Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-003
SHELL CURVED BEAM WITH STATIC LOADS

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In this example a curved cantilever beam, modeled with shell elements, 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 inch
long at its centerline. The beam is 0.1 inch thick in the Y direction. For modeling
in SAP2000, the curved beam is meshed into six area objects, each subtending a
15 arc.

GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

14 Geometric Properties
6 13
7 Inner radius = 4.12 in
6 5 Outer radius = 4.32 in
12
Arc = 90
5
4
Material Properties
11
E = 10,000,000 lb/in2
4
= 0.25
3 G = 4,000,000 lb/in2
1 - Joint number 10 Section Properties
1 - Area object number 3 Thickness = 0. 1 in

9
2
Y
1

X 1 8

EXAMPLE 2-003 - 1
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

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

Load Case Load

IN Fy = +0.5 lb at jts 7 and 14

OUT Fz = +0.5 lb at jts 7 and 14

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

Membrane analysis using shell elements
Plate bending analysis using shell elements
Joint force loading

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

Model and Load Case Output Percent

Mesh and Type Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Uy, in
Load case IN
Average of 0.0773 0.0886 -13%
In-Plane
Model A-Thin jts 7 and 14
6x1 mesh Uz, in
Load case OUT
Average of 0.4535 0.5004 -9%
Out-of-Plane
jts 7 and 14

EXAMPLE 2-003 - 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Thick Plate Option

Model and Load Case Output Percent

Mesh and Type Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Uy, in
Load case IN
Average of 0.0773 0.0886 -13%
In-Plane
Model A-Thick jts 7 and 14
6x1 mesh Uz, in
Load case OUT
Average of 0.4298 0.5004 -14%
Out-of-Plane
jts 7 and 14

COMPUTER FILES: Example 2-003a-thick, Example 2-003a-thin,

Example 2-003b-thick, Example 2-003b-thin,
Example 2-003c-thick, Example 2-003c-thin,
Example 2-003d-thick, Example 2-003d-thin

DISCUSSION OF IN-PLANE LOADING

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 case IN. The discussion in this section applies to both the thin plate option
and the thick plate option.

Two items contributing to the difference between the SAP2000 results and the
independent results are the mesh size and how well the geometry of the model
actually matches a circular arc.

To illustrate those effects, models B, C and D are created. Model B has a 90x1
mesh and model C has a 90x3 mesh, which gives an approximately square shell
element (1:1 aspect ratio). Model D takes the 6x1 mesh of model A and
submeshes each of the six objects 15x3. Thus, the resulting Model D also ends
up with a 90x3 mesh, but it only approximates the circular arc as accurately as
the 6x1 mesh. Models A and D have a joints that lie exactly on the circular arc
every 15 degrees. Models B and C have joints that lie exactly on the circular arc
every 1 degree.

EXAMPLE 2-003 - 3
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

The following table shows the results for in-plane loading for the thin and thick
plate options.

Thin Plate Option and Thick Plate Option

Model and Load Case Output Percent

Mesh and Type Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Model A
0.0773 -13%
6x1 mesh
Model B
0.0845 -5%
90x1 mesh Uy, in
Load case IN
Model C Average of 0.0886
In-Plane 0.0884 0%
90x3 mesh jts 7 and 14
Model D
6x1 mesh with
0.0893 +1%
each of 6 objects
submeshed 15x3

Comparing Models B and C to Model A shows that further meshing of the model
and having the model geometry better approximate a circular arc improves the
results and converges the results to the theoretical solution. Note that the meshing
in Models B and C not only improves the aspect ratio of the elements, but also
reduces the geometric distortion of the elements from a rectangular shape.

Comparing Model D to Model A shows that meshing alone improves the results
comparison. Comparing Models C and D shows that further meshing needs to
follow the circular arc to converge to the theoretical solution.

DISCUSSION OF OUT-OF-PLANE LOADING FOR THE THIN PLATE OPTION

The thin plate option and the thick plate option have different formulations for
out-of-plane behavior and yield different results for load case OUT. 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 out-of-plane results differ from the independent results by approximately

9%. The major contributor to this variance is the difference between the shell

EXAMPLE 2-003 - 4
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

theory used by the program and the beam theory used in the calculation of the
independent results.

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 is:

0.35414 + 0.00010 + 0.14619 = 0.5004 inch

Where the first component is from out-of-plane bending deformations, the

second component is from out-of-plane shear deformations and the third
component is from twisting deformations. If the twisting component is multiplied
by 0.68664 to account for the difference between shell and beam theory, it
becomes 0.68664 * 0.14619 = 0.10038 inch and the total displacement is
modified to 0.4546 inch.

The 0.4546 inch value compares well with the computer generated result, but not
exactly. It does not compare exactly because the end restraint used in the
computer model is unable to exactly match the end restraint assumed in the
independent solution.

DISCUSSION OF OUT-OF-PLANE LOADING FOR THE THICK PLATE OPTION

The thin plate option and the thick plate option have different formulations for
out-of-plane behavior and yield different results for load case OUT. The
discussion in this section applies specifically to the thick plate option.

The out-of-plane results differ from the independent results by approximately

14%. The major contributor to this variance is the difference between the shell
theory used by the program and the beam theory used in the calculation of the
independent results. Another contributor is the shell mesh.

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 2-003 - 5
 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 is:

0.35414 + 0.00010 + 0.14619 = 0.5004 inch

Where the first component is from out-of-plane bending deformations, the

second component is from out-of-plane shear deformations and the third
component is from twisting deformations. If the twisting component is multiplied
by 0.68664 to account for the difference between shell and beam theory, it
becomes 0.68664 * 0.14619 = 0.10038 inch and the total displacement is
modified to 0.4546 inch.

The 0.4546 inch value is approximately 5% different from the computer

generated result of 0.4298 inch.

The following table lists the out-of-plane displacements for Models A, B, C and
D. Note that as the meshing increases, the displacement results move toward the
0.4546 inch displacement value. Note that the Independent column shows the
hand calculated value and then, in parenthesis, the hand calculated value with
J = bd3/3. Similarly the Percent Difference column shows two numbers with the
one in parenthesis for J = bd3/3.

Thick Plate Option

Model and Load Case Output Percent

Mesh and Type Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Model A -14%
0.4298
6x1 mesh (-5%)
Model B -9%
0.4566
90x1 mesh (0%)
Load case Uz, in
0.5004
Model C OUT -9%
Average of 0.4558
90x3 mesh (0.4546) (0%)
Out-of-Plane jts 7 and 14
Model D
6x1 mesh with -9%
0.4570
each of 6 objects (+1%)
submeshed 15x3

EXAMPLE 2-003 - 6
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

The results do not converge exactly to 0.4546 inch because the end restraint used
in the computer model is unable to exactly match the end restraint assumed in the
independent solution.

CONCLUSIONS
The SAP2000 results obtained for the in-plane loading have an acceptable
comparison with the independent results as long as the meshing is sufficient.

The SAP2000 results obtained for out-of-plane loading for the thin plate option
differ somewhat 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 the results.

The SAP2000 results obtained for out-of-plane loading for the thick plate option
are similar to those for the thin plate option as long as the meshing is sufficient.

Note that in this problem meshing can improve both the aspect ratio of the
elements and can reduce the geometric distortion of the elements from a
rectangular shape.

EXAMPLE 2-003 - 7
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

EXAMPLE 2-003 - 8
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-003 - 9
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-003 - 10
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 2-003 - 11