Continuing the discussion from Thin-Walled/Cold formed design:
Translation
Hello.
This function doesn't work when calculating steel structures according to SP 16.13330 :(
Hi Сергей,
thanks for your message!
To analyse the problem more precisely, the model file would be very helpful:
Click on File → Save as and choose the following settings to reduce the file size:
Then upload the file here (e.g. *.rf6, *.rs9) – this way, the community can also contribute to the solution.
Prefer not to share the file publicly? No problem – send it to me via direct message: click on my profile picture or user name → Message.
Best regards
Stefan Hoffmann
Hi Сергей,
Thank you for providing the file!
I’ve reviewed the results of the design check and it looks like this might be a bug in the program. I've forwarded the issue to our development team for further analysis 
In the meantime, you can manually disable the stability design check ratios if needed:
Important recommendation:
It's generally a good idea to review and address the warnings/messages in the detailed design checks. Optimizing these can help ensure the overall stability and correctness of your model.
You can find more guidance in our online manual here:
RFEM 6 - Steel Design | Detail Check Warnings
Let us know if you have any further questions — we’re happy to help!
Best regards
Stefan Hoffmann
1 Like
Hi Сергей,
Thank you for your patience! 
I’ve followed up on this, and I can confirm that the program behavior is intended in this case. Here's a bit more detail to clarify:
-
The handling of design check errors (e.g. of type
ERxxxx) is different from the handling of regular design checks. -
In your case, the messages refer to stability design checks (
ST3100,ST3500) that ended unexpectedly. -
These unexpectedly ending design checks are not classified as error design checks, but rather as standard design checks where, for some reason, the design ratio could not be determined.
Because such situations should ideally be corrected by the user, the messages are still shown under the corresponding result type, even though they are not considered formal "errors" in the same sense as ERxxxx.
If you have any further questions or need help interpreting a specific message, feel free to share more details — we’re happy to help! 
Best regards
Stefan Hoffmann
If you look at the calculated stability check (ST3100.00; ST3500.01; ST3500.03) for the beams where there is an error, it is not entirely clear why RFEM6, with the given relative eccentricity mef>20, tries to perform the check as for a compressed-bent element according to section 9 (SP16.13330)? In paragraph 9.2.2 (SP16.13330), the last sentence states: "For values of mef>20, the calculation should be performed as for bending elements (section 8)." As a result, we get the error: "Local stability of the flanges of a compressed-bent element does not meet the conditions of 9.4.7." Or am I missing something?
Hi Сергей,
Thank you for your question!
As neither I nor anyone else on our support team has direct knowledge of this specific standard, we’ll need to have our development team analyze it in more detail.
Please note that this process may take some time, as it depends on their current workload.
We appreciate your patience and will get back to you as soon as we have more information!
Best regards
Stefan Hoffmann
1 Like
Hello. Is there a plan to fix this bug? It's still present in version 6.12.007.
Hi Сергей,
Thanks for coming back on this issue. There is a deep analysis being done on the design for this standard. This will take some more time, but DEV guys are already working on it.
Best regards
Stefan Hoffmann
1 Like
If possible, please consider and add to RFEM6 amendments No. 3-6 to SP16.13330. Only changes No. 1-2 have been implemented now.