Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 2

EXAMPLE 3-002
PLANE – STRAIGHT BEAM WITH STATIC LOADS

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In this example, a straight cantilever beam, modeled with plane stress elements,
is subjected to unit forces at the tip in the X and Y directions and a unit moment
at the tip about the Y directions, each in a different load case. The tip
displacements in the direction of the load are compared with hand-calculated
results.

It is important to note that this example is an extreme case presented for testing
and verification of the plane element. Plane elements are not in general intended
for use in modeling a beam with a 2 to 1 depth-to-width ratio.

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. Five different models
are created, each with a different mesh. Models A, B and C use a 6x1 mesh with
rectangular-, trapezoidal- and parallelogram-shaped elements, respectively, as
suggested in MacNeal and Harder 1985. Model D starts with the 6x1 rectangular
mesh and then divides each rectangle into two triangles. Model E starts with the
6x1 rectangular mesh and then divides each rectangle into four triangles. The
meshes used in models D and E are not included in MacNeal and Harder 1985.

Three load cases are created for each model. The three load cases apply a unit
axial force, a unit in-plane force and a unit in-plane moment at the tip of the
cantilever, respectively. The in-plane moment is applied as a couple of X
direction forces.

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
to match this assumption. In the SAP2000 model the Ux and Uz degrees of
freedom are active; all other degrees of freedom are inactive. At the fixed end,
joint 1 is restrained in the Ux and Uz degrees of freedom and joint 8 is restrained
in the Ux degree of freedom only. Joint 8 is not restrained in the Uz degree of
freedom to avoid imposing the unwanted local Poisson’s effect into the model.
Also, when the beam is loaded with in-plane shear, an in-plane force equal to
half the applied tip load is applied to joint 8 in the opposite direction of the tip
load. This special load at joint 8 is applied to model the reaction without the
Poisson’s effect.

EXAMPLE 3-002 - 1
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

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

0.2"
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Z 1 2 3 4 5 6
Y1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 @ 1" = 6"
X
1 - Joint number
Model B – Trapezoidal Shaped Elements 1 - Area object number
0.9" 1.2" 0.8" 1.2" 0.8" 1.1"

0.2"
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.9" 1" 1" 1" 1" 1.1"
6"

Model D – Triangular Shaped Elements (2 per Rectangle)

0.2"

8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 @ 1" = 6"

Model E – Triangular Shaped Elements (4 per Rectangle)

0.2"

8 3 15 9 7 16 10 11 17 11 15 18 12 19 19 13 23 20 14
1 4 5 8 9 12 13 16 17 20 21 24
1 2 2 6 3 10 4 14 5 18 6 22 7
12 @ 0.5" = 6"

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

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

Plane element thickness = 0.1 in

LOADING
The following table defines the loading applied to each model.

Load Case Load Type Load

1 Axial extension Fx = +0.5 lb at jts 7 and 14

Fz = +0.5 lb at jts 7 and 14

2 In-Plane Shear and Bending
Fz = -0.5 lb at jt 8

Fx = -5 lb at jt 7, and
3 In-Plane Moment
Fx = +5 lb at jt 14

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

 Membrane analysis using plane elements
 Effect of plane element aspect ratio
 Effect of geometrical distortion of plane element from rectangular
 Joint force loading

RESULTS COMPARISON
The SAP2000 results are presented separately for the plane element 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. Independent results are also published in MacNeal and Harder
1985.

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

With Incompatible Bending Modes (6x1 Mesh)

Load Case Model and Element Output Percent
and Type Shape Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

A- Rectangle 3.000E-05 0%
Ux
Load case 1 B - Trapezoid 3.000E-05 0%
Average of
Axial C - Parallelogram 3.000E-05 3.000E-05 0%
jts 7 and 14
Extension D - Triangle 2 3.000E-05 0%
in
E – Triangle 4 3.000E-05 0%
A- Rectangle 0.1073 -1%
Load case 2 Uz
B - Trapezoid 0.0238 -78%
In-Plane Average of
C - Parallelogram 0.0861 0.1081 -20%
Shear and jts 7 and 14
Bending D - Triangle 2 0.0035 -97%
in
E – Triangle 4 0.0070 -94%
A- Rectangle Ux 9.000E-04 0%

Load case 3 B - Trapezoid Average of 1.466E-04 -84%

absolute
In-Plane C - Parallelogram 7.614E-04 9.000E-04 -15%
values at jts
Moment D - Triangle 2 7 and 14 0.282E-04 -97%
E – Triangle 4 in 0.585E-04 -94%

EXAMPLE 3-002 - 4
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

Without Incompatible Bending Modes (6x1 Mesh)

Load Case Model and Element Output Percent
and Type Shape Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

A- Rectangle 3.000E-05 0%
Ux
Load case 1 B - Trapezoid 3.000E-05 0%
Average of
Axial C - Parallelogram 3.000E-05 3.000E-05 0%
jts 7 and 14
Extension D - Triangle 2 3.000E-05 0%
in
E – Triangle 4 3.000E-05 0%
A- Rectangle 0.0101 -91%
Load case 2 Uz
B - Trapezoid 0.0030 -97%
In-Plane Average of
C - Parallelogram 0.0038 0.1081 -96%
Shear and jts 7 and 14
Bending D - Triangle 2 0.0035 -97%
in
E – Triangle 4 0.0070 -94%
A- Rectangle Ux 0.840E-04 -91%

Load case 3 B - Trapezoid Average of 0.206E-04 -98%

absolute
In-Plane C - Parallelogram 0.282E-04 9.000E-04 -97%
values at jts
Moment D - Triangle 2 7 and 14 0.282E-04 -97%
E – Triangle 4 in 0.585E-04 -94%

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

COMPUTER FILES: Example 3-002a-incomp, Example 3-002a-comp,

Example 3-002b-incomp, Example 3-002b-comp,
Example 3-002c-incomp, Example 3-002c-comp,
Example 3-002d-incomp, Example 3-002d-comp,
Example 3-002e-incomp, Example 3-002e-comp,
Example 3-002f-incomp, Example 3-002f-comp,
Example 3-002g-incomp

INCOMPATIBLE BENDING MODES OPTION

The models not using the incompatible bending modes option show poor results
using the 6x1 mesh. As the mesh is refined, the results for models without the
incompatible bending modes option slowly converge to the theoretical results.

For example, the Example 3-002f-comp model, which has a rectangular mesh
and does not include the incompatible modes option, refines the 6x1 mesh to a
240x4 mesh. The results are shown in the following table. They compare well
with the theoretical results.

In general, we recommend that you always use the incompatible bending modes
option because it allows models with much coarser meshes to achieve acceptable
results.

Without Incompatible Bending Modes (240x4 Mesh)

Load Case and Output Parameter Percent
Type SAP2000 Independent Difference

Load case 1 Ux in
3.000E-05 3.000E-05 0%
Axial Extension Average of jts 7 and 14
Load case 2
Uz in
In-Plane Shear and 0.1068 0.1081 -1%
Average of jts 7 and 14
Bending
Ux in
Load case 3
Average of absolute values 8.958E-04 9.000E-04 0%
In-Plane Moment
at jts 7 and 14

EXAMPLE 3-002 - 6
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

IN-PLANE SHEAR AND BENDING (LOAD CASES 2 AND 3)

Only models with the incompatible bending modes option are included in the
following description of in-plane shear and bending. The concepts described
apply to models both with and without the incompatible bending modes option.

The in-plane shear and bending results are sensitive to the shape of the element.
Rectangular-shaped elements show acceptable results. Trapezoidal-shaped
elements and triangular-shaped elements show unacceptable results. At first
glance, parallelogram-shaped elements appear to show unacceptable results;
however, the following description illustrates that the trapezoidal elements at
each end of Model C actually cause the unacceptable results.

Model F is the same as Model C, except that the trapezoidal end elements have
been divided into four elements each, as shown in the following figure. The
parallelogram-shaped elements in Models C and F are identical.
Model F
4 @ 0.275“ = 1.1" 1" 1" 1" 1" 4 @ 0.225“ = 0.9"

0.2"
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
4 @ 0.225“ = 0.9" 1" 1" 1" 1" 4 @ 0.275“ = 1.1"
6"

The results for load cases 2 and 3 are shown in the following table. The results
for Model F are acceptable, showing a difference from the independent results of
less than 1%. Comparing Models C and F shows that the unacceptable in-plane
shear and bending results obtained in Model C are caused by the trapezoidal end
elements, not the parallelogram-shaped interior elements.

EXAMPLE 3-002 - 7
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

Model F Results
Parallelogram-shaped elements
Incompatible bending modes option included
Load Case and Percent
Type Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

Load case 2
Uz in
In-Plane Shear and 0.1075 0.1081 -1%
Average of jts 7 and 14
Bending
Ux in
Load case 3
Average of absolute values 8.995E-04 9.000E-04 0%
In-Plane Moment
at jts 7 and 14

Acceptable results can be obtained using trapezoidal-shaped elements; however,

trapezoidal elements are sensitive to the angle between opposite edges of the
trapezoid and to the aspect ratio of the element. Model G is similar to Model B,
except that each of the six trapezoidal elements in Model B has been further
meshed into 10 x 2 elements, as shown in the following figure. This further
meshing reduces the angle between opposite edges of individual trapezoids from
90 to 9 degrees and improves the aspect ratio from approximately 5 to1 to
approximately 1 to 1.
Model G
0.9" 1.2" 0.8" 1.2" 0.8" 1.1" 0.2"
8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.1" 0.8" 1.2" 0.8" 1.2" 0.9"
6"

The results for load cases 2 and 3 are shown in the following table. The results
for Model G are acceptable, showing a difference from the independent results of
less than 1%.

EXAMPLE 3-002 - 8
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

Model G Results
Trapezoidal-shaped elements with 60 x 2 mesh
Incompatible bending modes option included
Load Case and Percent
Type Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

Load case 2
Uz in
In-Plane Shear and 0.1091 0.1081 +1%
Average of jts 7 and 14
Bending
Ux in
Load case 3
Average of absolute values 8.998E-04 9.000E-04 0%
In-Plane Moment
at jts 7 and 14

CONCLUSIONS
The SAP2000 results and the independent results compare exactly for axial
extension both with and without the incompatible bending modes option.

The SAP2000 results obtained for in-plane shear and bending for models using
the incompatible bending modes option are acceptable for the rectangular-shaped
and parallelogram-shaped elements and poor for other shapes of elements for
both the thin plate option and the thick plate option. Triangular-shaped elements
are not recommended for use when in-plane shear or bending is significant.
Trapezoidal-shaped elements should be avoided when in-plane shear or bending
is significant if it is possible to use rectangular-shaped or parallelogram-shaped
elements. When the use of trapezoidal elements is necessary, the following
modeling tips are suggested:

1. Always use a mesh that is two or more elements wide.

2. Minimize the angle between opposite sides of the trapezoid.

3. Use aspect ratios near one to one.

4. Review the results carefully to ascertain stress continuity between

elements.

EXAMPLE 3-002 - 9
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

Acceptable behavior for models without the incompatible bending modes option
can be achieved with sufficient refinement of the mesh. 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 plane element models.

EXAMPLE 3-002 - 10
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

HAND CALCULATION

EXAMPLE 3-002 - 11
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

EXAMPLE 3-002 - 12