CONCLUSIONS - 1
The conclusions are presented separately for frame, shell, plane, asolid, solid and link
elements, as well as for analysis cases in the following subsections.
The SAP2000 verification and validation example problems for frames all show
acceptable, and in many cases exact, comparison with the independent solutions.
The accuracy of the SAP2000 results for certain classes of frame examples depends on
the discretization of the frame objects. For those classes of examples, as the
discretization is refined, the solution becomes more accurate. The table below lists those
classes of examples and the verification examples that address them.
CLASSES OF FRAME EXAMPLES WHERE
IS DEPENDENT ON OBJECT DISCRETIZATION
Tension stiffening using the P-Delta option
available in static nonlinear analysis
Static nonlinear analysis of a model with large
Tension stiffening using P-Delta force assigned to
a frame object
Approximation of uniform mass
AREA ELEMENTS - SHELLS, PLANES AND ASOLIDS
In general the SAP2000 verification and validation example problems for shells, planes
and asolids show acceptable comparison with the independent solutions. The verification
problems highlight several important modeling issues to be noted when using these area
elements. Those issues include element meshing and in-plane shear and bending
behavior when using irregular-shaped elements. Those items are explained in the
Meshing of Area Elements
It is important to adequately mesh area elements to obtain satisfactory results. The art of
creating area element models includes determining what constitutes an adequate mesh.