Bugs are found from time to time and in our effort to be trustworthy and transparent, they are posted here as well as appearing on the MASS Welcome Screen
The known bugs page has moved from the MASS website to the MASS section of the CMDC website. The following list consists of a selected list of known bugs. For questions about specific bugs, or to report a bug, contact email@example.com.
[Current in MASS Version 4.0] Unreinforced Shearline designs display vertical bars when none are required or used in design calculations
Shearline designs containing elements found not to require reinforcement incorrectly display vertical bars on the shearline drawing. While the analysis and design calculations does not include the bars as drawn, the software draws bars as per the vertical steel selections (10M @ 1200mm in the case below) even though placing no bars at this interval (unreinforced) means that no steel should be drawn.
This will be addressed with the next minor software release.
[Current in MASS Version 4.0] Out-of-plane shear resistance only calculated at location of maximum factored shear
MASS calculates only one out-of-plane shear strength value at the location of maximum factored shear and uses it to validate the diagonal shear resistance for the entire design. Since this strength is a function of factored bending moment, there are cases where other locations experiencing less bending moment may be critical to the design results. A full Outline and description (including a short video demonstration) can be found here.
Note that out-of-plane wall designs tend to be controlled by axial load and flexure. Even in the example shown in the linked article, the corrected shear resistance is still more than double the factored shear experienced below the location of maximum shear where the cross section had been determined based on moment and deflection design.
[Fixed in Version 4.0 – Exists in v3.0 and earlier] Maximum Axial load overestimated for some fully grouted shear walls with flanges
For shear wall element designs where the web grouting pattern has not been set to “fully grouted” and the flange is fully grouted as a result of vertical reinforcement placed in each cell, the maximum allowable axial load limit is overestimated. The actual envelope curve where axial load is considered to determine moment resistance is plotted correctly and not affected by this bug. A detailed explanation, as well as guide on identifying and correcting for this bug can be found here. This has been fixed with the release of Version 4.0.
[Fixed in Version 4.0 – Exists in v3.0 and earlier] French language users encountering changes to saved projects
Under some French language localization settings in the Windows operating system, project files created using MASS are reopened with values that are 10 or 100 times larger than the original numbers that had been saved. This is a result of how displayed values are saved internally, with decimals replaced by commas. MASS re-opens a saved project and does not recognize these substituted commas, resulting in values that are orders of magnitudes larger. A post explaining this bug and how to correct for it can be found here. It has been fixed with the release of Version 4.0.
[Fixed in Version 4.0 – Exists in v3.0 and earlier] MASS closes unexpectedly while running designs
This issue has always existed in MASS and has recently been diagnosed as a memory leak. A full explanation as well as video demonstration can be found in its own dedicated post, located here. The release of Version 4.0 has mitigated this issue by reducing the number of redundant objects created but there is still an accumulation that will lead to a crash when the same file is used for long enough.
All remaining listed items have been fixed in Versions 3.0 and earlier
Other common inquiries
My computer ID has changed from the original computer ID used to activate MASS™. I can no longer use the program. What can I do?
Please refer to our comprehensive activation guide here.
No one at our company has been able to perform an online activation. What could be the potential cause of this?
Please refer to our guide on how to troubleshoot online activation here.
When the program incorporates the self-weight of an out-of-plane wall, it uses the full height of the wall to calculate the axial load in combination with the internal bending moment. Is this correct?
The program does incorporate the self-weight in this way, and this additional axial load could potentially increase the bending moment capacity of the wall, resulting in an unconservative design. The designer can manipulate the program by checking-off the ‘include self-weight’ checkbox and then manually add an axial dead load to represent the portion of wall they want to include in self weight calculations.
Please do not hesitate to contact MASS technical support if you believe you have found a bug in the software.