You are on page 1of 14

# Software Verification

## PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 2

EXAMPLE 5-002
SOLID – STRAIGHT BEAM WITH STATIC LOADS

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In this example, a straight cantilever beam, modeled with solid objects, is
subjected to unit forces at the tip in the three orthogonal directions and unit
moments at the tip about the three orthogonal directions, each in a different load
case. The tip displacements in the direction of the load are compared with hand-
calculated results.

The basic geometry, properties and loading are as described in MacNeal and
Harder 1985. The cantilever beam is 6 inches long, 0.2 inch wide parallel to the
Z direction and 0.1 inch wide parallel to the Y direction. Three different models
are created, each with a different element shape. Models A, B and C use
rectangular-, trapezoidal- and parallelogram-shaped elements, respectively.

It is important to note that this example is an extreme case presented for testing
and verification of the solid object. Solid objects are not in general intended for
use in modeling a beam with an nx1x1 mesh.

Six load cases are created for each model. Load cases 1 through 3 apply unit
forces at the cantilever tip in the X, Y and Z directions, respectively. Load cases
4 through 6 apply unit moments at the cantilever tip about the X, Y and Z
directions, respectively. The moments are applied as couples.

The independent solution is derived using elementary beam theory that assumes
no local Poisson’s effect occurs at the support. The beam is modeled in SAP2000
with all joints fully restrained at the fixed end and with all joints at the free end
assigned to a body constraint. Thus, the SAP2000 model is slightly different
from the hand calculations because in the SAP2000 model there is a slight local
Poisson’s effect at the beam ends.

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

GEOMETRY
1 - Joint number
Model A – Rectangular Shaped Elements
1 - Solid object number

0.2"
8, 22 9, 23 10, 24 11, 25 12, 26 13, 27 14, 28
Z 1 2 3 4 5 6
Y 1, 15 2, 16 3, 17 4, 18 5, 19 6, 20 7, 21
6 @ 1" = 6"
X
1,15 - Joint numbers
Model B – Trapezoidal Shaped Elements 1 - Area object number
0.9" 1.2" 0.8" 1.2" 0.8" 1.1"

0.2"
8, 22 9, 23 10, 24 11, 25 12, 26 13, 27 14, 28
1 2 3 4 5 6
1, 15 2, 16 3, 17 4, 18 5, 19 6, 20 7, 21
1.1" 0.8" 1.2" 0.8" 1.2" 0.9"
6"

## Model C – Parallelogram Shaped Elements

1.1" 1" 1" 1" 1" 0.9"

0.2"
8, 22 9, 23 10, 24 11, 25 12, 26 13, 27 14, 28
1 2 3 4 5 6
1, 15 2, 16 3, 17 4, 18 5, 19 6, 20 7, 21
0.9" 1" 1" 1" 1" 1.1"
6"

PROPERTIES
E = 10,000,000 lb/in2
ν = 0.3
G = 3,846,154 lb/in2

## Solid object thickness (in Y direction) = 0.1 in

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 2
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

Px
1 Axial Fx = +0.25 lb at joints 7, 14, 21 and 28
Extension

Vz and My
2 Shear and Fz = +0.25 lb at joints 7, 14, 21 and 28
bending

Vy and Mz
3 Shear and Fy = +0.25 lb at joints 7, 14, 21 and 28
bending

## Mx Fy = -2.5 lb at joints 7 and 21, and

4
Twist Fy = +2.5 lb at joints 14 and 28

## My Fx = -2.5 lb at joints 7 and 21, and

5
Moment Fx = +2.5 lb at joints 14 and 28

## Mz Fy = +5 lb at joints 7 and 14, and

6
Moment Fy = -5 lb at joints 21 and 28

## TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

 Solid object bending with and without the incompatible modes option
 Effect of solid object aspect ratio
 Effect of geometrical distortion of solid object from a cube

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

RESULTS COMPARISON
The SAP2000 results are presented separately for models with and without the
incompatible bending modes option. The independent results are hand calculated
using the unit load method described on page 244 in Cook and Young 1985. In
addition, the torsional stiffness of the section, J, is calculated using item 4 in
Table 20 on page 290 in Roark and Young 1975. Independent results are also
published in MacNeal and Harder 1985.

## With Incompatible Bending Modes

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent
and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

## 6x1x1 2.926E-05 -2%

A
30 x 1 x 1 2.985E-05 -1%
Rectangle
30 x 4 x 8 2.984E-05 -1%
Ux
Case 1 6x1x1 2.966E-05 -1%
Average of
Px B
30 x 1 x 1 joints 7, 14, 2.985E-05 3.000E-05 -1%
Axial Trapezoid
21 and 28
Extension 30 x 4 x 8 2.985E-05 -1%
in
6x1x1 2.965E-05 -1%
C
30 x 1 x 1 2.985E-05 -1%
Parallelogram
30 x 4 x 8 2.985E-05 -1%
6x1x1 0.1057 -2%
A
30 x 1 x 1 0.1077 0%
Rectangle
30 x 4 x 8 0.1073 -1%
Uz
Case 2 6x1x1 0.0051 -95%
Average of
Vz and My B
30 x 1 x 1 joints 7, 14, 0.1071 0.1081 -1%
Shear and Trapezoid
21 and 28
bending 30 x 4 x 8 0.1069 -1%
in
6x1x1 0.0673 -38%
C
30 x 1 x 1 0.1076 0%
Parallelogram
30 x 4 x 8 0.1072 -1%

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 4
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

## With Incompatible Bending Modes

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent
and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

## 6x1x1 0.4203 -3%

A
30 x 1 x 1 0.4300 0%
Rectangle
30 x 4 x 8 0.4286 -1%
Uy
Case 3 6x1x1 0.0129 -97%
Average of
Vy and Mz B
30 x 1 x 1 joints 7, 14, 0.4060 0.4321 -6%
Shear and Trapezoid
21 and 28
bending 30 x 4 x 8 0.4246 -2%
in
6x1x1 0.2276 -47%
C
30 x 1 x 1 0.4257 -1%
Parallelogram
30 x 4 x 8 0.4280 -1%
6x1x1 0.00280 -18%
A
30 x 1 x 1 0.00289 -15%
Rectangle Uy
30 x 4 x 8 0.00331 -3%
Average of
Case 4 6x1x1 absolute 0.00172 -50%
B values at
Mx 30 x 1 x 1 0.00276 0.00341 -19%
Trapezoid joints 7,
Twist 30 x 4 x 8 14, 21 and 0.00330 -3%
28
6x1x1 0.00255 -25%
C in
30 x 1 x 1 0.00288 -16%
Parallelogram
30 x 4 x 8 0.00331 -3%

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 5
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

## With Incompatible Bending Modes

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent
and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

## 6x1x1 8.906E-04 -1%

A
30 x 1 x 1 8.981E-04 0%
Rectangle Ux
30 x 4 x 8 8.955E-04 0%
Average of
Case 5 6x1x1 absolute 3.240E-05 -96%
B values at
30 x 1 x 1 8.930E-04 9.000E-04 -1%
My Trapezoid joints 7,
Moment 30 x 4 x 8 14, 21 and 8.921E-04 -1%
28
6x1x1 6.369E-04 -29%
C in
30 x 1 x 1 8.976E-04 0%
Parallelogram
30 x 4 x 8 8.952E-04 -1%
6x1x1 0.00177 -2%
A
30 x 1 x 1 0.00179 -1%
Rectangle Ux
30 x 4 x 8 0.00179 -1%
Average of
Case 6 6x1x1 absolute 0.00004 -98%
B values at
Mz 30 x 1 x 1 0.00169 0.00180 -6%
Trapezoid joints 7,
Moment 30 x 4 x 8 14, 21 and 0.00177 -2%
28
6x1x1 0.00112 -38%
C in
30 x 1 x 1 0.00178 -1%
Parallelogram
30 x 4 x 8 0.00179 -1%

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 6
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

## Without Incompatible Bending Modes

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent
and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

## 6x1x1 2.914E-05 -3%

A
30 x 1 x 1 2.982E-05 -1%
Rectangle
240 x 4 x 8 2.995E-05 0%
Ux
Case 1 6x1x1 2.915E-05 -3%
Average of
Px B
30 x 1 x 1 joints 7, 14, 2.982E-05 3.000E-05 -1%
Axial Trapezoid
21 and 28
Extension 240 x 4 x 8 2.995E-05 0%
in
6x1x1 2.915E-05 -3%
C
30 x 1 x 1 2.982E-05 -1%
Parallelogram
240 x 4 x 8 2.995E-05 0%
6x1x1 0.0100 -91%
A
30 x 1 x 1 0.0718 -34%
Rectangle
240 x 4 x 8 0.1070 -1%
Uz
Case 2 6x1x1 0.0028 -97%
Average of
Vz and My B
30 x 1 x 1 joints 7, 14, 0.0452 0.1081 -58%
Shear and Trapezoid
21 and 28
bending 240 x 4 x 8 0.1047 -3%
in
6x1x1 0.0034 -97%
C
30 x 1 x 1 0.0296 -73%
Parallelogram
240 x 4 x 8 0.1016 -6%

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 7
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

## Without Incompatible Bending Modes

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent
and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

## 6x1x1 0.0109 -97%

A
30 x 1 x 1 0.1558 -64%
Rectangle
240 x 4 x 8 0.4168 -4%
Uy
Case 3 6x1x1 0.0045 -99%
Average of
Vy and Mz B
30 x 1 x 1 joints 7, 14, 0.1345 0.4321 -69%
Shear and Trapezoid
21 and 28
bending 240 x 4 x 8 0.4135 -4%
in
6x1x1 0.0062 -99%
C
30 x 1 x 1 0.1169 -73%
Parallelogram
240 x 4 x 8 0.4084 -5%
6x1x1 0.00280 -18%
A
30 x 1 x 1 0.00289 -15%
Rectangle Uy
240 x 4 x 8 0.00331 -3%
Average of
Case 4 6x1x1 absolute 0.00159 -53%
B values at
Mx 30 x 1 x 1 0.00183 0.00341 -46%
Trapezoid joints 7,
Twist 240 x 4 x 8 14, 21 and 0.00322 -6%
28
6x1x1 0.00108 -68%
C in
30 x 1 x 1 0.00320 -6%
Parallelogram
240 x 4 x 8 0.00310 -9%

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 8
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

## Without Incompatible Bending Modes

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent
and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

## 6x1x1 8.370E-05 -91%

A
30 x 1 x 1 5.983E-04 -34%
Rectangle Ux
240 x 4 x 8 8.913E-04 -1%
Average of
Case 5 6x1x1 absolute 1.880E-05 -98%
B values at
30 x 1 x 1 3.711E-04 9.000E-04 -59%
My Trapezoid joints 7,
Moment 240 x 4 x 8 14, 21 and 8.713E-04 -3%
28
6x1x1 2.520E-05 -97%
C in
30 x 1 x 1 2.199E-04 -76%
Parallelogram
240 x 4 x 8 8.417E-04 -6%
6x1x1 0.00005 -97%
A
30 x 1 x 1 0.00065 -64%
Rectangle Ux
240 x 4 x 8 0.00174 -3%
Average of
Case 6 6x1x1 absolute 0.00002 -99%
B values at
Mz 30 x 1 x 1 0.00056 0.00180 -69%
Trapezoid joints 7,
Moment 240 x 4 x 8 14, 21 and 0.00172 -4%
28
6x1x1 0.00002 -99%
C in
30 x 1 x 1 0.00047 -74%
Parallelogram
240 x 4 x 8 0.00170 -6%

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 9
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

## COMPUTER FILES: Example 5-002a1-incomp, Example 5-002a1-comp,

Example 5-002a2- incomp, Example 5-002a2- comp,
Example 5-002a3- incomp, Example 5-002a3- comp,
Example 5-002b1- incomp, Example 5-002b1- comp,
Example 5-002b2- incomp, Example 5-002b2- comp,
Example 5-002b3- incomp, Example 5-002b3- comp,
Example 5-002c1- incomp, Example 5-002c1- comp,
Example 5-002c2- incomp, Example 5-002c2- comp,
Example 5-002c3- incomp, Example 5-002c3- comp

## RESULTS FOR AXIAL EXTENSION

The patch test problem presented in Example 5-001 shows an exact comparison
with the theoretical results. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the axial
extension results in this problem (Example 5-002) should also have an exact
comparison with the theoretical results. The reason that those results do not
compare exactly is that the fixed support has introduced some Poisson’s effect
into the results.

## MODELS WITH INCOMPATIBLE BENDING MODES

The discussion in this section applies to models using the incompatible bending
modes option. In general, the models with trapezoid-shaped and parallelogram-
shaped elements are more sensitive to the element aspect ratio than models with
rectangle-shaped elements.

For all shapes of elements, the bending behavior of the models is improved by
meshing along the length of the beam.

For all shapes of elements, the results for twist are improved by using a 4 x 8
mesh in the cross-sectional plane of the beam.

## MODELS WITHOUT INCOMPATIBLE BENDING MODES

The discussion in this section applies to models not using the incompatible
bending modes option. The models without incompatible bending modes need a
240 x 4 x 8 mesh to obtain acceptable, or in some cases nearly acceptable,
results. This corresponds to a 1:1:1 aspect ratio for the solid elements.

In general the models that do not use the incompatible bending modes option
seem to be more sensitive to element aspect ratio than models that use the
incompatible bending modes option. In addition, the models that do not use the

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 10
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

incompatible bending modes option appear to require a much more refined mesh
to achieve acceptable results.

CONCLUSIONS
The model with a 6x1x1 mesh, rectangle-shaped elements, and the incompatible
bending modes option has acceptable results for all loading types except twist.
All other models with a 6x1x1 mesh have unacceptable results for all loadings
except axial extension. The results for all models are improved by refining the
mesh.

Bending results are improved by meshing along the length of the beam.

Acceptable twisting results are achieved with at least four elements in each
direction of the cross-sectional plane of the beam and with the aspect ratio of the
elements in the cross-sectional plane of the beam approaching 1:1.

## Acceptable behavior for models without incompatible bending modes seems to

be best achieved using models with approximately a 1:1:1 aspect ratio for the
solid elements, that is, meshing the model into approximately equal-sided cubes.
The models without the incompatible bending modes option need considerably
more mesh refinement than models with the incompatible bending modes option
to achieve acceptable results.

## In general, the incompatible bending modes option should always be used

for solid object models.

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 11
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

HAND CALCULATION

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 12
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 13
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 14