Then try only a vertical restraint at the bottom flange, and only a lateral restraint at the top flange, on this particular end of the beam. If Twitter doesn’t work, try Google; or better yet open your Strength of Materials text books or check out a Theory of Elasticity text book, RE: Saint-Venant’s Principle. You probably will see the same anomaly at the point loads on the top flange, at the middle of the beam. And, maybe your restraints need some adjusting of their spring stiffness, or the loads and reactions could be applied over 4" beam length instead of on only .000001".
If you’re not old enough and big enough to be driving, you sure shouldn’t be driving SAP2000, with shell elements on a simple beam. My point, and Galambos’ point, was that you should have a reasonable understanding of, and a working background in, the basics of engineering and Theory of Elasticity (Strength of Materials) before you try to do engineering with a black box which you don’t understand, or have any idea about how or why it works. Put another way, these damn FEA programs have gotten so complicated that understanding and manipulating their idiosyncrasies becomes the engineering endeavor, unto itself, rather than having a good fundamental conceptual understanding of the actual problem at hand. In fact, this has the potential of being down right dangerous if you don’t know that the computer is telling you the wrong thing, or you don’t know enough about the fundamentals of the problem to know that you can explain something the output is showing. Actually, you shouldn’t ignore these things, you should understand what is causing them and be able to explain why you don’t have to worry about them. I do believe that was the reason for your OP, but more importantly learn the fundamentals. Now, look up von Mises stresses and see what sense they make in the simple beam design world. Or, just try R=V=P/2 and M=Pl/4, but understand where they came from and how they were derived.
