SAP2000 Software Verification Log

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 20
SAP2000 Software Verification Log

Revision
Number Date Description
0 Jan. 8, 2003 Initial release for SAP2000 version 8.1.2
1 Jan. 30, 2004 Initial release for SAP2000 version 8.30. Examples 1-016, 1-
017, 1-019, 6-004, 6-005, and 6-011 were modified.
2 Aug. 26, 2004 Intial release for SAP2000 version 9.00. Example 1-009 was
modified. Examples 1-030, 2-020, 3-001 through 3-005, 4-001
through 4-004 and 5-001 through 5-013 were added.
3 Feb. 23, 2005 Intial release for SAP2000 version 9.09. Results for Example
1-009, Example 1-030, Example 2-020, and Example 5-009
were slightly modified. The process for automating the
verification check was also revised.
4 Mar. 30, 2005 Intial release for SAP2000 version 9.11. Results for Example
2-018 and Example 2-019 were slightly modified.
5 Oct. 7, 2005 Initial release for Sap2000 version 10.00. Results for
Examples 2-019 were slightly modified. The process for
automating the verification check was also revised.
6 Jan. 19, 2007 Initial release for Sap2000 version 11.00. Results for Example
1-009, 2-019, 2-020, 5-009, 6-005, and 6-011 were slightly
modified. Removed reference temperature from Example 1-
002, 2-013 and 5-011. Examples 7-001 through 7-003 were
added to verify cable elements.
7 June 30, 2008 Initial release for SAP2000 version 12.00. Results for
Example 1-009, 2-020, 5-009, and 6-011 were slightly
modified. Model 7-003 and its results were slightly modified.
Typographical error was fixed in Example 6-012. Load
patterns and load case terminology updated.
8 Apr. 24, 2009 Initial release for SAP2000 version 14.00. Results for Example
2-005, 2-006, 2-015, 5-009, 6-010, and 6-011 were slightly
modified. Model 6-002 and its results were modified. Added
discussion of sensitivity to Example 6-011.
Changes in Examples 2-005, 2-006, and 2-015 are due to a

change in the homogeneous shell element formulation
(Incident 17270).
LOG - 1
REVISION NO.: 20

Revision
Changes in Example 5-009 are due to a change in the method
of transferring tendon loads to elements (Incident 17300).
Changes in Example 6-002 are due to a change that allows

negative stiffness in link elements (Incident 17151).
Changes in Example 6-010 are due to a change in the stiffness

proportional damping formulation (Incident 17152).
Changes in Example 6-011 are due to the numerical sensitivity

of the problem. See Example 6-011 Conclusions section for
more information.
9 Oct. 1 2010 Initial release for CSiBridge version 15.00. Important note
indicating that verification also applies to CSiBridge was
added. Results for Example 6-005, 6-010 and 6-011 were
slightly modified.
The results presented in this document are now obtained using

the Advanced equation solver running as a separate 32bit
process on an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU with the Windows 7
Professional 64-bit operating system.
Changes in Example 6-005 are due to the change in an internal

tolerance for nonlinear direct history analyses. (Incident
22645).
Changes in Example 6-002 are due to a change in how

reactions are calculated in nonlinear static and nonlinear direct
history analyses (Incident 10962).
Changes in Example 6-011 are due to the numerical sensitivity

of the problem. See Example 6-011 Conclusions section for
more information.
10 June 9, 2011 Initial release for Sap2000 version 15.00 and CSiBridge
version 15.10.
LOG - 2
REVISION NO.: 20

Revision
A note was added to Example 1-030 indicating that it applies
to CSiBridge only. The example uses features that are not
available in Sap2000V15.
The automation documentation has been updated to reflect

changes in the Excel sheet.
11 Aug. 5, 2013 Initial release for CSiBridge 2014 v16.0.0.
The Excel spreadsheet has been updated to run using 64-bit

versions of Microsoft Excel.
The important note has been updated to indicate that the

design examples do not apply to CSiBridge.
The automation documentation has been updated to describe

how to run design verification examples for SAP2000.
Results for Example 6-011 were slightly modified. Changes in

Example 6-011 are due to the numerical sensitivity of the
problem. See Example 6-011 Conclusions section for more
information.
12 Sept. 6, 2013 Initial release for SAP2000 v16.0.0.
The steel frame and concrete frame design verification suites

are included with the release of SAP2000 v16.0.0.
13 July 22, 2014 Initial release for SAP2000 v17.0.0 and CSiBridge 2015
v17.0.0.
Results for Example 2-019 were slightly modified. This is due

to Incident 64466 for CSiBridge and SAP2000 as described in
the Release Notes: The iteration algorithm for nonlinear direct-
integration time-history analysis has been enhanced to
improve the rate of convergence and to reduce the time of
analysis for certain models. Models run in the new version
should produce the same results as in the previous version,
subject to minor variations approximately within the
convergence tolerance. Larger differences may be observed for
LOG - 3
REVISION NO.: 20

Revision
ill-conditioned or sensitive models, but in such cases the new
results should generally be better.
Results for Example 6-005 were slightly modified. This is due

to Incidents 47495 (CSiBridge) and 47496 (SAP2000), as
described in the Release Notes: The speed of nonlinear direct-
integration time-history analysis has been significantly
increased for models containing nonlinear dampers having
fractional exponents on the velocity term. This is due to
improved rate of convergence for nonlinear iteration. There
has been no change to the actual force-velocity or force-
displacement behavior of the damper link element. The
response for models run in previous versions may differ very
slightly from that of the current version due to the resulting
change in the process of iteration. Such changes can be
expected to be on the order of the convergence tolerance for
the load case.
Published results for Example 6-011 have not been modified

for this release as they have for some previous releases.
However, results for Example 6-011 may differ from the
published values due to the numerical sensitivity of the
problem. See Example 6-011 Conclusions section for more
information.
14 October 16, 2015 Initial release for SAP2000 v18.0.0 and CSiBridge 2016
v18.0.0.
Removed design verification examples for older codes which

have been removed from this version of the software under
Incident 81910.
Added examples for steel and concrete frame design according

to KBC 2009 under Incidents 82660 and 82661, respectively.
15 February 3, 2016 Initial release for SAP2000 v18.1.0 and CSiBridge 2016
v18.1.0.
Updated select results of Example 6-003. This is due to
LOG - 4
REVISION NO.: 20

Revision
Incident 68068 (CSiBridge & SAP2000), as described in the
Release Notes: An event-to-event solution strategy has been
implemented as an option for nonlinear direct-integration
time-history load cases. This is similar to the use of events as
already available for nonlinear static load cases. Time steps
will be automatically subdivided where significant changes
occur in the stiffness of certain elements and hinges, such as at
yielding, unloading, or strength loss. Iteration is performed at
the end of the full time step as needed to achieve convergence.
Previously the event-to-event option was available but had no
effect. By default event-to-event stepping is turned off for each
time-history load case so as to preserve the previous behavior.
Additionally, events have been added for more types of
elements and hinges. Previously events were only
implemented in nonlinear static load cases for single-degree-
of-freedom hinges and isotropic interacting hinges. Events are
now implemented for the following nonlinear models: all
frame hinges; layered shells with directional or coupled
nonlinear behavior; and links with multi-linear plasticity, gap,
hook, friction pendulum, and triple pendulum behavior. Event-
to-event functionality has also been enhanced for frame hinges
to better handle cyclic reversals. As a result of these additions,
results for nonlinear static load cases using events may differ
somewhat from previous versions, although the results are
expected to be within the specified convergence tolerance for
most models. Differences may be more pronounced for
sensitive or ill-conditioned models. Differences may be more
pronounced for sensitive or ill-conditioned models. The
purpose of using events is to increase the speed of analysis, but
for certain models and load cases it may have little effect or
even the opposite effect.
16 February 28, Initial release for SAP2000 v19.1.0 and CSiBridge 2017
2017 v19.1.0.
Updated results of Example 6-011. This is due to Incident

98052 (CSiBridge and SAP2000) as described in the Release
LOG - 5
REVISION NO.: 20

Revision
Notes: Convergence behavior of the friction-pendulum isolator
link element has been improved, particularly to deal with large
variations in the axial force, which can cause alternating slip-
stick behavior during lateral loading. Models that exhibited
slow convergence behavior in previous versions should be re-
run in the new version to verify the results. The new results
will be more accurate in cases where a significant difference is
observed between the old and new results. Furthermore, the
friction model has been changed from the previous Wen
formulation that exhibited a gradual transition between stick
and slip to a bilinear model that exhibits a sudden transition.
Some difference in results can be expected due to the new
formulation, particularly for models where the initial stiffness
specified for the isolator was small. In addition, for linear load
cases that use the stiffness from the end of a nonlinear load
case, the transverse stiffness of the isolator will be taken as the
specified initial stiffness regardless of whether or not the
isolator was sliding at the end of the nonlinear load case,
provided that the isolator was in compression. Previously the
sliding stiffness was used in such cases. For isolators in
tension at the end of a nonlinear load case, zero stiffness is
used, same as before. Linear load cases starting from zero
initial conditions will use the specified linear effective
stiffness, unchanged from previous versions. Results for
included Verification Example 6-011 have been updated for
the new formulation. This example now exhibits less
numerical sensitivity than for previous versions, and results
are now largely machine independent, which was not the case
before.
17 August 17, 2017 Initial release for SAP2000 v19.2.0 and CSiBridge 2017
v19.2.0.
Updated analysis Examples 1-029, 2-018, and 2-019. This is

due to Incident 202197 (CSiBridge and SAP2000) as
described in the Release Notes: Convergence behavior for
nonlinear static displacement-control analysis has been
improved for Newton-Raphson iteration. For affected models,
LOG - 6
REVISION NO.: 20

Revision
this produces fewer iterations and/or less sub-stepping,
resulting in faster run-times and/or fewer convergence failures.
For some models, analysis results for nonlinear static
displacement-control load cases may change from previous
versions, particularly for models with poor convergence
behavior or large step sizes. Such changes in results are
expected to be within the specified convergence tolerance.
Verification examples 1-029, 2-018 and 2-019 were updated to
reflect the effect of this change. The validity of these
verification examples was not affected.
Updated concrete frame design example NZS 3101-2006

Ex001. This is due to Incident 101767 as described in the
Release Notes: An enhancement has been implemented in the
concrete frame design code NZS 3101-06 in which the user
can now overwrite the maximum aggregate size. This affects
the shear rebar design by modifying the factor k_a. Previously
the program assumed that the maximum aggregate size was
25mm for which k_a was equal to 1.0.
Updated steel frame design examples CSA S16-09 Ex001 and

Ex002 and CSA S16-14 Ex001 and Ex002. This is due to
Incident 70317 as described in the Release Notes: An incident
was resolved for axial compression capacity, Cr, of steel frame
design using the CSA S16-09 code where the value of Cr in
certain conditions (when “n” was calculated as 2.24 or
overwritten as greater than 1.34) was calculated
conservatively. The power "n" which could be 1.0, 1.34, 2.24,
or any overwritten value was used in calculating the axial
compression capacity for flexural buckling per CSA 13.3.1
based on Euler buckling stress for major and minor axes
bending (Fex and Fey). That was correct. The power "n" with
a value of 1.34 was used in calculating axial compression
capacity for the flexural, torsional, or flexural-torsional
buckling per CSA 13.3.2 based on Euler buckling stress Fe
(CSA 13.3.2). In the latter case for certain conditions (for any
doubly symmetric shape) Fe was taken as the minimum of its
LOG - 7
REVISION NO.: 20

Revision
values for two flexural modes (Fex and Fey) and one flexural-
torsional buckling mode (Fez) (CSA 13.3.2(a)). The Cr
calculated based on section CSA 13.3.2(a) with an n=1.34 was
always smaller than that calculated based on CSA 13.3.1 when
the calculated “n” was equal to 2.24 or overwritten as greater
than 1.34. The current version of the program does not take Fe
as the minimum of Fex, Fey, and Fez for the flexural-torsional
buckling mode anymore. Rather it considers this mode as
strictly flexural-torsional mode and takes Fe=Fez. This
implementation makes sure that flexural mode uses the
calculated “n” or its overwritten value whereas the flexural-
torsional buckling mode uses n=1.34. The implementation for
CSA S16-14 had similar problem regarding Fe as the
minimum of Fex, Fey, and Fez which is fixed. The CSA S16-
14 code however always used the value of “n” as either the
calculated value or the overwritten value irrespective of the
mode. Now both the codes use the same value of “n” and
similar value of Fe for flexural-torsional buckling mode. Both
codes have been enhanced to now report n, KL/r, Lambda, Cr,
and other values for all modes.
18 December 7, Initial release for SAP2000 and CSiBridge v20.0.0.
2017
Added examples for steel frame design according to AISC
360-16 under Incident 200697.
Updated analysis example 1-030 results which are now more

accurate as a result of Incident 101059 as described in the
Release Notes: An enhancement has been implemented to
more efficiently determine the location of lane influence
loading points for multiple-span bridges. By way of
background, the longitudinal discretization of lane influence
loading points is specified by three parameters in the definition
of the lane: maximum distance, fraction of the span length, and
fraction of the lane length. The smallest of these three
distances governs. Previously, the fraction of the span length
was determined based on the shortest span in the bridge object
and applied to the entire lane. This could lead to an excessive
LOG - 8
REVISION NO.: 20

Revision
number of loading points in longer spans. Now the fraction of
the span length is applied separately to each span. All
influence loading points that fall within the longitudinal range
of a span will be governed by that span; that range is measured
between the farthest points of the two ends of the span,
accounting for skew. If a potential lane loading point falls
within the range of two or more spans due to skew, the
smallest discretization size will be used. Results for moving-
load cases could change for models created in previous
versions and run in the new version due to the change in
discretization. This effect will generally be small. Results for
published Verification Example 1-030 that is installed with the
software have changed slightly from the previous version, and
now provide an even closer match to the theoretical values.
The Verification manual and automated Excel spreadsheet
have been updated to reflect the new results.
19 April 30, 2018 Initial release for SAP2000 and CSiBridge v20.1.0.
Added examples for steel frame design according to NTC

2018 under Incident 212396.
20 September 17, Initial release for SAP2000 and CSiBridge v20.2.0.
2018
Updated analysis examples 1-009, 2-020, and 5-009 results for
Incident 95387 where a change was made to treat tendons as
axial-only members.
LOG - 9

SAP2000 Software Verification Log

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SAP2000 Software Verification Log

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000