Greetings!
I’m a student who’s just getting started with Sofistik.
I’m trying to understand how the software works and how to interpret the results.
I’ve created a load model, which I’ve evaluated using the softwares influence lines through ELLA and compared the results with “load-stepping” through Sofiload and ASE.
Why does ELLA create these circles, whilst the outcome from Sofiload and ASE seems more realistic?
![Bild1](https://forum.sofistik.de/uploads/db5014/original/2X/9/9163bdd77e10cad4d7f57deaf5bf1f3a9e1c88fa.png)
![Bild2](https://forum.sofistik.de/uploads/db5014/original/2X/7/7b3c7f26cc3a6c067e1fc9025cc8561518b0a520.png)
Hi Tobias,
to get almost same results with load stepping and ELLA you must assure that loads are applied in the same way.
Without data set I can only assume:
When you define in ELLA “LSEL … INT 0” loads are applied as single loads and moments along a node sequence. With “LSEL … INT 1/2” two node sequences get loads and moments. With “LSEL … INT 3/5/7/9” transverse influence lines are calculated and used.
In your system obviously loads shall be applied onto quad elements. Then INT 3/5/7/9 has to be used.
Best regards,
Jost
Ah, I see.
Switching from INT 3 to INT 9 gave much better results.
![image](https://forum.sofistik.de/uploads/db5014/original/2X/2/26b4018d4979f16cf2fcec758e6569ab0d54c6a6.png)
Cheers!
Another question has popped up.
I’m currently working on a small report on the results and was just wondering if this image illustrates the transverse influence lines that ELLA has created?
![image](https://forum.sofistik.de/uploads/db5014/original/2X/9/9a13cfb1fa995277f6a35a6eeca5759124d368bb.png)