Sap90 sample example and verification manual

Gamble, W. Sozen, and C. Siess, Guralnick, S. LaFraugh, Hanson, R. Supplemental Damping for Improved Seismic Performance. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. Hatcher, D. International Code Council, Inc. International Building Code. Falls Church, Virginia. International Conference of Building Officials.

Uniform Building Code. Whittier, California. Jirsa, J. Nagarajaiah, S. Reinhorn and M. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. State University of New York at Buffalo.

Buffalo, New York. Paz, M. Structural Dynamics, Theory and Computations. Van Nostrand Reinhold. PCA, Peterson, F. Engineering Analysis Corporation. Prakash, V. Powell and S. Base Program Description and User Guide. Department of Civil Engineering. University of California.

Powell, and S. Przemieniecki, J. Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis. Roark, Raymond J. Young, Scholl, Roger E. San Francisco, California. Applied Technology Council. Redwood City, California. Timoshenko, S. Tsai, K. Chen, C. Hong, and Y. Earthquake Spectra. Ugural, A. Vanderbilt, M. Wilson, E. Kiureghian and E. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.

Zayas, V. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Oakland, California. Open navigation menu. Close suggestions Search Search. User Settings. Skip carousel.

Carousel Previous. Carousel Next. What is Scribd? Explore Ebooks. Bestsellers Editors' Picks All Ebooks. Explore Audiobooks. Bestsellers Editors' Picks All audiobooks. Explore Magazines. Editors' Picks All magazines. Explore Podcasts All podcasts. Difficulty Beginner Intermediate Advanced. Explore Documents. As expected, the results are identical. References 1. The frame geometry is shown in Figure These deformations are neglected to be consistent with the hand-calculated model with which the results are compared.

The input data file for this example is EX2. These files are available on the CD. Comparison of Results Assuming the beams to be rigid and a rigid offset at the column top ends of 24 inches i. The example then reduces to a three spring, three mass system with equal stiffnesses and masses. This can be analyzed using any exact method see Reference [2] to obtain the three natural periods and mass normalized mode shapes of the system. The spectral accelerations at the three natural periods can then be linearly interpolated from the response spectrum used.

The spectral accelerations can in turn be used with the mode shapes and story mass information to obtain the modal responses see Reference [2]. The modal responses for story displacements and column moments can then be combined using the complete quadratic combination procedure see Reference [3]. Przemieniecki, J. Paz, M. Wilson, E. This file is available on the CD. Comparison of Results For the two load cases, the story shears can be computed using the formulae given in Reference [1].

Note the difference between the calculated fundamental period for this example and Example 2, which neglects shear and axial deformations.

As expected, the values are identical. The frame is subjected to the El Centro N-S component seismic response spectrum, for 5 percent damping, in two orthogonal directions. The input data file for this example is EX4. These files are listed on the CD. Comparison of Results The example is a three degree of freedom system. From the individual column lateral stiffnesses, assuming rigid beams and rigid offsets at column top ends equal to 36 inches i.

From the stiffness and mass matrices of the system, the three natural periods and mass normalized mode shapes of the system can be obtained see Reference [2].

All members columns and braces carry only axial loads. The structure is subject to the El Centro N-S component seismic response spectrum in the X-direction. The structural damping is 5percent. The geometry of the structure and a typical frame are shown in Figure Each frame is modeled by three column lines. The modulus of elasticity is taken as ksi and each member has a rectangular section of 3 inches by 2 inches. Moments are released at both ends of every member so that only axial loads are carried.

A story mass of 1. The input data file is EX5. Comparison of Results This example has been solved in References [1] and [2]. A comparison of ETABS results for natural periods and key member forces for one frame with References [1] and [2] is given in Figure The agreement is excellent. Peterson, F. Kip-ft-second units are used. A modulus of elasticity of ksf is used. A typical member axial area of 3ft2 and moment of inertia of 1ft4 are used.

Comparison of Results This example is also analyzed in References [1] and [2]. The models of References [1] and [2] assign vertical and horizontal mass degrees of freedom to each joint in the structure.

However, the ETABS model only assigns horizontal masses and additionally, only one horizontal mass is assigned for all the joints associated with any one floor level. Considering the differences in modeling enumerated above, the comparison is excellent.

Bathe, K. EM6, Proc. Paper , December The gravity loads and the geometry of the frame are shown in Figure The frame is analyzed three times, subjected to the following lateral loads: Static lateral loads, shown in Figure Lateral loads resulting from the El Centro N-S component seismic response spectra, 5 percent damping Lateral loads resulting from the El Centro N-S component acceleration time history. Since the wide flange members used in the frame are older sections, their properties are not available in the AISC section property data base included with the ETABS program, and the required properties therefore need to be explicitly provided in the input data.

The input data file for static lateral loads analysis is EX7a. The input data file for dynamic response spectrum analysis is EX7b. The input data file for dynamic time history analysis is EX7c.