PVRV-
I can understand using solid elements for analysis of parts or components. I will use them also where they make sense. However, try modelling a structure built of say 8"x8"x½" structural tubing which has four legs and a deck on top - a very simple platform. Let's say that the platform is 15' tall. To keep an aspect ratio no more than 8:1, you would need elements no more than 2" by 2" (You do want a node in the middle of the thickness, right? So two elements thick). That means you're looking at 14,000 elements (100,000+ nodes) before too long. This is for a very simple structure. Using beam elements the entire structure could be modelled with say 16 elements; I'd probably use use more like roughly 40 (120 nodes). The results are the same as far as sizing the beams goes. OOOOps - it's overstressed. Now let's try 5/8" thick beams. A simple change with beam elements, messy with solids. Probably the worst part with solids is modelling the connections. With typical structural analysis you pull the loads at the ends of the beams and design the bolted or welded connection with some help from the AISC "steel book". How does one get the forces and moments at the end of a beam when you use solid elements to model them?
jt