# Doubt about userbeam.inp (U1) from ccx test **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [July 8, 2021, 6:16pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/doubt-about-userbeam-inp-u1-from-ccx-test/668 "2021-07-08T18:16:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![Calc\_em](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Calc\_em](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Calc_em)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2021, 9:32am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/doubt-about-userbeam-inp-u1-from-ccx-test/668/3 "2021-09-30T09:32:34Z")
Apparently, this bug is fixed in CalculiX 2.18. Unfortunately, the other one related to this element type (link below) still persists. > [@Problem using U1 element (general beam section)](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/problem-using-u1-element-general-beam-section/600): > > Hi, I ran into an issue with the general beam section (element type U1). I tried to make a simple test but aparently failed. So far I tried with ccx 2.15 and 2.17. The example is the following, describing a cantilever with weight at the tip (I think I found a similar example elsewhere): \*NODE, NSET=Nall 1,0.,0.,0. 2,10.,00.,00. 3,20.,00.,00. 4,30.,00.,00. 5,40.,00.,00. 6,50.,00.,00. 7,60.,00.,00. \*ELEMENT, TYPE=U1, ELSET=Eall 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, … --- _[View the full topic](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/doubt-about-userbeam-inp-u1-from-ccx-test/668)._