0.285 -0.177 Percent Difference +5% +3% +3% +5% +3% +3% 0% +3% -2% 0% +3% -3%
Story Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
SAP2000 0.302 0.223 0.119 0.302 0.222 0.119 -0.364 -0.294 -0.173 -0.364 -0.294 -0.172
Maximum Normalized Story Shear
NLDHIST1
Minimum Normalized Story Shear
NLMHIST1
NLDHIST1
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 Stiffness k 1,000 N/mm Maximum Interstory Drift +24% +13% +21% +3% -7% -3% -4% -14% -13% Minimum Interstory Drift +31% +20% +14% +7% -4% -13% -1% -12% -23% Maximum Normalized Story Shear +23% +21% +21% +5% +3% +4% -3% -4% -4% Minimum Normalized Story Shear +17% +22% +19% 0% +3% -2% -7% -4% -10%
Story Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
2,000 N/mm
3,000 N/mm
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 12
SAP2000 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
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 13
SAP2000 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

Problem 6 007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Problem 6 007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .

GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

76.2 cm Level 2 4 15 cm 76.2 cm Level 1 10 cm 2 20 cm 100.5 cm Base

40.25 cm 26 cm 1STCOL 8 cm 9 18.8 cm Y X 11

3 2.39 N-sec2/cm mass at joints 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 acting in X direction only 1STCOL

0.2 0.1 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Modal Period Mode 1 sec Mode 2 sec Mode 3 sec

Level 3 Story Drift (%)

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 2 Story Drift (%)

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 1 Story Drift (%)

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Analysis Case NLMHIST1

Maximum Story Drift NLDHIST1

NLMHIST1 Minimum Story Drift NLDHIST1

Level 3 Story Shear / Weight

Level 3 Story Drift (%)

Level 2 Story Shear / Weight

Level 2 Story Drift (%) Level 1 Story Shear / Weight

Level 1 Story Drift (%)

Maximum Normalized Story Shear

Minimum Normalized Story Shear

You might also like