Verification Tests
Linear static and P-Delta analysis use the stock solvers from Pynite, an open-source 3D structural analysis library. Buckling analysis is implemented in AutoCalcs with two custom solvers: Classic cubic-Hermite LBA and Wittrick-Williams exact sign-count buckling. Modal analysis is built from Pynite's base routines but has been substantially modified for this application.
This page documents verification tests for reactions, internal forces, deflections, second-order effects, Classic and Wittrick-Williams buckling, and modal natural frequencies. Expected values come from independent published sources, and every result shown was computed by running the solver directly against the listed test case.
Beams
Verification of reactions, bending moments, shear forces, and deflections for simply supported, continuous, and overhanging beams under distributed and point loads.
| Test | Expected | Result | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
Continuous beam — maximum moment (3 supports, UDL)CISC Handbook of Steel Construction, 11th Ed., Diagram 24 | M = 18,000 kip·in | 18,000 kip·in | Exact |
Overhanging beam — max moment at supportCISC Handbook of Steel Construction, 11th Ed. | M = 45.0 | 45.0 | Exact |
Overhanging beam — min interior momentCISC Handbook of Steel Construction, 11th Ed. | M = −103.5 | −103.5 | Exact |
Simply supported beam — shear at support (biaxial)Analytical: V = wL/2 | V = 2.50 kip | 2.50 kip | Exact |
Simply supported beam — midspan moment (biaxial)Analytical: M = wL²/8 | M = 6.25 kip·ft | 6.25 kip·ft | Exact |
Simply supported beam — midspan deflectionAnalytical: δ = 5wL⁴/384EI | δ = 0.0259 in | 0.0259 in | Exact |
End release (pinned) — midspan momentAnalytical: M = wL²/8 | M = 900 kip·in | 900 kip·in | Exact |
2D & 3D Frames
Verification of frame analysis across XY, YZ, and XZ planes. Includes multi-member portal frames and 3D frames with internal hinges. Reference solutions from established FEM textbooks.
| Test | Expected | Result | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
2D frame XY — horizontal reaction at baseLogan, A First Course in FEM, 4th Ed., Problem 5.30 | R_x = 11.69 kip | 11.69 kip | Exact |
2D frame XY — vertical reaction at baseLogan, A First Course in FEM, 4th Ed., Problem 5.30 | R_y = 30.00 kip | 30.00 kip | Exact |
2D frame XY — base momentLogan, A First Course in FEM, 4th Ed., Problem 5.30 | M = 1,810 kip·in | 1,810 kip·in | Exact |
2D frame YZ — reactions (rotated plane verification)Logan, A First Course in FEM, 4th Ed., Problem 5.30 | R_z = 11.69 kip | 11.69 kip | Exact |
2D frame YZ — midspan vertical displacementLogan, A First Course in FEM, 4th Ed., Problem 5.30 | δ = −6.667 in | −6.667 in | Exact |
XZ simple beam — end reactionsAnalytical: R = P/2 | R = −2.50 kip | −2.50 kip | Exact |
3D frame with internal hinge — base horizontal reactionKassimali, Structural Analysis, Example 3.35 | R_x = 15.46 kip | 15.46 kip | 0.03% |
P-Delta Analysis (Second-Order)
Verification of geometric nonlinear (P-Delta) analysis against AISC benchmark problems. These tests confirm that second-order amplification of moments and deflections is captured accurately under combined axial and lateral loading.
| Test | Expected | Result | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cantilever column — second-order base momentAISC Benchmark Problem (2nd-order elastic) | M = 435.6 kip·ft | 435.6 kip·ft | Exact | |
ⓘ Column subdivided into 6 elements for P-δ capture. Verified against closed-form stability function solution. | ||||
Cantilever column — second-order tip deflectionAISC Benchmark Problem (2nd-order elastic) | δ = 40.27 in | 40.27 in | Exact | |
Pin-base column — midheight moment (P = 150 kip)AISC Benchmark Case 1, Combo 2 | M = 269 kip·in | 268.9 kip·in | 0.06% | |
Pin-base column — midheight moment (P = 300 kip)AISC Benchmark Case 1, Combo 3 | M = 313 kip·in | 313.3 kip·in | 0.10% | |
Pin-base column — midheight moment (P = 450 kip)AISC Benchmark Case 1, Combo 4 | M = 375 kip·in | 374.7 kip·in | 0.07% | |
Fixed-base column — base moment (P = 100 kip)AISC Benchmark Case 2, Combo 2 | M = 469 kip·in | 469.1 kip·in | 0.01% | |
Fixed-base column — base moment (P = 150 kip)AISC Benchmark Case 2, Combo 3 | M = 598 kip·in | 598.6 kip·in | 0.11% | |
Fixed-base column — base moment (P = 200 kip)AISC Benchmark Case 2, Combo 4 | M = 848 kip·in | 848.9 kip·in | 0.11% | |
ⓘ Higher axial ratios produce slightly larger P-δ amplification differences due to discretisation. All results within AISC benchmark tolerance. | ||||
Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis — Wittrick-Williams (exact)
Verification of the Wittrick-Williams exact buckling solver against analytical Euler solutions, textbook sway-frame benchmarks, and third-party software results. Uses exact trigonometric stability functions with transcendental sign-count bisection — analytically precise at single-element resolution for members with constant axial force.
| Test | Expected | Result | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Pinned-pinned column — exact Euler (K = 1.0)Euler: π²EI/L² = 1,128.8 kN | λ = 1,128.8 | 1,128.8 | Exact | |
ⓘ Shares its expected value with the cantilever test below. The cantilever uses half the length so both columns have the same effective length KL = 8 m, producing identical P_cr — matching answers across both tests confirms the solver handles both pinned-pinned and fixed-free boundary conditions correctly. A stronger check than two unrelated numbers happening to match their references. | ||||
Fixed-free cantilever — exact Euler (K = 2.0)Euler: π²EI/(2L)² = 1,128.8 kN | λ = 1,128.8 | 1,128.8 | Exact | |
ⓘ Length deliberately chosen as half of the pinned-pinned test above so both columns share the same effective length (KL = 8 m), producing identical P_cr. See the note on the pinned-pinned test. | ||||
Fixed-fixed column — exact Euler (K = 0.5)Euler: 4π²EI/L² = 4,515.2 kN | λ = 4,515.2 | 4,515.2 | Exact | |
Two-story sway frame — critical loadMcGuire, Gallagher & Ziemian, MSA 2nd Ed., Ex 9.5 | P_cr = 6,630 kN | 6,630 kN | 0.01% | |
Portal frame (imperial) — load factorMcGuire, Gallagher & Ziemian, MSA 2nd Ed., Ex 9.6 | λ = 2.200 | 2.199 | 0.05% | |
Portal frame — Timoshenko analyticalTimoshenko & Gere, Theory of Elastic Stability, Art. 2.4 | P_cr = 737.9 lbf | 737.9 lbf | 0.02% | |
Braced column — elastic intermediate restraintMcGuire, Gallagher & Ziemian, MSA 2nd Ed., Ex 9.8 | P_cr = 215.7 kips | 215.2 kips | 0.22% | |
3D frame — third-party software verification (Mode 1, constant axial)Third-party software, 3D two-story frame | λ = 75.15 | 75.08 | 0.10% | |
ⓘ Tested with Subdivide members OFF. The 2 kN/m UDL sits on horizontal beams, so it acts transversely (causes bending, not axial). Columns receive compression as point reactions at the beam-column joints, and own self-weight adds only a small linear component — so the axial force inside each column is near-constant along its length. That is the regime where transcendental stability functions are analytically exact at single-element resolution; no mesh refinement needed. Torsional modes filtered automatically (no warping stiffness in the 6-DOF beam element). | ||||
3D frame with non-uniform axial — third-party software verification (Mode 1)Third-party software, 3D asymmetric spring-variant frame | λ = 0.391 | 0.390 | 0.25% | |
ⓘ Tested with Subdivide members ON (4 sub-elements per member). Unlike the previous test, this model has distributed loads on non-horizontal members (including diagonal braces) plus a mid-span point load on one brace — gravity components project along those members’ axes, producing axial force that varies along the member length. Subdivide members ON is required: without it, the single-element approximation can’t represent the varying axial profile and buckling eigenvalues drift. For frames with in-span loading on non-horizontal members, subdivide ON is the correct default. | ||||
Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis — Classic (cubic-Hermite LBA)
Verification of the Classic solver (default) against the same benchmark set. Classic uses the cubic-Hermite geometric stiffness matrix integrated over linearly varying axial force (Pi at one end, Pjat the other), with automatic 4-division member subdivision for higher-mode resolution and smooth animation. The linear-P integration is exact for any linearly-varying axial distribution at any mesh density — matches Greenhill's self-weight column closed form to within 1% with a single element — and reduces to the legacy constant-P form bit-for-bit when axial is uniform along a member. Classic matches the analytical and textbook benchmarks within 0.05% on Euler / portal cases (constant axial) and tracks third-party software within 0.5% on frames with non-uniform axial.
| Test | Expected | Result | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Pinned-pinned column — exact Euler (K = 1.0)Euler: π²EI/L² = 1,128.8 kN | λ = 1,128.8 | 1,129.4 | 0.05% | |
ⓘ Shares its expected value with the cantilever test below. The cantilever uses half the length so both columns have the same effective length KL = 8 m, producing identical P_cr — matching answers across both tests confirms the solver handles both pinned-pinned and fixed-free boundary conditions correctly. | ||||
Fixed-free cantilever — exact Euler (K = 2.0)Euler: π²EI/(2L)² = 1,128.8 kN | λ = 1,128.8 | 1,128.9 | 0.00% | |
ⓘ Length deliberately chosen as half of the pinned-pinned test above so both columns share the same effective length (KL = 8 m), producing identical P_cr. | ||||
Fixed-fixed column — exact Euler (K = 0.5)Euler: 4π²EI/L² = 4,515.2 kN | λ = 4,515.2 | 4,517.7 | 0.05% | |
Two-story sway frame — critical loadMcGuire, Gallagher & Ziemian, MSA 2nd Ed., Ex 9.5 | P_cr = 6,630 kN | 6,630 kN | 0.01% | |
Portal frame (imperial) — load factorMcGuire, Gallagher & Ziemian, MSA 2nd Ed., Ex 9.6 | λ = 2.200 | 2.199 | 0.05% | |
Portal frame — Timoshenko analyticalTimoshenko & Gere, Theory of Elastic Stability, Art. 2.4 | P_cr = 737.9 lbf | 737.9 lbf | 0.02% | |
Braced column — elastic intermediate restraintMcGuire, Gallagher & Ziemian, MSA 2nd Ed., Ex 9.8 | P_cr = 215.7 kips | 215.2 kips | 0.22% | |
3D frame — third-party software verification (Mode 1, constant axial)Third-party software, 3D two-story frame | λ = 75.15 | 77.68 | 3.4% | |
ⓘ The 2 kN/m UDL sits on horizontal beams (transverse, no axial component along columns), so columns carry near-constant axial force from stacked self-weight + beam reactions. In this near-constant-axial regime the cubic-Hermite approximation (auto-subdivided into 4 sub-elements per member) carries a small residual error against the closed-form reference — about +3.4% on Mode 1. For this class of model (simple portals, steel buildings with only horizontal-beam distributed loads), the Wittrick-Williams solver at subdivide off is the more accurate path. | ||||
3D frame with non-uniform axial — third-party software verification (Mode 1)Third-party software, 3D asymmetric spring-variant frame | λ = 0.391 | 0.393 | 0.51% | |
ⓘ Unlike the previous test, this model has distributed loads on non-horizontal members (diagonal braces included) plus a mid-span point load on one brace — gravity components project along those members’ axes, producing axial force that varies linearly along the member length. The classic solver integrates its geometric stiffness over the varying axial profile (linear-P k_g formulation), so the governing mode is captured exactly to within third-party software round-off (<0.5%) without relying on the auto-mesh refinement to resolve the axial distribution. | ||||
Modal Analysis (Natural Frequencies)
Verification of undamped free-vibration modal analysis against analytical solutions and published numerical benchmarks. Cantilever tests compare against Euler-Bernoulli beam theory (Blevins); the Petersen beam eigenvalues trace back to Petersen's Dynamik der Baukonstruktionen (2000).
| Test | Expected | Result | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cantilever beam — fundamental frequency (Mode 1)Analytical Euler-Bernoulli: fₙ = (βₙ² / 2πL²)·√(EI/ρA) | f₁ = 0.6404 Hz | 0.6404 Hz | Exact | |
ⓘ User places 11 nodes along the beam; the solver auto-splits the single cantilever member into 10 sub-members at the collinear waypoints, then applies the default 4-division subdivision per sub-member (40 sub-elements at solve time). Uses β₁ = 1.8751 as the first root of cos(β)cosh(β) + 1 = 0. | ||||
Cantilever beam — Mode 2Analytical Euler-Bernoulli, β₂ = 4.6941 | f₂ = 4.0132 Hz | 4.0133 Hz | Exact | |
Cantilever beam — Mode 3Analytical Euler-Bernoulli, β₃ = 7.8548 | f₃ = 11.237 Hz | 11.239 Hz | 0.02% | |
ⓘ Higher bending modes require finer discretisation to resolve accurately. The 10 auto-created sub-members × 4 default subdivisions gives 40 elements, enough to resolve the 3rd bending mode to within 0.02%. | ||||
Petersen beam — first eigenvalue ω²Petersen, Dynamik der Baukonstruktionen (2000), p. 252 | ω² = 115.188 | 115.188 | Exact | |
ⓘ User input: 10 nodes (one per unit along the 12 m beam) so concentrated masses can be placed at specific nodes. Solver applies default 4-division subdivision on top. Match to within 1×10⁻⁶ on both eigenvalues. | ||||
Petersen beam — second eigenvalue ω²Petersen, Dynamik der Baukonstruktionen (2000), p. 252 | ω² = 3,056.953 | 3,056.953 | Exact | |
Mass-increase frequency drop — physics sanity checkBasic dynamics: f ∝ √(k/m), so adding mass at the tip lowers f | f drops | 3.271 → 2.290 Hz | Exact | |
ⓘ Sanity check that adding mass at the tip reduces the fundamental frequency, as required by f = (1/2π)√(k/m). Single-member cantilever with default 4-division subdivision. Observed 30% drop matches the expected direction and magnitude for a 1 kN point load relative to the self-weight mass of the beam. | ||||
3D frame with non-uniform axial — third-party software verification (Mode 1)Third-party software, 3D asymmetric spring-variant frame (mass source: LC1 self-weight + superimposed DL) | f₁ = 0.342 Hz | 0.3424 Hz | 0.12% | |
ⓘ Mode 1 is a global sway mode; Pynite matches the third-party solver to within 0.12% on the governing frequency with default 4-division subdivision. Cross-checks modal behaviour on a structurally realistic 3D frame with in-span loading, partial releases, and a spring support. | ||||
Special Cases
Verification of rotated members, spring elements, self-weight, torsion, support settlement, tension-only members, and inclined geometry. These tests confirm correct coordinate transformation, load resolution, and advanced analysis features.
| Test | Expected | Result | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
Rotated member (45°) — strong-axis momentAnalytical: M·cos(45°) | M_z = −17.68 kip·ft | −17.68 kip·ft | Exact |
Rotated member (45°) — weak-axis momentAnalytical: M·sin(45°) | M_y = 17.68 kip·ft | 17.68 kip·ft | Exact |
Rotated column (90°) — strong-axis moment at midspanAnalytical: M = PL/4 | M_z = −2.50 kip·ft | −2.50 kip·ft | Exact |
Spring support — vertical reactionAnalytical: R = P (equilibrium) | R_y = 5.00 kip | 5.00 kip | Exact |
Sloped beam — gravity load distributionAnalytical: statics equilibrium | R_y = 7.00 kip | 7.00 kip | Exact |
Spring element — displacement (series springs)Logan, A First Course in FEM, 4th Ed., Example 2.1 | δ_3 = 0.909 in | 0.909 in | Exact |
Spring element — displacement at loaded nodeLogan, A First Course in FEM, 4th Ed., Example 2.1 | δ_4 = 1.364 in | 1.364 in | Exact |
Self-weight — W14×34 computed unit weightAISC Steel Construction Manual | w = 0.034 kip/ft | 0.034 kip/ft | Exact |
Axial distributed load — reactionsAnalytical: R = wL/2 | R = −25.0 N | −25.0 N | Exact |
Torsion — left support reactionAnalytical: statics (torsion equilibrium) | M_x = −6.07 kip·ft | −6.07 kip·ft | Exact |
Torsion — right support reactionAnalytical: statics (torsion equilibrium) | M_x = −8.93 kip·ft | −8.93 kip·ft | Exact |
Support settlement — reaction at interior support BKassimali, Structural Analysis, 3rd Ed., Example 13.14 | R_B = 122.4 kip | 122.5 kip | 0.14% |
Support settlement — reaction at interior support CKassimali, Structural Analysis, 3rd Ed., Example 13.14 | R_C = −61.5 kip | −61.5 kip | 0.15% |
Tension-only member — active under tensionAnalytical: statics (force resolution) | F = −100.5 kip | −100.5 kip | Exact |
Tension-only member — deactivated under compressionAnalytical: member deactivated (no compression) | F = 0 kip | 0 kip | Exact |
References
- Logan, D.L. — A First Course in the Finite Element Method, 4th Edition
- Kassimali, A. — Structural Analysis, 3rd Edition
- CISC — Handbook of Steel Construction, 11th Edition
- AISC — Second-Order Elastic Analysis Benchmark Problems
- AISC — Steel Construction Manual, 15th Edition
- McGuire, W., Gallagher, R.H. & Ziemian, R.D. — Matrix Structural Analysis, 2nd Edition
- Timoshenko, S.P. & Gere, J.M. — Theory of Elastic Stability, 1961
- Petersen, C. — Dynamik der Baukonstruktionen, Vieweg (2000)
- Blevins, R.D. — Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape
- Euler-Bernoulli beam theory — Analytical closed-form solutions
Disclaimer: This verification page is provided for informative purposes only and does not constitute a guarantee of accuracy for all possible configurations. While we strive to ensure the correctness of our calculations through rigorous benchmarking, no software is entirely free of defects. Engineers must exercise independent professional judgement and verify results through their own checks before relying on any output for design or construction decisions. AutoCalcs accepts no liability for errors, omissions, or any consequences arising from the use of this software.