Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 2

EXAMPLE 5-003
SOLID – CURVED BEAM WITH STATIC LOADS

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In this example, a curved cantilever beam, modeled using solid elements with the
incompatible bending modes option enabled, is subjected to unit forces at the tip
in the in-plane and out-of-plane directions, that is, the Y and Z directions,
respectively. The in-plane and out-of-plane loads are applied in different load
cases. The tip displacements in the direction of the load are compared with
independent hand-calculated results.

The geometry, properties and loading are as suggested in MacNeal and Harder
1985. The cantilever beam is bent into a 90° arc. It has a 4.12-inch inner radius
and a 4.32-inch outer radius. Thus, it is 0.2 inch wide and approximately 6.63
inches long at its centerline. The beam is 0.1 inch thick in the Y direction.

Three models with different mesh refinements are considered. Model A meshes
the curved beam into six solid objects in a 6 x 1 x 1 mesh, with each object
subtending a 15° arc. Model B meshes the curved beam into 90 solid objects in a
90 x 1 x 1 mesh, with each object subtending a 1° arc. Finally, Model C meshes
the curved beam into 2,880 solid objects in a 90 x 4 x 8 mesh. In Model C the
solid objects also subtend a 1° arc.

EXAMPLE 5-003 - 1
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

Geometric Properties
Inner radius = 4.12 in
Outer radius = 4.32 in
Arc = 90°

Material Properties
E = 10,000,000 lb/in2
ν = 0.25
G = 4,000,000 lb/in2

Section Properties
Thickness = 0. 1 in
6@
15

Y
°=
90
°

LOADING
The following table defines the in-plane and out-of-plane loading applied to each
model.

Load Case Load

IN Fy = +0.25 lb at each of four corner joints at tip

OUT Fz = +0.25 lb at each of four corner joints at tip

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

 Solid object bending with the incompatible bending modes option
 Joint force loading

EXAMPLE 5-003 - 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

RESULTS COMPARISON
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.

With Incompatible Bending Modes

Load Case Model and Output Percent

and Type Mesh Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
A- 6x1x1 Uy, in 0.0768 -13%
Load case IN
B- 90x1x1 Average of 0.0885 0.0886 0%
In-Plane four corner
C- 90x4x8 joints at tip 0.0884 0%

A- 6x1x1 Uz, in 0.4062 -19%

Load case OUT
B- 90x1x1 Average of 0.4773 0.5004 -5%
Out-of-Plane four corner
C- 90x4x8 joints at tip 0.4945 -1%

COMPUTER FILES: Example 5-003a, Example 5-003b, Example 5-003c

CONCLUSIONS
The SAP2000 results have an acceptable comparison with the independent
results as long as the meshing is sufficient.

The in-plane results are improved by meshing along the length of the curved
beam.

The out-of-plane results are improved by both meshing along the length of the
beam and meshing within the cross-section of the beam. The meshing within the
cross-section improves the twist behavior of the beam, which does have an effect
on the out-of-plane results.

EXAMPLE 5-003 - 3
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

HAND CALCULATION

EXAMPLE 5-003 - 4
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

EXAMPLE 5-003 - 5
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

EXAMPLE 5-003 - 6
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2

EXAMPLE 5-003 - 7