Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Graduate Student, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, State
University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260
Professor, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, State University
of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260.
1. INTRODUCTION
This document presents guidelines on modeling the Triple Friction Pendulum isolator in program
SAP2000. Particularly, this document presents the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
d i*
Reffi
d , i 1...4
Ri i
(1)
Reffi Ri hi , i 1...4
(2)
Table 1 (adopted from Fenz and Constantinou, 2008a) presents a summary of the forcedisplacement relationships of the Triple FP bearing in the five regimes of operation. Note that
Ffi iW is the friction force at interface i and W is the axial compressive load on the bearing.
*
*
*
*
Consider the special case in which Reff 1 Reff 4 , Reff 2 Reff 3 , d1 d 4 , d 2 d 4 , 1 4 and
2 3 . Furthermore, consider that the bearing does not reach regime V. The result is an
isolator with tri-linear hysteretic behavior as illustrated in Figure 3. Note this special case
represents a typical case of configuration of Triple FP isolators.
The force-displacement relation of the special Triple FP isolator is described by:
R
W
u 1 (1 2 ) eff 2 W
Reff 1
2 Reff 1
(3)
Force
22W
1W
W
W/2Reff1
W/2Reff2
2W
u*=2(1-2 )Reff2
Displacement
2u*
W *
d1 F f 1
Reff 1
(4)
(5)
u* u** 2( 1 2 ) Reff 2
(6)
W 1 ( 1 2 )
Reff 2
W
Reff 1
(7)
II
III
IV
Description
Sliding on surfaces 2
and 3 only
Motion stops on
surface 2; Sliding on
surfaces 1 and 3
Motion is stopped on
surfaces 2 and 3;
Sliding on surfaces 1
and 4
Slider contacts
restrainer on surface
1; Motion remains
stopped on surface 3;
Sliding on surface 2
and 4
Slider bears on
restrainer of surface 1
and 4; Sliding on
surfaces 2 and 3
Force-Displacement Relationship
Ff 2 Reff 2 Ff 3 Reff 3
W
u
Reff 2 Reff 3
Reff 2 Reff 3
Valid until:
F Ff 1 , u u 1 2 Reff 2 1 3 Reff 3
Valid until:
F Ff 4 , u u u 4 1 Reff 1 Reff 3
F Fdr1
Reff 4
W *
d1 F f 1 , u udr1 u d1* 1
4 1 Reff 1 Reff 4
Reff 1
Reff 1
W
W *
d1 F f 1
u udr1
Reff 2 Reff 4
Reff 1
Valid until:
Valid until:
F Fdr 4
d *
d*
W *
d 4 F f 4 , u udr 4 udr1 4 4 1 1 Reff 2 Reff 4
Reff 1
Reff 4
Reff 4
W
W *
d 4 Ff 4
u udr 4
Reff 2 Reff 3
Reff 4
Assumptions: (1) Reff 1 Reff 4 Reff 2 Reff 3 , (2) 2 3 1 4 , (3) d1* 4 1 Reff 1 , (4), d 2* 1 2 Reff 2
(5) d 3* 4 3 Reff 3
1W
K1
2W
K2
u
Y1
0
2W
W
R2
FP1
FP2
Figure 5 Force Displacement Loops of Elements FP1 and FP2 of the Parallel Model
The use of overlapping elements results in zero rotational stiffness of the element, which
correctly represents the actual behavior. Note that earlier descriptions of the parallel element
(Sarlis et al, 2009) placed the two elements of the model at a distance between them that created
an artificial rotational stiffness. The rotational stiffness may affect the accuracy of the results of
analysis.
8
(8)
2W 1W K 2 Y 1
(9)
(10)
1W 1W 2 W
In the above equations,
1 is the friction coefficient of the FP1 element
1 2 2
(11)
2 21 2
(12)
The friction coefficients are defined at fast velocities (related to parameter FAST in SAP2000).
For slow velocities, the friction coefficient (related to parameter SLOW in SAP2000) may be
assumed to be half of the fast velocity value.
9
W
W
W
2 Reff 1 R 2 2 R 2
Therefore,
3.3.4
(14)
R 2 Reff 1
Elastic Stiffness
The elastic stiffness of the bearing when motion in regime II starts is equal to the elastic stiffness
of the FP2 element of the parallel model.
K2
(15)
W
2 Reff 2
K1
2W
2Y 1
3.3.5
(17)
2 Reff 2
The force intercept at zero displacement normalized by the axial load (or coefficient of friction at
zero displacement), is given by the following expressions (see Figures 3 and 5):
*
2 2
2W
K 2 R2
2 1 2
Reff 1 Reff 2
Reff 1
1 1 2 2
3.3.6
(18)
(19)
Rate Parameter
The rate parameter specified for coefficients of friction 1 and 2 should be half the values of
the rate parameter for the coefficients of friction 2 and 1 , respectively of surfaces 2 (or 3) and
1 (or 4) of the bearing. Note that this is due to fact that the parallel model is limited to cases in
10
which 2 3 and 1 4 for which the sliding displacements and sliding velocities on surfaces
1 and 4 are equal to half of the total displacement and velocity (this is only an approximation for
small displacements).
3.3.7
Effective Stiffness
The effective stiffness should be specified to be low in order to minimize damping leakage in the
isolation system. In fast nonlinear analysis (FNA), SAP2000 constructs a global damping matrix
using the specified effective stiffness of the link elements in the nonlinear isolation system.
Accordingly, artificial viscous damping elements are introduced in the isolation system.
Specification of a small effective stiffness ensures that the artificial damping is low to affect the
calculated response and prevents magnification of damping in nonlinear dynamic analysis as the
element develops an instantaneous effective stiffness that is less than the initial specified value.
It is advised that an appropriate value for the effective stiffness to use is the value of the post
elastic stiffness (or less) of each element, although some trial and error investigation may be
needed to confirm that that damping leakage is minimal. Note that the effective stiffness is also
used to calculate Ritz vector modes and, therefore, the values specified have some additional
effect in FNA. As it will be discussed later in this report, the results of FNA can be exact if an
appropriate number of Ritz vector modes are used regardless of the specified value of effective
stiffness.
3.3.8
Vertical Stiffness
It is important that the FP1 and FP2 elements in the parallel model have the same vertical
stiffness so that they equally share the axial load on the bearing. Otherwise, the model is invalid.
For the triple FP bearing, it is appropriate to calculate the vertical stiffness as the axial stiffness
of a column having the height of the bearing, diameter of the inner slider and modulus of
elasticity equal to about one half the modulus of elasticity of steel in order to account for the
some limited flexibility in the bearing. The calculated vertical stiffness is then equally divided to
the FP1 and FP2 elements.
3.3.9
The shear deformation location should be specified at the mid-point of the two nodes of the FP1
and FP2 elements. This parameter has significance only in the calculation of the moment
transferred by the bearing to the structure above and below (including P- moments, if such
effects are included). The use of the mid-point for the shear deformation location is strictly valid
for the special case isolator considered herein. (When friction on the two main sliding surfaces
is different, the shear deformation location should be selected on the basis of the partition of the
isolator displacement-theory in Fenz and Constantinou, 2008a and 2008c. It will be closer to the
surface of the largest friction).
11
misolator ( DR 2 h 2 )
12
(20)
In this equation, misolator is the mass of the bearing, DR is the diameter of the rigid slider of the
bearing and h is the bearing height.
3.3.16 Addition of Gap Element to Parallel Model
It would appear as straight forward exercise to add gap elements in parallel to the Triple FP
isolator parallel model to capture the stiffening behavior of the isolator in regime V. However,
the behavior produced is not exactly correct. This is due to the fact that a gap element in
SAP2000 engages and disengages at specified displacements (the gap displacement) while this is
12
not true for the Triple FP bearing. Use of a gap element will produce correct stiffening behavior
but the unloading branch of the hysteresis loop will be incorrect. Note that the same problem
exists when other approximations are used to model the Triple FP model (e.g., the bilinear
hysteretic model) together with gap elements. Only the series model (Fenz and Constantinou,
2008d) of the Triple FP bearing is capable of correctly modeling this behavior. However, a gap
element added in parallel to the parallel element of the Triple FP bearing produces correct results
for the very special case of 1 2 3 4 .
A summary of element properties for the parallel model is presented in Table 2.
Table 2 FP1 and FP2 Element Properties in Parallel Model of Triple FP Bearing
Supported Weight W
Elastic Stiffness K 1 , K 2
2W
FP1
FP2
2
W
2 Reff 2
2Reff 2
2Y 1
Friction Coefficient 1 , 2
2 2
2 2
a1
Rate Parameter a
21 2
2(1 2 )(
Reff 1 Reff 2 )
Reff 1
a1
Radius of Curvature R1 , R 2
0(flat)
Reff 1
Element Height
h
h
2
h
h
2
0
0
0
0
misolator / 2
misolator / 2
I FP
misolator DR h 2
24
I FP
misolator DR h 2
24
13
3.4
3.4.1
The specification of structural damping in the analysis of seismically isolated structures (with
nonlinear isolator elements) may appear to be of secondary importance. However, if improperly
specified, damping may have significant effects.
When modeling an isolated structure, the inherent damping of the structure exclusive of the
isolation system is assigned based on the type structure (height, materials, construction method)
and expected level of deformation. For a building, the damping ratio is only approximately
known for the superstructure when fixed at the isolator locations. For example, the data
presented in Satake et al (2003) may be used to select the values of damping ratio for the
superstructure of isolated buildings. It should be noted that when data on damping for
conventional structures are used in the modeling of seismically isolated structures, each mode of
vibration of the fixed-based structure corresponds to two modes of vibration of the
corresponding seismically isolated structure. For example, both the first and second modes, in
say the longitudinal direction, of a seismically isolated exhibit a shape for the superstructure part
that is basically identical to that of the first mode of the non-isolated structure. Accordingly,
when a value of damping ratio is selected for the first mode of the non-isolated structure, that
value should be used for the first six modes of the corresponding three-dimensional isolated
structure (first and second modes in each of the two principal directions and torsion). Note that
this is applicable when diaphragm constraints are used but it may be more complex otherwise
(see discussion on Purely Isolated Modes below).
Program SAP2000 constructs a global damping matrix which involves the degrees of freedom of
the isolation system. The calculation of the global damping matrix makes use of the specified
effective stiffness of each isolator element and of the mass and moment of inertia of the part of
the structure between the superstructure and the isolator supports (e.g., basemat above isolators).
This leads to the introduction of artificial viscous elements in the isolation system. We term this
phenomenon damping leakage in the isolation system. This may significantly affect the
calculation of isolator displacements by artificially damping its response as if viscous dampers
were present in the isolation system. For example, consider that the isolation system has bilinear hysteretic behavior with yield displacement of 1inch. The damping is specified as 5% of
critical in each mode of vibration and the effective stiffness of each isolator is specified as the
elastic stiffness (that is, the 5% damping ratio is anchored on the elastic stiffness). Say that upon
yielding of the isolator in dynamic analysis the displacement reaches 20inch amplitude. The
effective damping is then equal to 0.0520/1=0.224! The magnification of effective damping by
the square root of the ductility ratio is a well understood effect (for example see Chapter 18 of
ASCE-7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2010).
In Fast Nonlinear Analysis (FNA), the stiffness matrix remains always the same and is based on
the specified effective stiffness of the isolator elements. Nonlinear forces from the isolator
elements are treated as loads on the right hand side of the equations of motion. This allows the
user to have control on the amount of damping that is leaked into the isolation system by
14
specifying a small effective stiffness of the isolators. When a small effective stiffness is
specified, one can distinguish the following Ritz vectors modes:
Purely Isolated: An example of purely isolated Ritz vector mode is shown in Figure 6. In
this mode, the superstructure responds nearly as a rigid block. The number of purely
isolated modes depends on the extent of discretization of the structure. When a
diaphragm constraint is specified for all floor levels and all masses are specified as point
masses, the number of such modes is reduced to one for two-dimensional analysis and to
three for three-dimensional analysis.
Mixed Modes: These modes are characterized by the mixed response of the superstructure
and the isolation system. When a diaphragm constraint is specified for all floor levels
and all masses are specified as point masses, the number of such modes is reduced to a
number equal to the number of floors for two-dimensional analysis and to three times the
number of floors for three-dimensional analysis. Figure 7 shows examples of mixed
modes.
Local or vertical Modes: These are high frequency modes that mostly involve local
response of members or the vertical response of the structure on the isolators. These
15
modes typically create numerical difficulties and negatively affect the computational
effort. However, they are important in the calculation of quantities such as accelerations,
member internal forces and isolator uplift. Figure 8 shows an example of local mode.
Specifying constant damping for all modes together with small effective stiffness is the simplest
approach for reducing, but not eliminating, damping leakage. Note that in this approach the
specified damping ratio of each mode is the same.
This method is similar to the previous one but combined with zero damping override for the
purely isolated modes in order to minimize damping leakage in the isolation system. This
approach significantly affects the computational speed of the analysis so that, practically, may be
used when the number of isolators is small. However, the user may want to use override in order
to specify different (typically larger) damping ratio values for the higher modes.
Rayleigh Damping
Rayleigh damping is based on the specification of damping ratio values at two selected
frequencies. A simple approach is to select the two frequencies such that they bound the
frequencies of the purely isolated and mixed modes as illustrated in Figure 9.
16
Damping Ratio
Local or vertical
Modes
Selected
Frequencies
j
Frequency
This method is similar to the Rayleigh Damping approach but allows for more control. It is the
most effective way of specifying damping in a seismically isolated structure when the number of
isolators is large and the speed of analysis is a concern.
The procedure requires identification of the purely isolated modes, mixed modes and local
modes. This is relatively easy when low values for the isolator element effective stiffness are
used. The Rayleigh coefficients are calculated using the lowest and highest frequency of the
mixed modes. Modes that have a frequency lower than the lowest mixed mode (these are the
purely isolated modes) should be assigned zero (or very low) damping using the damping
override option in SAP2000. Figure 10 illustrates the assigned damping ratio based on this
approach.
17
Damping Ratio
Purely
Isolated
Modes
Mixed Modes
Local or vertical
Modes
j
Frequency
Interpolated Damping
In this method, a different damping ratio may be specified for various frequency ranges.
Therefore the user can implement zero damping or nearly so for the frequency range of the
purely isolated modes, a specified damping ratio for the mixed modes, and a higher damping
ratio for local modes. For the local modes, either a high constant damping ratio can be specified
or a linearly varying damping ratio may be specified up to a maximum value of damping ratio.
This is illustrated in Figure 11.
In terms of minimizing damping leakage and accuracy of superstructure response, this damping
specification approach can produce results similar to the constant damping with override and
Rayleigh damping with override but with increased speed of analysis.
18
Damping Ratio
Purely
Isolated
Modes
Local or vertical
Modes
j
Frequency
Fast nonlinear analysis requires the specification of the number of Ritz vectors modes for use in
the analysis. A sufficient number of Ritz vector modes are needed to accurately capture the
response of the analyzed structure. When the number of isolators is large, Ritz vector modes
associated with high frequencies may be included which often creates numerical difficulties. The
use of Rayleigh damping with override for the damping specification may be most useful in such
cases.
An important consideration in the selection of the number of Ritz vector modes has to do with
the development of gravity load on the isolators (which is very important for sliding isolators).
In FNA and prior to start of the seismic analysis, the gravity load is applied through analysis in
which the structure is subjected to vertical ground acceleration that slowly increases with time.
If the number of Ritz vector modes is not sufficiently large to fully develop the gravity load
effects, the analysis with sliding isolators is equivalent to one in which the structure is subjected
a vertical constant downward acceleration. This results in over-prediction of isolator
displacements. Figure 12 provides an example from analysis of a bridge structure (bridge is the
example in Constantinou et al, 2007). The figure shows the sum of axial forces on the bridge
supports (which equal to the weight of the bridge) as function of time and the number of Ritz
vector modes considered. The history of axial load evolves as the vertical acceleration is slowly
imposed to develop the gravity load prior to starting the dynamic response history analysis. The
weight is nearly equal to 6000kip. It requires at least 33 Ritz vector modes to develop correctly
the load. The typically utilized minimum number of Ritz vector modes equal to 3 times the
number of isolators plus rigid masses would have resulted in this case a requirement for use of
30 vectors, which should be sufficient for this example. Note that when the number of Ritz
vector modes is insufficient for the development of the isolator gravity load, member forces are
also underestimated which affects the adequacy assessment of the analyzed structure. It should
also be noted that the required number of Ritz vector modes may depend on the form of the ramp
19
function used to develop the gravity load. That is, the cut-off time of 10 second in Figure 12
may affect the required number of Ritz vector modes. Moreover, it is important to first
determine the number of Ritz vector modes needed to correctly develop the load and then
conduct analyses with that number and with larger number in order to observe the sensitivity of
the calculated response on the number of modes used. It is possible to correctly develop the load
with a small number of Ritz vector modes but require many more modes to obtain correct results
in dynamic analysis.
6000
4000
FNA-129 MODES
FNA-5 MODES
FNA-15 MODES
2000
FNA-30 MODES
FNA- 50 MODES
FNA-33 MODES
0
0
10
20
Time (sec)
Direct Integration
Program SAP2000 has the option of Direct Integration for dynamic analysis. In this approach,
the effect of any nonlinear elements is accounted for by the use of instantaneous stiffness and
damping matrices. This prevents the program user from controlling damping leakage in the
isolation system. Actually, artificial damping in the isolation system may substantially fluctuate
depending on the instantaneous stiffness of the nonlinear elements. We do not recommend use
of the direct integration method unless damping is specified as zero or nearly so.
20
4.
4.1 Introduction
Isolator P- effects can have important contributions to structural drift and acceleration. Figure
13 illustrates the transfer of forces at the sliding interfaces of a Double or a Triple FP bearing (a
similar situation exists in elastomeric bearings). The moment P1will cause rotation of the
column on top of the deformed isolator that, in turn, will result in increased first story drift.
height is accounted for directly by the program and need not be added to the axial force
component).
2) Dynamic response history analysis is performed with the calculated P- moment applied
as time history function at the top and bottom joints of each isolator and ensuring that the
direction of the moments is such that it causes a shear force in the same direction as the
isolator displacement. Note that the P- moment at the bottom joints is not needed if the
isolators are directly supported on the ground.
The procedure described above is one of a number of options for approximately accounting for
isolator P- effects. Engineers have already tried other approximate ways for accounting for
these effects such as first performing the response history analysis and then performing static
analysis to only calculate the P- moment effects. Such a procedure can provide information on
the effects on the structural drift but not on structural accelerations.
22
Period (sec)
0.776
0.253
0.138
0.093
82.5
7.5
d1* d 4* (inch)
17.8
d 2* d 3* (inch)
0.94
1 4
0.108
2 3
0.030
a1 a 2 a 3 a 4
(sec/in)
2.54
In order to verify the accuracy of the parallel model, analysis is performed using the parallel
model described herein and the series model described in Fenz and Constantinou, 2008d. It is
presumed that the series model provides an exact description of behavior of the Triple FP
isolator. The series model as implemented in program SAP2000 is depicted in Figure 15.
Figure 15 Assembly of Friction Pendulum Link Elements, Gap Elements and Rigid Beam
Elements Used in the Series Model of Triple FP Bearing in SAP2000
Table 5 presents the parameters of the series model of Triple FP bearings in SAP2000.
24
2 3
FP2
FP3
Reff 1 Reff 2
Reff 1
Reff 4 Reff 3
Reff 4
1 a2 a3
2
2
2W
d1
1W
2Y
Reff 1 Reff 2
d4
4W
Reff 4
NA
2Y
2Y
Reff 1
Reff 4 Reff 3
a1
a4
Table 6 presents numerical values of the properties implemented in SAP2000 for the series and
parallel models of each bearing.
Results of analysis obtained with the two models are compared in Figures 16 to 20. Analysis
was performed using the FNA method and utilizing 53 Ritz vector modes for the parallel model
and 77 Ritz vector modes for the series model. These correspond to the maximum Ritz vector
modes calculated by SAP2000. Evidently, the two models produce identical results for all
practical purposes. Some small differences in the results are attributed to small differences in
structural damping modeling and in small differences in modeling velocity dependence of the
friction coefficient in the two models.
25
Table 6 Values of Properties of the Series and Parallel Models of Bearings in SAP2000
Series Model
Parallel Model
FP1
FP2
FP3
FP1
FP2
16
16
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.0025
0.0025
900
900
900
450
450
213530
213530
213530
35588.4
35588.4
1350
4860
4860
807.9
54.55
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0155
60
12
12
5.45
0.015
0.054
0.054
0.030
0.0709
0.030
0.108
0.108
0.060
0.1418
Radius (inch)
15
75
75
82.5
1.27
2.794
2.794
1.27
1.27
Rotational/Torsional
Stiffness (R1,R2,R3)
Fixed
Fixed
Rotational Moment of
Inertia (kip-in-sec2)
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.
26
27
28
31
Isolator
Base
Displacement
Shear/Weight
(inch)
0.234
0.235
0.236
0.235
0.235
0.235
0.235
22.18
22.22
22.38
22.31
22.29
22.29
22.29
First Story
Drift Ratio
(%)
Roof
Acceleration
(g)
CPU
Time
(sec)
0.18
0.33
0.34
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.24
0.34
0.43
1.55
0.43
0.42
0.42
14
17
84
158
188
229
257
Note that stable response prediction in this example is obtained when the number of modes
exceeds 30. Also, note that the prediction of acceleration response is very sensitive to the
number of modes. It is apparent that some experimentation is needed to determine a sufficient
number of modes for use in the analysis.
5.4 Effect of Gap Element
As described in Section 3.3.16, the addition of a gap element in parallel with the parallel model
for the Triple FP bearing does not correctly capture the behavior of the isolator. To demonstrate
the effects of such modeling, the two-dimensional structure of Section 5.1 was analyzed with the
TCU-065-E component of the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake scaled up by a factor equal to 1.4 so that
the bearing enters the stiffening regime V. Each isolator was modeled using the parallel model
described in Section 5.1 and with a gap element added. The gap opening was calculated using
equation (8) and gap element stiffness after closing was selected in accordance with equation
(21) below. Note that the gap element stiffness is such that the sum of the post elastic stiffness
of the parallel model and the gap element stiffness equals to the stiffness of the FP bearing when
sliding occurs simultaneously on surfaces 2 and 3.
33
K gap
W
2 Reff 2
(21)
2 Reff 1
Moreover, and just for the purpose of demonstrating the gap element effects, the displacement
capacities of surfaces 2 and 3 have been considered unlimited so that the parallel model can be
used.
Figure 25 compares the isolation system force-displacement loops for the case of the series
model (exact) to the approximate parallel model with added gap element. The error introduced
by the incorrect use of the gap element in the parallel model is seen in the enlarged figure.
Nevertheless, the calculated displacement of the isolation system is practically unaffected.
Figure 25 Comparison of Results Obtained with the Exact Series Model and the
Approximate Parallel Model with Gap Element
34
The enlarged version of Figure 25 demonstrates the error introduced by the gap element in the
parallel model. The gap element engages and disengages at the same displacement as specified
in the gap element parameters. The stiffening behavior of the Triple FP bearing, however, starts
and ends at different displacements, which depend on the geometric and frictional properties of
the bearing. Moreover, the fluctuating loop seen in Figure 25 for the series model is a result of
numerical difficulty in the integration process.
35
sixth modes as shown in Table 8). The effective stiffness of the isolators was specified equal to
the post-elastic stiffness for both analyses. Results for the two cases are compared in Figure 30.
Evidently the two methods of specifying damping produce practically identical results.
constant damping and 2% Rayleigh damping described above as function of the number of Ritz
vector modes used in the analysis.
Figure 32 Comparison of CPU Time for Analysis Using the Constant Damping and
Rayleigh Damping Methods
Small CPU time is achieved in the Rayleigh damping specification method because the method
assigns large damping ratio values to very high frequency modes which effectively removes their
effects and reduces numerical difficulties associated with high frequency response. Despite the
differences in computational speed, the two methods produce practically identical results as
demonstrated in Figure 30.
6.5 Use of Rayleigh Damping with Override
Figure 33 compares results of analysis for the two-dimensional structure of Section 5.1 when
damping is specified as (a) 2% using the Rayleigh method for frequencies f i 2.16 Hz and
f j 11.1Hz (bounding frequencies of mixed modes) with 0% damping override for the first
mode (purely isolated mode) and (b) as zero. For both cases the effective stiffness was specified
equal to the post-elastic stiffness.
Note that the case of zero damping is used herein to provide the most accurate results for the
isolation system displacement as it does not have damping leakage in the isolation system.
However, the specification of zero damping affects the computation of accelerations and bearing
uplift displacements, which are then typically overestimated.
40
41
0.05
Rayleigh
Rayleigh with Override
Interpolated
Constant Damping
Constant Damping with Override
Damping Ratio
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 35 Damping Ratio as Function of Frequency for Studied Cases
42
120
43
44
Figure 37 Comparison of First Story Drift Histories Obtained with Direct Integration and
with Fast Nonlinear Analysis in Zero-Damped Structure
Figure 38 compares the isolator force-displacement loops of the same structure with non-zero
damping when analyzed with direct integration (integration time step equal to 0.0005 sec ) and
fast nonlinear analysis (53 Ritz vector modes). Damping was specified as 2% using the Rayleigh
damping method with limit frequencies equal to 0.24 and 11.1Hz (first and sixth modes). Direct
integration in this case produces a lesser isolator displacement. This is likely due to more
leakage of damping in the isolation system in the direct integration method rather than errors in
the fast nonlinear analysis. On the basis of these examples, the authors of this report believe that
1) The fast nonlinear analysis method, when properly implemented, is sufficiently accurate.
2) Comparison of fast nonlinear analysis results to direct integration analysis results for
verification of the analysis model is not warranted nor recommended.
3) When verification of the analysis model is required, other programs should be used. For
example, program 3D-BASIS (Nagarajaiah et al, 1989; Tsopelas et al, 1994 and 2005;
Sarlis et al, 2009) may be used.
45
46
47
48
Figure 40 Comparison of First Story Drift History Calculated with Exact and Approximate
Isolator P- Effects
49
9. CONCLUSIONS
This document presented the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
50
10. REFERENCES
1. Computers and Structures Inc. (2007), SAP2000: INTEGRATED FINITE ELEMENT
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, Version 11.0.8, Berkeley, CA.
2. Constantinou, M.C., Whittaker, A.S., Fenz, D.M. and Apostolakis, G. (2007b), Seismic
Isolation of Bridges, University at Buffalo, Report to Caltrans for contract 65A0174, June.
3. Fenz, D.M. and Constantinou, M.C. (2008a),MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF MULTISPHERICAL SLIDING BEARINGS, Report No. MCEER-08-0007, Multidisciplinary
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
4. Fenz, D.M. and Constantinou, M.C. (2008b), SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION
BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR: THEORY, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 2, 163-183.
5. Fenz, D.M. and Constantinou, M.C. (2008c), SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION
BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR: EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 2, 185-205.
6. Fenz, D.M. and Constantinou, M.C., (2008d), MODELING TRIPLE FRICTION
PENDULUM BEARINGS FOR RESPONSE-HISTORY ANALYSIS, Earthquake Spectra,
Vol. 24, No. 4, 1011-1028.
7. Fenz, D.M. and Constantinou, M.C. (2008e),DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION
AND VERIFICATION OF DYNAMIC ANALYSIS MODELS FOR MULTISPHERICAL SLIDING BEARINGS, Report No. MCEER-08-0018, Multidisciplinary
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
8. Morgan, T. A. (2007), THE USE OF INNOVATIVE BASE ISOLATION SYSTEMS TO
ACHIEVE COMPLEX SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
9. Nagarajaiah, S., Reinhorn, A.M., and Constantinou, M.C. (1989), NONLINEAR
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THREE DIMENSIONAL BASE ISOLATED STRUCTURES
(3D-BASIS) Report NCEER-89-0019, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
10. Satake, N., Suda, K., Arakawa, T., Sasaki, A and Tamura, Y. (2003), DAMPING
EVALUATION USING FULL-SCALE DATA OF BUILDINGS IN JAPAN, ASCE, J.
Structural Engineering, 129 (4).
11. Sarlis, A.A., Tsopelas, P.C., Constantinou, M.C. and Reinhorn, A.M., 3D-BASIS-ME-MB:
Computer Program for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Seismically Isolated Structures,
Element for Triple Pendulum Isolator and Verification Examples(2009), supplement to
MCEER Report 05-009, document distributed to the engineering community together with
executable version of program and example files, University at Buffalo.
51
12. Tsopelas, P.C., Constantinou, M.C., and Reinhorn, A.M. (1994), 3D-BASIS-ME:
COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF
SEISMICALLY ISOLATED SINGLE AND MULTIPLE STRUCTURES AND LIQUID
STORAGE TANKS, Report NCEER-94-0010, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
13. Tsopelas, P.C., Roussis, P.C., Constantinou, M.C., Buchanan, R. and Reinhorn, A.M. (2005),
3D-BASIS-ME-MB: COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR NONLINEAR DYNAMIC
ANALYSIS OF SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURES, Report MCEER-05-0009,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New
York, Buffalo, NY.
52
APPENDIX A
CALCULATION OF MODEL PARAMETERS
SERIES MODEL
Vertical Stiffness
The bearing vertical stiffness is approximately calculated as AE/h, where A is the area of the
center slider (herein a circle of 10inch diameter), E is a representative modulus (typically
assumed about half of that of steel to account for flexibilities in the bearing assembly, herein
14500ksi) and h is the height (herein 16inch). The vertical stiffness is thus equal to
x52x14500/16=71176.7kip/in.
The three elements of the series model each have vertical stiffness K so that the combined
stiffness equals 7176.7kip/in. That is, (1/K+1/K+1/K)-1=71176.7kip/in or K=213530kip/in.
Elastic Stiffness (see Table 5)
Element FP1 Elastic Stiffness: K1
Element FP2 Elastic Stiffness: K2
Element FP3 Elastic Stiffness: K3
2W
2Y
1W
2Y
4W
2Y
0.03x900
1350kip / in
2 x0.01
0.108 x900
4860kip / in
2 x0.01
0.108 x900
4860kip / in
2 x 0.01
W
W
900
60kip / in
Reff 1 Reff 2 Reff 3 7.5 7.5
W
W
900
12kip / in
Reff 2 Reff 1 Reff 2 82.5 7.5
W
W
900
12kip / in
Reff 3 Reff 4 Reff 3 82.5 7.5
1 a2 a3 (2.54 2.54)
Reff 1
Reff 1 Reff 2
a1
82.5
x 2.54 2.794 sec/ inch
82.5 7.5
53
Reff 4
Reff 4 Reff 3
a1
82.5
x 2.54 2.794sec/ inch
82.5 7.5
PARALLEL MODEL
Vertical Stiffness
The vertical stiffness of 71176.7kip/in is equally divided to elements FP1 and FP2 of the parallel
model. That is, each element is assigned vertical stiffness of 35588.4kip/in.
Elastic Stiffness (see Table 2)
Element FP1 Elastic Stiffness:
K1
2W
2Y 1
W
2 Reff 2
0.03 900
2 0.0155
900
2 7.5
807.9kip / in
Note that the yield displacement Y 1 was assumed to be equal to 0.0155inch so that the elastic
stiffness of the parallel model is the same as the elastic stiffness of the series model (see
demonstration below). In general, the value of the yield displacement Y 1 is arbitrarily assumed
to be about or larger than 0.01inch.
Element FP2 Elastic Stiffness: K 2
W
900
60kip / in
2 Reff 2 2 x 7.5
The value to be specified in SAP2000 is not 60kip/in but a value equal to 60kip/in minus the
post-elastic stiffness of the element (SAP2000 adds the specified value of elastic stiffness to the
post-elastic stiffness and uses that as the elastic stiffness):
K2
W Reff 1 Reff 2
W
W
54.55kip / in
2 Reff 2 2 Reff 1
2 Reff 2 Reff 1
Note that the elastic stiffness of the parallel model of the bearing is equal to the elastic stiffness
of the series model as a result of the choice of the yield displacement Y 1 . Specifically, the two
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
867.9kip / in
1350 4860 4860
K1 K 2 K3
K1 K 2 807.9+60=867.9kip/in
54
Note that SAP2000 also performs the operation mentioned above (SAP2000 adds the specified
value of elastic stiffness to the post-elastic stiffness and uses that as the elastic stiffness) for the
elastic stiffness in each of the three elements of the series model. However, since the values of
elastic stiffness of each of the elements in the series model are very large, the effect of the
modification is insignificant and neglected. For example the specified value of elastic stiffness
for element FP3 of the series model should be specified in SAP2000 as
K3
4W
2Y
W
0.108 x 900
900
4860 12 4848kip / in .
Reff 4 Reff 3
2 x 0.01
82.5 7.5
The difference between the value of 4848 and 4860kip/in is insignificant, and neglected.
Effective Stiffness
The effective stiffness is specified to be the post-elastic stiffness of each element. For the FP1
W
900
element is zero (flat slider). For the FP2 element it is equal to
5.45kip / in .
2 Reff 1 2 x82.5
Note that these values are consistent with the values specified for the series model. For the
parallel model, the total effective stiffness is 0+5.45=5.45kip/in. For the series model, the total
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
effective stiffness is
5.45kip / in .
60 12 12
K1 K2 K3
Rate Parameter
For each element, the parameter is specified as 2.54/2=1.27sec/in. This is based on the
assumption that the velocity is equally partitioned between sliding surfaces (true for surfaces 1
and 4).
55