0 views

Uploaded by Oscar Sanchez

Problem 5 002

Problem 5 002

© All Rights Reserved

- Over View of Beam Elements
- Construction of a Test Rig and Scaled Aircraft Wing for Validation Final Report
- Timoshenko vs Euler-Bernoulli Beam- Fractional Visco-elastic Behavior
- Bridge Portion
- Effect of contact on the elastic behaviour of bolted connections
- Mechanics Syllabus
- 1-s2.0-S0263823111000991-main_2
- 59768913-50665659-Karthy-Padeye-Design2
- Full Text 01
- Analysis of Composite Beams Widely Spaced Connectors
- Bending of Plates and Shells
- Structural Support Design Guidelines 8-25-16 PDF
- LORENZ - TESE DE DOUTORADO (2014).pdf
- 3.1
- Horizontal Shear
- Experience of Analysis of Bridge Structures
- IFEM.Ch12
- Ton That Hoang Lan 5-1-2013
- 322170263-Mechanics-of-Deformable-Bodies-Solved-Problems.docx
- Me2113 Advanced Strength of Materials

You are on page 1of 14

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"

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

EXAMPLE 5-002 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 2

LOADING

The following table defines the loading applied to each model.

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

4

Twist Fy = +2.5 lb at joints 14 and 28

5

Moment Fx = +2.5 lb at joints 14 and 28

6

Moment Fy = -5 lb at joints 21 and 28

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

Joint force loading

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.

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent

and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

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

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent

and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

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

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent

and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

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

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent

and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

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

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent

and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

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

Load Case Model and Output Independ- Percent

and Type Elm. Shape Mesh Parameter SAP2000 ent Difference

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

- Over View of Beam ElementsUploaded byKaushik Das
- Construction of a Test Rig and Scaled Aircraft Wing for Validation Final ReportUploaded byErnesto D. Aguirre
- Timoshenko vs Euler-Bernoulli Beam- Fractional Visco-elastic BehaviorUploaded bypraveenpinnoji
- Bridge PortionUploaded byNAGARAJ
- Effect of contact on the elastic behaviour of bolted connectionsUploaded byAdrian García Moyano
- 1-s2.0-S0263823111000991-main_2Uploaded byrahul
- 59768913-50665659-Karthy-Padeye-Design2Uploaded byshani5573
- Analysis of Composite Beams Widely Spaced ConnectorsUploaded byJames O'Hara
- Mechanics SyllabusUploaded bydawdda
- Full Text 01Uploaded bymallidataworks
- Bending of Plates and ShellsUploaded byHarish Kuppusamy
- Structural Support Design Guidelines 8-25-16 PDFUploaded bysbalu12674
- LORENZ - TESE DE DOUTORADO (2014).pdfUploaded byThomás Lima
- 3.1Uploaded bySathish P
- Horizontal ShearUploaded byAnay Karambelkar
- Experience of Analysis of Bridge StructuresUploaded byBambang Tutuko Sudiro
- IFEM.Ch12Uploaded byluc
- Ton That Hoang Lan 5-1-2013Uploaded byfouadahmed
- 322170263-Mechanics-of-Deformable-Bodies-Solved-Problems.docxUploaded byIsabelle Luna
- Me2113 Advanced Strength of MaterialsUploaded byDinesh Kumar Rathore
- Ramin Shamshiri FEM Project2Uploaded byRaminShamshiri
- Mathcad - Quick Check Stack Joint SleeveUploaded byRomil Sampayo
- Beam TheoryUploaded bymaheshghate
- Project Stage - I.pptxUploaded byPranav Darakh
- Beams3DUploaded byDorin Popa
- Lecture 2Uploaded byAbhay Rana
- DRILL-STRING NONLINEAR DYNAMICS ACCOUNTING FOR DRILLING FLUIDUploaded bysuresh_501
- Park and Paulay - Cap.7 Shear - Pp 270-319Uploaded byEric Guggino
- 2222Uploaded byBorhan Shaikat
- Photoelasticity in PipesUploaded byCharles Zappa

- Problem 6-012.pdfUploaded byRuben Jqs
- Problem 5 003Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 5 001Uploaded byelsonteixira
- Problem 5 011Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 5 010Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Excercises.pdfUploaded byEddy Fernández Ochoa
- Problem 5 012Uploaded byEddy Fernández Ochoa
- Problem 5 013Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 6 006gdfgdfgdfggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhUploaded byToàn Huỳnh
- Problem 6 007Uploaded byToàn Huỳnh
- Problem 5 009Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 5 008Uploaded byJg Espinosa
- Problem 5 006Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 5 004Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 5 005Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Title Page and ContentsUploaded byandrew_hm925635
- MethodologyUploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 3 005Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 3 004Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 3 003Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 3 002Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 3 001Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 6 011Uploaded byRuben Jqs
- Problem 6 010Uploaded byRuben Jqs
- Problem 6-009.pdfUploaded byRuben Jqs
- Problem 6 008Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Problem 6 003Uploaded byLDP
- Problem 6 005Uploaded byOscar Sanchez
- Sap VerificationUploaded bytomxxx34

- part1Uploaded bynag
- pharmamcqs1Uploaded bybklatha
- 01-17Uploaded byWoods
- The Radio Chemistry of Plutonium.us AECUploaded bylondonbluetopaz
- Chapter 4Uploaded byQawdhan Mahamoud
- E2 Alternator Under LoadUploaded byarjay
- CAST IRON-Chemical CompostionUploaded byvmgobinath
- AbamectinUploaded byMostafa Fawzy
- JMN RFID-WMSUploaded bysiddhumesh1
- Prepreg TechnologyUploaded bydugongbaik
- Gigaset c610_ENG FullUploaded byAnonymous 1I8hIE5
- DS Rebar Splicing HBUploaded byengage4u2020
- Sylast [Thread & Yarn Lubricant]Uploaded byL.N.CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
- Dinner Menu -- The DelegateUploaded byTierney Plumb
- Advance LectureUploaded byyucor
- andrographis refUploaded byapi-243687619
- PORTAL-METHOD (1).pptUploaded bySadiri Roy D Aragon
- CV_AyazUploaded byAyaz Chowdhury
- 6-Exercises-Solutions-2009.pdfUploaded bysyafiq hashim
- Causative Cosntructions in ZarmaUploaded byAmir
- KRSUploaded byJangam Masure Shilpa
- population ecology projectUploaded byapi-323374257
- CT=52(825-836)AJ11.pdfUploaded bytitizahra
- Summer Training Guide for Pharmacy StudentsUploaded bytalal1
- Johann Wolfgang DöbereinerUploaded by怡霖
- Ingredients Paani PuriUploaded byMani Vaasagam
- Proceedings of the International Symposium Research and Education in Innovation Era, 5th Edition, Mathematics & Computer ScienceUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- sylphdUploaded byjokes
- NOTES_for_EMT4801_2018Uploaded byRixizoNgobeni
- Mistral Trifase 3534Uploaded bysalvador2me