Sofiostik 2022 shows error while Sofistik 2020 works fine

netsonic_Sofistik · August 29, 2021, 8:08am

The Aqua.dat is attached:
Aqua.dat (6.5 KB)

Below is the result from Sofistik 2020:

Below is the errors from Sofistik 2022:

Project data base Aqua.cdb - 1. access
+++++ warning no. 12286 in program SOF_INP_MSTEEL ; input line: 11
Material 2 has a class which is not known in the tables of the program
This is allowed for historical or damaged materials, but an explicit
definition of the intended strength values is then strongly recommended!
+++++ warning no. 2257 in program PO_DQP ; input line: 70
Coordinates have zero distance - cross section 1
+++++ warning no. 2257 in program PO_DQP ; input line: 138
Coordinates have zero distance - cross section 1
+++++ warning no. 137 in program AQTOVA
Very short strokes in polygon in cross section 1
please check accuracy of It and shear center
+++++ warning no. 137 in program AQTOVA
Very short strokes in polygon in cross section 1
please check accuracy of It and shear center
+++++ warning no. 321 in program AQTOVE
Cross section 1 is not connected for shear, check shear center
Principal Reasons are panels or polygons not properly connected.
+++++ warning no. 35 in program AQU_SVAL
The plastic section capacity for section 1, construction stage 0 is calculated for a composite section
(EN 1994-1-1, ch. 6.7.), although the steel content is δ > 0.9 ( 0.99)
+++++ warning no. 137 in program AQTOVA
Very short strokes in polygon in cross section 1
please check accuracy of It and shear center
+++++ warning no. 137 in program AQTOVA
Very short strokes in polygon in cross section 1
please check accuracy of It and shear center
+++++ warning no. 321 in program AQTOVE
Cross section 1 is not connected for shear, check shear center
Principal Reasons are panels or polygons not properly connected.
+++++ error no. 328 in program AQUTOR
Cross section 1 has numerical problems with Integral Equations
Please check first if the outer contour is properly detected by specifying
CTRL SDIV 0 and ECHO IEQ. Then try to increase CTRL SDIV.
If everything fails, you may deactivate this analysis method (CTRL STYP 0)
+++++ error no. 326 in program AQUTOR
Cross section 1 the calculated It is larger than Ip = Iy+Iz
Reason might be to differences in length of polygon edges
please have a look at the warping distribution via Result Viewer

JFH · August 30, 2021, 9:26am

Hello

Which SOFiSTiK Servicepacks are you using? I get the errors and warnings with the version 2020 and the version 2022.

Best regards
Frederik Höller
Your SOFiSTiK Support Team

netsonic_Sofistik · August 30, 2021, 10:28am

As for 2020, it’s 2020-8, you may see some warnings. But the results are correct.

	A (m2)	It (m4)	Iy (m4)	Iz (m4)
Sofistik	0.331	0.065	0.177	0.025
Sap2000	0.332	0.065	0.178	0.026

As for 2022, it’s 2022-0.

JFH · September 6, 2021, 10:53am

Please update your SOFiSTiK 2020 Version. Our latest version is SOFiSTiK 2020-11.
In the LOG-Files you can see the changes between the versions.

TEDDY > Help > Log Files

As far as I understand, you have a few flaws within your code. Please try to fix those at first.
If you can’t find the problems, try to simplify your program.

netsonic_Sofistik · September 7, 2021, 1:42am

The 2020-8 gives the correct results, which is comparable to results from Sap2000,
while 2020-11 and 2022-0 gives wrong results.

拱肋	app ver.	A (m2)	Ay (m2)	Az (m2)	Iy (m4)	Iz (m4)	It (m4)
Sap2000	23.3	0.332	0.13	0.277	0.178	0.0256	0.065
Sofistik	2020-8	0.331	0.092	0.269	0.177	0.0254	0.065
	2020-10, 11, 2022-0	6.276	1.39	0	3.324	0.389	910

netsonic_Sofistik · October 3, 2021, 1:23am

I simplified the cross section, so only the outer contour is kept.
Here is the Aqua:
Aqua_out.dat (4.8 KB)

Both 2020-8 and 2022-0 run without error.

Here is the 2020-8 result, which is correct:

Here is the 2022-0 result, which is incorrect:

netsonic_Sofistik · October 9, 2021, 10:40am

@JFH

I simplfied the problem by using the outer contour only.

The Aqua dat can be run both in 2020-8 and 2022-0 WITHOUT ANY ERROR.

The result in 2020-8 is correct, while the result in 2022-0 is not correct.

I found some weird things in 2022-0,

If I use TVAR to define coordinates for each point in the polygon, it will have more than one pair of coordinates, e.g., the point 103 has definition in Aqua like this

	VERT	NO	Y	Z
		103	‘=#DO/2SIN(2(180-ASIN(#BW/#DO))/20)’	‘=(#H-#DO)/2+#DO/2COS(2(180-ASIN(#BW/#DO))/20)’

In 2020-8 report, point 103 has one pair of coordinates, like this

In 2022-0 report, point 103 has FIVE pairs of coordinates, like this

If I use numeric values to define coordinates for each point in the polygon, like this

NO	Y	Z
101	0.0000	1.2000
102	0.0607	1.1963
103	0.1205	1.1853
104	0.1785	1.1670
105	0.2339	1.1419
106	0.2858	1.1103
107	0.3335	1.0725

2022-0 will give me correct result.