CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

Seismic analysis of a frame structure

CADRE Pro is designed as a general engineering tool for use in the analysis of all types of structures and equipment. In this regard, one can investigate shock responses with CADRE Pro using several different methods as might be required by different codes. This paper presents the seismic analysis of a frame structure commonly used for benchmark seismic analysis. It is solved in a variety of different ways and compares the methods, one to another, as well as with some available benchmark results for this model from independent analysis.

The model
The model is one that has been frequently used for structural software validation.

Figure 1 Benchmark model

The model is a simple 2D, 3 column, 7 story, frame structure made of standard beams elements with rigid connections to each other and to the ground. The structure stands 1104 inches high and is 720 inches wide at the base. The structure is described as a rigid diaphragm structure so the horizontal beams are made artificially rigid in axial compression in an attempt to approximate that condition with CADRE Pro. 1

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

The model is set up with 490 lb-sec2/inch of mass on the 7 nodes of the central column at each story (nodes 5 through 23 in the diagram). Only the horizontal inertial degree of freedom is represented in order to match the type of analysis performed by other independent results.

Building the model

You can request a copy of the model from CADRE Analytic or you can develop it yourself as follows. The model can be quickly constructed using the Quick modeler templates in CADRE Pro. From the initial startup screen, use Utilities/Quick modeler. Choose the Wire mesh template; XY plane; No diagonals. Enter (-360, 0, 0); (360,1104, 0) for the two corner points Enter 2 for the horizontal sections and 7 for vertical sections. Press OK to make the initial starter model. Go the Element Editor mode , Select the bottom two horizontal beams, right click and from the pop-up menu use Delete to remove them from the model. The model creates evenly spaced stories but they are not evenly spaced in the actual model so adjust the level of each story. The first story is 162 inches above the ground. In the Nodal Editor mode , select the 3 nodes on the first story just above the ground. Right click and from the pop-up menu choose Set Y. Enter 162 to set the elevation for that story. Repeat this for the other stories; 324, 480, 636, 792, and 948. The top level should already correct at 1104 inches. While still in the nodal editor, select the 3 ground nodes and use the Bound button to set the restraints. Set them to fixed using the Fix button.

Assigning element properties

Unfortunately the beam sections described for the structure are older types that are no longer published in the AISC steel manuals. These properties must be entered into the element library manually or approximated and adjusted. The best way to enter these properties is to go ahead and use the USA Steel database W sections in CADRE Pro and import those as close as possible to the required ones (the green ones below are the ones we used), then change the names accordingly and re-set the Area and Iz values exactly as required leaving the other entries unchanged. In the following table, the green region shows those that were 2

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

imported from the data base, while the yellow is how they were modified to match exactly the benchmark model description.
Table 1 Element section stiffness properties
Key
Description Steel AISC W14 x 176 Steel AISC W14 x 211 Steel AISC W14 x 233 Steel AISC W14 x 283 Steel AISC W24 x 104 Steel AISC W24 x 131 Steel AISC W24 x 162 Emod 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 2.95E+07 Gmod 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 1.12E+07 WLoad 14.68271 17.5739 19.41632 23.61139 8.673571 10.91283 13.52057 14.68271 17.5739 19.41632 23.61139 8.673571 10.91283 13.52057 Area 51.8 62 68.5 83.3 30.6 38.5 47.7 51.7 62.1 72.3 84.4 *32000.5 *38000.3 *47000.1 Iy 838 1026 1152 1444 260 340 442 838 1026 1152 1444 260 340 442 Iz 2140 2660 3010 3840 3100 4020 5170 2150 2670 3230 3910 3330 4020 5120 J 26.4 44.4 59.2 103.6 4.7 9.48 18.44 26.4 44.4 59.2 103.6 4.7 9.48 18.44

A B C D E F G

Steel AISC W14 x 176 Steel AISC W14 x 211 Steel AISC W14 x 246 Steel AISC W14 x 287 Steel AISC W24 x 110 Steel AISC W24 x 130 Steel AISC W24 x 160

*the area is increased by 1000 times on cross members to approximate

for the benchmark model.

the rigid diaphragm condition described

The stress properties employed for each element are shown next.
Table 2 Element section stress properties
Key
Description Steel AISC W14 x 176 Steel AISC W14 x 211 Steel AISC W14 x 233 Steel AISC W14 x 283 Steel AISC W24 x 104 Steel AISC W24 x 131 Steel AISC W24 x 162 Sy 107.09 129.87 145 179.27 40.78 52.9 68.24 107.09 129.87 145 179.27 40.78 52.9 68.24 Sz 281.21 338.42 375.31 458.78 257.69 328.43 413.6 281.21 338.42 375.31 458.78 257.69 328.43 413.6 St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ayf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Azf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Envelope Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect

A B C D E F G

Steel AISC W14 x 176 Steel AISC W14 x 211 Steel AISC W14 x 246 Steel AISC W14 x 287 Steel AISC W24 x 110 Steel AISC W24 x 130 Steel AISC W24 x 160

The important parameters are the Area and the Iz inertia, the other properties wont figure much into the analysis since the degrees of freedom will be limited to 2D lateral only. Only the modified data from the yellow entries will be assigned to the model. After completing the Library, Go the Element Editor mode , select elements according to the keys shown in the table and the model sketch and assign the properties accordingly. 3

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

The Quick modeler template would have already set up reasonable orientation nodes for all the elements so the model should now be adequate. Although not essential for such a small model, use the Bandwidth manager and the search button to make it as efficient as possible.

Verify the model

First, check the model by going to Tools/Check model/Check for anomalies. No problems should be flagged. Make a further check by placing an arbitrary load (say 10000 pounds) on the upper left hand node of the structure. Solve, and check the displacement of that node, it should be about 0.292 inches.

Setting up the node and element nomenclature

The nodes, coincidently, already match the numbering system in the sketch so do not need to be renamed. However, it will be useful for examining output to assign user names to the elements according to the diagram. Under Options/Settings under the General tab, check the item Enable element user names. Before exiting the settings dialog, use Save settings to ensure it stays set for subsequent sessions. Element names only show for an element when it has individually been turned on. First, use Select/Elements/All. Then, use View/Elements/Show names. The system names should now show beside each element. But you want to assign you own names according to the sketch. Go to the element editor, now, one-by-one in order, select the column elements from bottom to top on each column (left to right). Then the horizontal story elements, from bottom to top on each story (first left side, then right side). Now that all the elements in the model are selected, and in the order described, right click and use Rename elements. Check the Renumber item and leave the start number and increments to 1 and 1. Check the Pad left item and use 0 in the adjacent text box (Note: this can be important when later sorting data for examination). Check the Add prefix item and place E in the text box provided. The element should now the labeled as shown in the model sketch.

Completing the dynamic model

Go to Edit/Model type and change the type to Dynamic if not already set up that way.

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

In the Nodal Editor mode , select the 7 mass nodes above the ground on the central column. Use the Mass button. Enter 490 in the field for Mass. Leave other fields at zero. The benchmark model, as it is typically solved for validation, only uses the X degree of freedom, so check only the X degree of freedom. You can use Edit/Title to give an appropriate title to the model.

Solve for vibration modes

Use Solve and choose to solve for all 7 available modes. You can toggle through each mode and animate them to see if all seem reasonable. You can use Results/Modal data to show a table similar to the one below. This shows the frequency, period, generalized mass, generalized stiffness and the percent of effective mass in all directions (here only the X direction is shown).
Table 3 Benchmark model modal data Frequency 0.785 2.319 4.131 6.243 8.404 10.519 12.575 TOTAL Period 1.2732 0.4313 0.2420 0.1602 0.1190 0.0951 0.0795 Gen Mass 1596 1790 1814 2331 1743 1691 1653 Gen Stiff 38857 379939 1222266 3586242 4859012 7388139 10316878 %Eff Mass X 79.963 11.336 4.181 2.115 1.415 0.680 0.311 100

For comparisons, the natural frequencies are identical to those calculated by an independent analyses for software verification. Also, their percent effective mass was shown as 80.0, 11.3,4.2,2.1, 1.4, 0.7, 0.3 which would compare exactly after rounding.

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

Creating the seismic shock spectrum

The shock spectrum is the 1940 El Centro Earthquake for which the following acceleration (gs) vs period data are available.
Table 4 El Centro 1940 shock data T 0.07690 0.07950 0.08000 0.08330 0.08700 0.09090 0.09510 0.09520 0.10000 0.10530 0.11110 A 0.50531 0.51960 0.52005 0.51809 0.49337 0.47760 0.52783 0.53063 0.58161 0.56441 0.52366 T 0.11760 0.11900 0.12500 0.13330 0.14290 0.15380 0.16020 0.16670 0.18180 0.20000 0.22220 a 0.57244 0.58821 0.62781 0.66541 0.63653 0.90580 0.80461 0.78722 0.94391 1.00562 0.74614 T 0.24200 0.25000 0.28570 0.33330 0.40000 0.43130 0.50000 0.66670 1.00000 1.27300 2.00000 A 0.70475 0.79805 0.71826 0.88062 0.88300 0.92117 1.04662 0.64175 0.48225 0.25862 0.16019

This spectrum is included in the sample spectrums archive provided with recent updates of CADRE Pro. But you can easily create it yourself. This response spectrum can be created by using the CADRE Pro shock spectrum editor (Utilities/Spectrum editor) or perhaps more conveniently by simply building up a simple text file of the data according to the CADRE Pro spectrum format described in Help. If you use this later technique the text file would start with the header [SPECTRUM] then the title El Centro 1940, then the plot code 01 which identifies this as a period vs. acceleration type of plot. Then the data follow in sequence of period, acceleration, period, acceleration etc. with each number on a separate line. [SPECTRUM] El Centro 01 0.0769 0.505311 0.0795 0.519598 0.08 0.520045 0.0833 0.518093 END The last line must end with END. When finished you can save the file as a text file but make sure to use the extension *.rsp.

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

The spectrum plot should look like this.

Figure 2 El Centro 1940 shock spectrum

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

Shock analysis methods

Shock analyses are performed after a dynamic model is solved for modes and frequencies so that results are available. In all cases, the solution is in terms of a load case (or cases), a displacement case (or cases), or an element based result set. These are then employed later in a static version of the model to review or to solve for the various parameters of interest.

Figure 3 The shock dialog

There are several ways to combine modes for a shock analysis. Each produce different results. The first question is at what level in the tier of calculations should the resulting parameter for each mode be combined? Would it be at the node level for inertia force or displacement, or at the internal force level, or at the final combined internal stress level? All of these will give different results for the final answer for the very same parameter. And, for each of these choices there are two standard mathematical methods calculating the combination, the simple square root of sum of squares (SRSS) and the complete quadratic combination (CQC) methods. For most structures the result is about the same for CQC and SRSS and identical when damping is zero. One should typically use the CQC method if modes are closely spaced. These methods are fairly straightforward so the main issue is the level in the tier of calculation at which the resulting parameters are combined.

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

The general approaches

Method 1: Develop a combined (CQC or SRSS as described below) shock inertial load set on the mass nodes of the model using the shock load spectrum. Then apply this load set to the static version of the model and solve. The advantage is that the load set is easily combined with other sets. This is usually the most conservative approach, significantly overestimating ground shear and element structural values near the ground but being most accurate farther from the ground. This method provides the precise values for nodal inertia acceleration at any mass point on the structure. Method 2: Develop a combined (CQC or SRSS as described below) displacement set for the mass nodes using the shock load spectrum. Then apply this displacement set to the model and solve. Alternatively, you can convert this displacement set to an equivalent load set (use Utilities/Constructs/Reactions to loads) which will yield the identical result when applied to the static model. Once converted, this load set has the same advantage of being able to combine easily with other load sets. This is the least conservative approach, being accurate for any element connected directly to the ground but underestimating the internal structural values on elements farther from the ground. This method provides precise values for nodal displacement at any point on the structure. Method 3: Perform the combination of modes directly on the final value of interest. That is, the final load, moment, or stress (or combined stress value) within a particular element. To accomplish this, one must develop the properly signed force or stress state within an element from each mode separately, then combine the results (CQC or SRSS methods) for each entity of interest. Method 3 is somewhat inconvenient in that there is no consistent external load or displacement set that can be derived which would match the internal states in the elements. In fact, the internal stress and load values within a single finite element are not consistent with each other. Further, any combinations with other external load conditions (dead, wind, snow, etc) must be accomplished at the final element internal result level rather than at the external load level. This method is element based rather than nodal based so provides little information as to nodal inertia loading or nodal displacements or, and essentially no usable information for overall pushover load. Nevertheless method 3 is implied by some design codes and it should provide the best estimate of internal stress and load within the element. Methods 1, 2, and 3 correspond to the options on the dialog (Load set, Displacement set, or Result set) respectively and are all conducted using the Make button on the shock dialog shown above. Beforehand, you can preview the results for all three methods using the preview button just above the Make button.

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

The load set and displacement sets can be loaded (Set loads or Set bounds) onto a static version of the model which can then be solved, if desired, for internal loads and stresses or just examined at the nodal level for inertia load and displacement respectively. The Result set is a table of element results combined at the element internal parameter level and it can be viewed from a static version of the model using File/Results/Review/Shock set. To focus on a particular element on the model in the shock result set list, first select the element or elements, then when the table is presented, use the button Show selected only to display only those elements.

Comparison points with independent analysis

Unfortunately the only values available for comparison with independent analysis are SRSS values for a few discrete points and elements. The following values are given by independent analyses. displacement at node 22 = 5.438 inch axial force in element E01 (at the ground) = 261.8 Kip moment in element E01 (at the ground) = 9868 Kip inch

In reality, this is not very good validation for the load values since many crude and inadequate methods would yield the proper load values for an element connected directly to ground while significantly underestimating other elements above that level, but it is all we have to compare with and seems to be the element of choice for comparison by other FEA software producers.

10

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

Shock analysis results from CADRE Pro

The nodal displacements provided by CADRE Pro are shown under methods 1 and 2 for both SRSS and CQC combinations in the following table.
Table 5 Nodal displacements NODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Method 1 SRSS CQC X 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.27635 1.27722 1.27635 1.27723 1.27635 1.27722 3.12726 3.12139 3.12727 3.12139 3.12726 3.12139 4.79667 4.77815 4.79668 4.77815 4.79667 4.77815 6.34142 6.30661 6.34143 6.30662 6.34142 6.30661 7.61084 7.56029 7.61085 7.5603 7.61084 7.56029 8.64737 8.58359 8.64738 8.5836 8.64737 8.58359 9.28397 9.21244 9.28398 9.21245 9.28397 9.21244 Method 2 SRSS CQC X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.69844 0.701637 0.69845 0.701641 0.69844 0.701637 1.72087 1.7263 1.72087 1.72631 1.72087 1.7263 2.65489 2.66013 2.6549 2.66014 2.65489 2.66013 3.54814 3.55164 3.54814 3.55165 3.54814 3.55164 4.32705 4.32791 4.32706 4.32791 4.32705 4.32791 5.00342 5.00092 5.00343 5.00092 5.00342 5.00092 5.43235 5.42698 5.43236 5.42699 5.43235 5.42698

Method 1 of course overestimates the displacements. Method 2 should always be used to provide accurate shock displacements.

11

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

The axial force, lateral shear force, and bending moments for each element are shown in the following table for method 1. Note that the forces in element E01 (at the ground) are on the order of 80% greater than given by the independent analysis. Elements farther from the ground would be more precise.
Table 6 Method 1 from a single combined load set Element E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07 E08 E09 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 E23 E24 E25 E26 E27 E28 E29 E30 E31 E32 E33 E34 E35 Node* 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 Fx(axial) -450743 -348300 -243662 -162070 -95401 -47765 -15436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450743 348300 243662 162070 95401 47765 15436 -28153 -22639 -21702 -23533 -16508 -22317 -27493 28153 22639 21702 23533 16508 22317 27493 SRSS Fy(shear) -162345 -134192 -111553 -89851 -66318 -49810 -27493 243192 247883 212102 165122 127933 90622 55990 162345 134192 111553 89851 66318 49810 27493 102443 104637 81592 66669 47636 32329 15436 102443 104637 81592 66669 47636 32329 15436 Mz(bend) -18034779 -10917063 -8629513 -6322075 -4688703 -3154527 -1370645 24351779 20349114 16627830 12096416 9572665 6290188 3457127 18034779 10917063 8629513 6322075 4688703 3154527 1370645 19182165 19451602 15094885 12383386 8811478 5986450 2918205 17697227 18217850 14278231 11617615 8337557 5651988 2638672 Fx(axial) -447296 -344981 -240931 -160081 -94191 -47166 -15248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 447296 344981 240931 160081 94191 47166 15248 -29158 -23004 -21823 -23389 -16278 -21984 -27169 29158 23004 21823 23389 16278 21984 27169 CQC Fy(shear) -162804 -133646 -110642 -88820 -65431 -49152 -27169 243728 246961 210409 163274 126265 89433 55318 162804 133646 110642 88820 65431 49152 27169 102315 104049 80850 65890 47025 31919 15248 102315 104049 80850 65890 47025 31919 15248 Mz(bend) -18065900 -10850600 -8541790 -6239090 -4621820 -3112900 -1355620 24388500 20253500 16477400 11950700 9443830 6207630 3416570 18065900 10850600 8541790 6239090 4621820 3112900 1355620 19158900 19341900 14957500 12238600 8698260 5910470 2882680 17674500 18115800 14148500 11482000 8230550 5580250 2606500

*Only the origin node end of elements is shown here (left or lower end in the model).

12

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

The axial force, lateral shear force, and bending moments for each element are shown in the following table for method 2. Note that the forces in element E01 (at the ground) are essentially the same as the independent result. However, load on elements farther from the ground would be significantly underestimated. This method could be used to provide accurate ground shear information and accurate nodal displacements.
Table 7 Method 2 from a single combined displacement set Element E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07 E08 E09 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 E23 E24 E25 E26 E27 E28 E29 E30 E31 E32 E33 E34 E35 Node* 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 Fx(axial) -262483 -206216 -148175 -101985 -62375 -32184 -10553 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 262483 206216 148175 101985 62375 32184 10553 -14313 -12262 -10168 -10585 -7554 -14448 -19092 14313 12262 10168 10585 7554 14448 19092 SRSS Fy(shear) -88421 -74108 -61846 -51678 -41094 -33540 -19092 132627 136800 117947 95164 78963 60460 38576 88421 74108 61846 51678 41094 33540 19092 56266 58042 46190 39609 30191 21631 10553 56266 58042 46190 39609 30191 21631 10553 Mz(bend) -9846435 -6057379 -4841453 -3738095 -3033258 -2208465 -982700 13301341 11257374 9306581 7074332 6033468 4281107 2410996 9846435 6057379 4841453 3738095 3033258 2208465 982700 10535076 10789549 8544669 7356984 5585839 4006485 1995603 9720795 10105407 8083766 6902333 5282936 3780836 1803451 Fx(axial) -262250 -205784 -147684 -101544 -62041.4 -31976.5 -10475.1 6.33E-11 4.33E-11 3.81E-11 4.15E-11 3.26E-11 5.98E-11 3.18E-11 262250 205784 147684 101544 62041.4 31976.5 10475.1 -14662.7 -12457.8 -10246.8 -10612 -7589.43 -14428 -18931.4 14662.7 12457.8 10246.8 10612 7589.43 14428 18931.4 CQC Fy(shear) -88928.1 -74265.4 -61807.6 -51560.8 -40948.8 -33359.4 -18931.4 133344 137109 117892 94956.6 78687.8 60140.4 38273.9 88928.1 74265.4 61807.6 51560.8 40948.8 33359.4 18931.4 56465.3 58100.3 46140.2 39502.6 30064.8 21501.5 10475.1 56465.3 58100.3 46140.2 39502.6 30064.8 21501.5 10475.1 Mz(bend) -9897030 -6063210 -4832590 -3726010 -3019690 -2194140 -972474 13368100 11276300 9296250 7055270 6009550 4255980 2390350 9897030 6063210 4832590 3726010 3019690 2194140 972474 10572500 10800400 8535400 7337170 5562470 3982400 1980830 9754980 10115700 8075080 6883760 5260860 3758140 1790190

*Only the origin node end of elements is shown here (left or lower end in the model).

The axial force, lateral shear force, and bending moments for each element are shown in the following table for method 3. Note that the forces in element E01 (at the ground) are essentially the same as the independent result. All other elements 13

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

loads would likely compare well too. Statements of overestimation or underestimation made for methods 1 and 2 are relative to these results from method 3 which should provide the most precise values of internal load for all element in this model.
Table 8 Method 3 modes combined at the force level Element E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07 E08 E09 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 E23 E24 E25 E26 E27 E28 E29 E30 E31 E32 E33 E34 E35 Node* 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 Fx(axial) 261504 214390 165312 122905 80577 43687 14777 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261504 214390 165312 122905 80577 43687 14777 18976 21815 23632 22909 18397 22598 27960 18976 21815 23632 22909 18397 22598 27960 SRSS Fy(shear) 88683 74994 64959 58567 52693 46239 27960 132944 138007 122874 106472 98683 81901 55108 88683 74994 64959 58567 52693 46239 27960 56370 58728 48520 45171 37843 29046 14777 56370 58728 48520 45171 37843 29046 14777 Mz(bend) 9856444 6147570 5229786 4522799 4215741 3257041 1611774 13315375 11363495 9813649 8168530 7819019 5992760 3568990 9856444 6147570 5229786 4522799 4215741 3257041 1611774 10554637 10919074 8978529 8393721 7006331 5381796 2796463 9738707 10222996 8488804 7867712 6617072 5074767 2523144 Fx(axial) 261300 214100 164900 122500 80160 43370 14630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261300 214100 164900 122500 80160 43370 14630 19920 22230 23730 22770 18100 22260 27600 19920 22230 23730 22770 18100 22260 27600 CQC Fy(shear) 89220 75220 65020 58520 52530 45950 27600 133700 138400 123000 106400 98410 81430 54500 89220 75220 65020 58520 52530 45950 27600 56570 58820 48520 45100 37710 28860 14630 56570 58820 48520 45100 37710 28860 14630 Mz(bend) 9908000 6162000 5232000 4517000 4199000 3231000 1580000 13380000 11390000 9818000 8160000 7793000 5953000 3522000 9908000 6162000 5232000 4517000 4199000 3231000 1580000 10590000 10940000 8978000 8381000 6981000 5347000 2769000 9773000 10240000 8488000 7856000 6594000 5043000 2499000

*Only the origin node end of elements is shown here (left or lower end in the model).

14

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

Comparison of internal stresses for all methods

The section normal stress (primarily due to bending) and von Mises stresses are shown in the following table for each element of the model. These are the maximum within each element using the CQC method with damping coefficient of 0.05. One should ignore signs for comparison. Method 3 should be considered the accurate values for internal element stress.
Table 9 Normal and von Mises stress Element E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07 E08 E09 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 E23 E24 E25 E26 E27 E28 E29 E30 E31 E32 E33 E34 E35 (1)Load set Sn1 Von Mises 54323 33683 26562 25085 18021 17110 10546 53159 44147 35916 36024 27320 22883 15404 -54323 -33683 -26562 -25085 -18021 -17110 -10546 46323 46765 45543 37265 33755 22937 11188 -46323 -46765 -45543 -37265 -33755 -22937 -11188 54463 33834 26694 25207 18113 17189 10585 53394 44437 36174 36236 27487 23018 15481 54463 33834 26694 25207 18113 17189 10585 46323 46765 45543 37265 33755 22937 11188 46323 46765 45543 37265 33755 22937 11188 (2)Disp. set Sn1 Von Mises 29998 19002 14919 14393 10952 11322 7247 29139 24579 20263 20671 16695 15147 10580 -29998 -19002 -14919 -14393 -10952 -11322 -7247 25563 26113 25989 22340 21586 15455 7687 -25563 -26113 -25989 -22340 -21586 -15455 -7687 30073 19085 14992 14465 11012 11377 7274 29267 24740 20407 20796 16801 15239 10633 30073 19085 14992 14465 11012 11377 7274 25563 26113 25989 22340 21586 15455 7687 25563 26113 25989 22340 21586 15455 7687 (3)Result set Sn1 Von Mises 29813 20132 16884 16737 15189 15429 10470 29172 25376 21950 23430 21991 20447 15152 29813 20132 16884 16737 15189 15429 10470 25611 26454 27355 25647 27295 21040 10992 25611 26454 27355 25647 27295 21040 10992 29889 20213 16956 16817 15261 15508 10514 29301 25534 22095 23569 22119 20576 15232 29889 20213 16956 16817 15261 15508 10514 25611 26454 27355 25647 27295 21040 10992 25611 26454 27355 25647 27295 21040 10992

The table compares methods 1 and 2 element normal section stress values against method 3. Note that method 1 overestimates relative to method 3 and significantly 15

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

so on the lower elements near the ground. Method 2 is accurate at the ground, but significantly underestimates the stress farther from the ground.
Table 10 Comparisons of method 1 and 2 with method 3 Element E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07 E08 E09 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 E23 E24 E25 E26 E27 E28 E29 E30 E31 E32 E33 E34 E35 Sn1 % 82.2 67.3 57.3 49.9 18.6 10.9 0.7 82.2 74.0 63.6 53.8 24.2 11.9 1.7 82.2 67.3 57.3 49.9 18.6 10.9 0.7 80.9 76.8 66.5 45.3 23.7 9.0 1.8 80.9 76.8 66.5 45.3 23.7 9.0 1.8 Load set Von Mises % 82.2 67.4 57.4 49.9 18.7 10.8 0.7 82.2 74.0 63.7 53.7 24.3 11.9 1.6 82.2 67.4 57.4 49.9 18.7 10.8 0.7 80.9 76.8 66.5 45.3 23.7 9.0 1.8 80.9 76.8 66.5 45.3 23.7 9.0 1.8 Displacement set Sn1 Von Mises % % 0.6 0.6 -5.6 -5.6 -11.6 -11.6 -14.0 -14.0 -27.9 -27.8 -26.6 -26.6 -30.8 -30.8 -0.1 -0.1 -3.1 -3.1 -7.7 -7.6 -11.8 -11.8 -24.1 -24.0 -25.9 -25.9 -30.2 -30.2 0.6 0.6 -5.6 -5.6 -11.6 -11.6 -14.0 -14.0 -27.9 -27.8 -26.6 -26.6 -30.8 -30.8 -0.2 -0.2 -1.3 -1.3 -5.0 -5.0 -12.9 -12.9 -20.9 -20.9 -26.5 -26.5 -30.1 -30.1 -0.2 -0.2 -1.3 -1.3 -5.0 -5.0 -12.9 -12.9 -20.9 -20.9 -26.5 -26.5 -30.1 -30.1

Conclusions
This analysis shows that CADRE Pro can provide essentially the same results as shown by independent analysis. Assuming that method 3 is the more accurate for internal stresses. One can conclude that method 1 generally provides conservative values of stress, perhaps 16

CADRE Analytic

CADRE Pro white paper #002

excessively so at the lower regions near the reactions, but very precise values farther from the reactions. On the other hand, method 2 provides precise stress values near the reactions but increasingly underestimates the stress with distance from the reactions. It should be emphasized that these differences in results for different methods is due entirely to the modal combination schemes. If only one vibration mode is considered, the results from all three methods are identical. All of the provided shock solution methods in CADRE Pro are precise for the parameter level at which the modal combination is performed. That is, method 1 will provide precise information as to the combined inertia force on a mass node at any point in the structure. Method 2 will provide the precise displacement of any node in the structure. And Method 3 will provide the precise value of load or stress in any element in the structure. Codes are usually considered minimum requirements. So, one might use the more conservative approach of method 1 which is convenient for combined external load cases. This should usually provide conservative results. When and if, a seismic case provided a significant or governing effect, then, perform the analysis by method 3 as well just to compare the significant seismic values and perhaps adjust accordingly. This can be a practical approach since Method 3 is fairly simple to perform, just a little more tedious to include in the final combinations with other modes. If one wishes to be most accurate, the following procedure cab be used . 1) For the seismic conditions (e.g. D + 0.75S + 0.525E) first analyze the case without the seismic component (i.e. with only D + 0.75S) down to and including the stress ratio (i.e. applied/allowed) for each element. 2) Then solve the seismic stress component alone (0.525E) using the method 3 option and determine the stress ratio for this case. 3) Then simply add the two stress ratios and compare against 1.0.

Reference:
A more compete description of the benchmark model and comparison with other software can be found at: http://www.kxcad.net/computers_structures_inc/Manuals/Problem%201-022.pdf

17