Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-002
SHELL – STRAIGHT BEAM WITH STATIC LOADS

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In this example a straight cantilever beam, modeled with shell elements, 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.

It is important to note that this example is an extreme case presented for testing
and verification of the shell element. Shell 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.

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

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. At the fixed end, joint 1 is restrained in the Ux, Uy, Uz
and Rz degrees of freedom and joint 8 is restrained in the Ux, Uy and Rz degrees
of freedom. 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 2-002 - 1
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

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 2-002 - 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

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

Shell section thickness = 0.1 in

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

Load Case Load

1 Fx = +0.5 lb at jts 7 and 14

Fz = +0.5 lb at jts 7 and 14

2
Fz = -0.5 lb at jt 8

3 Fy = +0.5 lb at jts 7 and 14

Fy = -5 lb at jt 7, and
4
Fy = +5 lb at jt 14

Fx = -5 lb at jt 7, and
5
Fx = +5 lb at jt 14

Mz = +0.5 lb-in at jt 7, and

6
Mz = +0.5 lb-in at jt 14

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

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

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 3
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
The SAP2000 results are presented separately for the thin plate option and the
thick plate 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.

Thin Plate Option

Load Case Model and Output Percent

and Type Element Shape Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
A- Rectangle 3E-05 0%
Ux
Load case 1 B - Trapezoid 3E-05 0%
Average of
Axial C - Parallelogram 3E-05 3E-05 0%
jts 7 and 14
Extension D - Triangle 2 3E-05 0%
in
E – Triangle 4 3E-05 0%
A- Rectangle 0.1072 -1%
Load case 2 Uz
B - Trapezoid 0.0227 -79%
In-plane Average of
C - Parallelogram 0.0804 0.1081 -26%
shear and jts 7 and 14
bending D - Triangle 2 0.0032 -97%
in
E – Triangle 4 0.0066 -94%
A- Rectangle 0.4320 0%
Load case 3 Uy
B - Trapezoid 0.4322 0%
Out-of-plane Average of
C - Parallelogram 0.4322 0.4321 0%
shear and jts 7 and 14
bending D - Triangle 2 0.4296 -1%
in
E – Triangle 4 0.4314 0%

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 4
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Thin Plate Option

Load Case Model and Output Percent

SAP2000 Independent
and Type Element Shape Parameter Difference
A- Rectangle Uy 0.00233 -32%
B - Trapezoid Average of 0.00233 -32%
Load case 4 absolute
C - Parallelogram 0.00233 0.00341 -32%
Twist values at jts
D - Triangle 2 7 and 14 0.00231 -32%
E – Triangle 4 in 0.00230 -33%
A- Rectangle Ux 8.990E-04 0%

Load case 5 B - Trapezoid Average of 1.395E-04 -85%

absolute
In-Plane C - Parallelogram 7.225E-04 9.000E-04 -20%
values at jts
Moment D - Triangle 2 7 and 14 0.265E-04 -97%
E – Triangle 4 in 0.550E-04 -94%
A- Rectangle 0.03600 0%
Rz
Load case 6 B - Trapezoid 0.03600 0%
Average of
Out-of-Plane C - Parallelogram values at jts 0.03600 0.03600 0%
Moment 7 and 14
D - Triangle 2 0.03600 0%
radians
E – Triangle 4 0.03600 0%

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 5
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Thick Plate Option

Load Case Model and Output Percent

and Type Element Shape Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
A- Rectangle 3E-05 0%
Ux
Load case 1 B - Trapezoid 3E-05 0%
Average of
Axial C - Parallelogram 3E-05 3E-05 0%
jts 7 and 14
Extension D - Triangle 2 3E-05 0%
in
E – Triangle 4 3E-05 0%
A- Rectangle 0.1072 -1%
Load case 2 Uz
B - Trapezoid 0.0227 -79%
In-plane Average of
C - Parallelogram 0.0804 0.1081 -26%
shear and jts 7 and 14
bending D - Triangle 2 0.0032 -97%
in
E – Triangle 4 0.0066 -94%
A- Rectangle 0.4321 0%
Load case 3 Uy
B - Trapezoid 0.4307 0%
Out-of-plane Average of
C - Parallelogram 0.4322 0.4321 0%
shear and jts 7 and 14
bending D - Triangle 2 0.4328 0%
in
E – Triangle 4 0.4298 -1%

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 6
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Thick Plate Option

Load Case Model and Output Percent

SAP2000 Independent
and Type Element Shape Parameter Difference
A- Rectangle Uy 0.00224 -34%
B - Trapezoid Average of 0.00409 +20%
Load case 4 absolute
C - Parallelogram 0.00240 0.00341 -30%
Twist values at jts
D - Triangle 2 7 and 14 0.00466 +37%
E – Triangle 4 in 0.00458 +34%
A- Rectangle Ux 8.990E-04 0%

Load case 5 B - Trapezoid Average of 1.395E-04 -85%

absolute
In-Plane C - Parallelogram 7.225E-04 9.000E-04 -20%
values at jts
Moment D - Triangle 2 7 and 14 0.265E-04 -97%
E – Triangle 4 in 0.550E-04 -94%
A- Rectangle 0.03600 0%
Rz
Load case 6 B - Trapezoid 0.03600 0%
Average of
Out-of-Plane C - Parallelogram values at jts 0.03600 0.03600 0%
Moment 7 and 14
D - Triangle 2 0.03600 0%
radians
E – Triangle 4 0.03600 0%

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 7
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

COMPUTER FILES: Example 2-002a-thick, Example 2-002a-thin,

Example 2-002b-thick, Example 2-002b-thin,
Example 2-002c-thick, Example 2-002c-thin,
Example 2-002d-thick, Example 2-002d-thin,
Example 2-002e-thick, Example 2-002e-thin,
Example 2-002f-thick, Example 2-002f-thin,
Example 2-002g-thick, Example 2-002g-thin,
Example 2-002h-thin

DISCUSSION OF IN-PLANE SHEAR AND BENDING (LOAD CASES 2 AND 5)

The thin plate option and the thick plate option have essentially the same
formulation for in-plane behavior and thus yield essentially the same results for
load cases 2 and 5. The discussion in this section applies to both the thin plate
option and the thick plate 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 discussion 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 5 for both the thin plate and the thick plate option
are shown in the following table. The results for Model F are acceptable,
showing a difference from the independent results of less than 2%. 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 2-002 - 8
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Model F Results (Parallelogram-shaped elements)

Load Case Output Percent

and Type Element Type Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

Load case 2 Uz
Thin plate 0.1061 -1.9%
In-plane Average of
0.1081
shear and jts 13 and 26
bending Thick plate 0.1061 -1.9%
in
Ux
Thin plate 8.886E-04 -1.3%
Load case 5 Average of
absolute
In-plane 9.000E-04
values at jts
moment 13 and 26
Thick plate 8.886E-04 -1.3%
in

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 5 for both the thin plate and the thick plate option
are shown in the following table. The results for Model G are acceptable,
showing a difference from the independent results of less than 2%.

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 9
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Model G Results (Trapezoidal-shaped elements with 60 x 2 mesh)

Load Case Output Percent

and Type Element Type Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference

Load case 2 Uz
Thin plate 0.1071 -0.9%
In-plane Average of
0.1081
shear and jts 7 and 14
bending Thick plate 0.1071 -0.9%
in
Ux
Thin plate 8.825E-04 -1.9%
Load case 5 Average of
absolute
In-plane 9.000E-04
values at jts
moment 7 and 14
Thick plate 8.825E-04 -1.9%
in

DISCUSSION OF TWIST FOR SHELL WITH THIN PLATE OPTION (LOAD CASE 4)
The thin plate option and the thick plate option have different formulations for
out-of-plane and twisting behavior and yield different results for load case 4. The
discussion in this section applies specifically to the thin plate option. Much, but
not all, of the discussion in this section is also applicable to the thick plate option.

The twist results for the thin plate option are relatively insensitive to the shape of
the element. The twist results differ from the independent results by
approximately 32%. The major contributor to this difference is the difference
between the shell theory used by the program and the beam theory used in the
calculation of the independent results. A minor contributor to the difference is the
Rz restraint used at the fixed end of the cantilever, which causes the twisting
moment to not be uniform near the fixed end. Both of those items are described
in the following text.

The torsional stiffness, J, used in the hand calculation is calculated using item 4
in Table 20 on page 290 of Roark and Young 1975. The value of J calculated is
0.000045776 in4, which is equivalent to 0.22888bd3. The shell theory used in
SAP2000 assumes that the thickness of the shell is very small compared to the

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 10
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

extent of the entire shell mesh. Thus, the equivalent J for shell theory is bd3/3.
The ratio of the hand calculated J divided by the shell theory J is 0.68664.

The original hand calculated displacement resulting from the twist based on
J = 0.22888bd3 is 0.00341 inch. If this displacement is instead calculated using
J = bd3/3, the resulting value is 0.00341 * 0.68664 = 0.00234 inch. This
compares well with the computer generated result, but not exactly. It does not
compare exactly because of the Rz restraint used at the fixed end in the computer
model.

The Rz restraint used at the fixed end of the beam is needed for the three-
dimensional computer model to be stable and to resist the moment imposed by
the out-of-plane loading in load cases 3 and 6. This restraint causes the M12
twisting moment resulting from load case 4, which should be constant over the
length of the beam, to vary near the fixed end, as shown in the following M12
twisting moment contour plot.

M12 Twisting Moment (per unit length) Contour Plot for Model A-Thin

Model H (Example 2-002h-thin) is created for load case 4 only. The Rz restraint
is removed in Model H and very small rotational Rz springs are provided in its
place. The springs are required to keep the three-dimensional model stable.
Model H uses a rectangular shell element similar to that for Model A. The
resulting displacement from the twisting load for Model H is 0.00234 inch which
compares exactly with the hand calculation that has been modified to use the
shell theory J of bd3/3. The following contour plot shows the M12 twisting
moment for Model H. The twisting moment is constant over the length of the
beam, as desired.

M12 Twisting Moment (per unit length) Contour Plot for Model H -Thin

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 11
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

DISCUSSION OF TWIST FOR SHELL WITH THICK PLATE OPTION (LOAD CASE 4)
The thin plate option and the thick plate option have different formulations for
out-of-plane and twisting behavior and yield different results for load case 4. The
discussion in this section applies specifically to the thick plate option.

The twist results for the thick plate option are sensitive to the shape of the
element. The twist results for the thick plate option are smaller than the
independent results by as much as 34% and larger than the independent results by
as much as 37% depending on the element shape. The contributors to this
difference are the difference between the shell theory used by the program and
the beam theory used in the calculation of the independent results, the shell
aspect ratio and the variation of the shell shape from a rectangle. Those items are
described in the following text.

The torsional stiffness, J, used in the hand calculation is calculated using item 4
in Table 20 on page 290 of Roark and Young 1975. The value of J calculated is
0.000045776 in4, which is equivalent to 0.22888bd3. The shell theory used in
SAP2000 assumes that the thickness of the shell is very small compared to the
extent of the entire shell mesh. Thus, the equivalent J for shell theory is bd3/3.
The ratio of the hand calculated J divided by the shell theory J is 0.68664.

The original hand calculated displacement resulting from the twist based on
J = 0.22888bd3 is 0.00341 inches. If this displacement is instead calculated using
J = bd3/3, the resulting value is 0.00341 * 0.68664 = 0.00234 inch. This is the
theoretical solution that we might expect from the computer. It compares fairly
well with the results for the rectangular- and parallelogram-shaped elements
(approximately 4% difference). It does not compare well with the results for the
trapezoidal- and triangular-shaped elements.

The trapezoidal model can be further meshed to obtain better results. For
example, if each of the six trapezoidal area objects in Model B is submeshed into
a 10 by 2 mesh, the resulting twist displacement is 0.00239 inch, which compares
fairly well (approximately 2% difference) with the expected results using shell
theory and the results obtained with the rectangular- and parallelogram-shaped
elements.

The triangular models are typically less stiff in twist than the other models. Even
models using equilateral triangles (not included in the example model files) have
a twist displacement of approximately 0.003 inch, which is about 30% different
from the theoretical solution that we might expect from the computer.

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 12
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

CONCLUSIONS
The SAP2000 results and the independent results have an acceptable and in many
cases exact comparison for axial extension and out-of-plane shear and bending
for both the thin plate option and the thick plate option.

The SAP2000 results obtained for in-plane shear and/or bending 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 where in-plane shear
and/or bending is significant. Trapezoidal-shaped elements should be avoided for
use where in-plane shear and/or bending is significant if it is possible to use
rectangular-shaped or parallelogram-shaped elements. Where 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.

The SAP2000 results obtained for twist for the thin plate option are quite
consistent, but they differ significantly from the independent results. This occurs
because the SAP2000 results are based on shell theory and the hand calculated
results are based on beam theory. Shell theory assumes the thickness of the shell
elements is small compared to the extent of all of the shell elements and thus that
the torsional stiffness, J, is given by bd3/3. For the particular geometry of this
example, beam theory calculates J as approximately bd3/4.37. This difference in J
accounts for the difference in results.

The SAP2000 results obtained for twist for the thick plate option vary and they
differ significantly from the independent results. This occurs because of the
difference in J described in the previous paragraph, and because the twist results
for the thick shell option are sensitive to shell element aspect ratio and geometric
distortions. When the aspect ratio is approximately one, the twist results are more
consistent.

In many types of structures, particularly those for which the use of shell elements
is appropriate, the effect of the twisting behavior is negligible and thus any
inaccuracies in the twisting deformations are inconsequential.

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 13
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 14
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 15
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 16
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 17
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 18
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 19
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-002 - 20