Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 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
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

The independent solution uses the modal time history analysis technique with 5%
damping for all modes. Two time history load 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
Mode Period (sec) 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
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

20 k 22 W24X110 23 W24X110 24 Roof Material Properties

28 35 E = 29,500 k/in2
W14X211

W14X176
W14X176

13' - 0"
7 14 21
15 k 19 W24X110 20 W24X110 21 Level 7 Section Properties
27 34 W14X176

W14X176
W14X211
W14X176

13' - 0"
6 13 20 A = 51.7 in2
I = 2,150 in4
12.5 k 16 W24X110 17 W24X110 18 Level 6
26 33 W14X211
W14X211
W14X246
W14X211

13' - 0"
5 12 19 A = 62.1 in2
I = 2,670 in4
10 k 13 W24X130 14 W24X130 15 Level 5
25 32 W14X246
W14X211
W14X246
W14X211

13' - 0"

4 11 18 A = 72.3 in2
I = 3,230 in4
7.5 k 10 W24X130 11 W24X130 12 Level 4
24 31 W14X287
W14X246
W14X246

W14X287

13' - 0"

3 10 17 A = 84.4 in2
I = 3,910 in4
5k 7 W24X160 8 W24X160 9 Level 3
23 30 W24X110
W14X246
W14X246

W14X287

13' - 6"

2 9 16 A = 2.5 in2
I = 3,330 in4
2.5 k 4 W24X160 5 W24X160 6 Level 2
22 29 W24X130
W14X246
W14X246

W14X287

13' - 6"

1 8 15 A = 38.3 in2
I = 4,020 in4
Z 1 2 3 Ground
W24X160
Y 30' 30'
A = 47.1 in2
X I = 5,120 in4
Joint Mass Applied to Joints 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 and 23
m =0.49 kip-sec2/in in the X direction only

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 3
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

RESPONSE SPECTRUM FUNCTION DEFINITION

Period (sec) Accel (g) Period (sec) Accel (g)

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

1.2

0.8
Acceleration (g)

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
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 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
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

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

Time Periods (Load case MODAL)

Percent
Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

Mode 1 period (sec) 1.2732 1.2732 0%

Mode 2 period (sec) 0.4313 0.4313 0%

Mode 3 period (sec) 0.2420 0.2420 0%

Mode 4 period (sec) 0.1602 0.1602 0%

Mode 5 period (sec) 0.1190 0.1190 0%

Mode 6 period (sec) 0.0951 0.0951 0%

Mode 7 period (sec) 0.0795 0.0795 0%

Static Lateral Analysis Results (Load case LAT)

Percent
Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

Ux at joint 22 (in) 1.45076 1.45076 0%

Axial force in
69.99 69.99 0%
frame 1 (kip)

Moment in frame 1 at
2324.68 2324.68 0%
joint 1 (k-in)

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 6
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 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 (Load case SPECSRSS)

Percent
Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

Ux at joint 22 (in) 5.436 5.438 -0.04%

Axial force in
261.7 261.8 -0.04%
frame 1 (kip)

Moment in frame 1 at
9864 9868 -0.04%
joint 1 (k-in)

Response Spectrum Analysis Results (Load case SPECCQC)

Percent
Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

Ux at joint 22 (in) 5.431 5.438 -0.13%

Axial force in
261.5 261.8 -0.11%
frame 1 (kip)

Moment in frame 1 at
9916 9868 +0.49%
joint 1 (k-in)

EXAMPLE 1-022 - 7
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 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 (Load case MHIST1)

Percent
Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

Ux at joint 22 (in) 5.486 5.46 +0.48%

Axial force in
263.0 258.0 +1.94%
frame 1 (kip)

Moment in frame 1 at
9104 8740 +4.16%
joint 1 (k-in)

Direct Integration Time History Results (Load case DHIST1)

Percent
Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

Ux at joint 22 (in) 5.485 5.46 +0.46%

Axial force in
263.2 258.0 +2.02%
frame 1 (kip)

Moment in frame 1 at
9183 8740 +5.07%
joint 1 (k-in)

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
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 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 load 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 load 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 SAP2000
Modal TH Direct TH Percent
Output Parameter (MHIST2) (DHIST2) Difference

Ux at joint 22 (in) 5.499 5.499 0%

Axial force in
264.0 264.0 0%
frame 1 (kip)

Moment in frame 1 at
9200 9200 0%
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