Mr. Richard/Dave

I finally was able to sketch my concern on a piece of paper, which I hope will make things clearer (please find it attached here):
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/springsexample.jpg/

Now what CAESAR II does is:
1. Get the balanced load from the W case (CASE 1 in my sketch)

2. Calculate the operating displacement from the W+P+T case

3. Assign the balanced load to the Hot condition to be the HL (assuming that we select Hot Load (HL) design)

4. Theoretical Cold Load (CL) is calculated by taking the HL (W case) and adding the vertical movement (delta) from the OPE (W+P+T) multiplied by the selected stiffness of the spring (k).

If you look at the output screen for any CII run with a spring, you will notice that the SUS case reads a load different than the Theoretical Cold Load in the "Hanger Table" screen. When we buy our spring, we specify the Theoretical Cold Load (CASE 3 in my sketch) and HL from the "Hanger Table". Meanwhile, CII calculates all reactions in the system in the SUS case based on the Actual Cold Load (CASE 2). This creates an inconsistency in the results, because the installer will set all the springs to their Cold markings (CASE 3), while CAESAR II SUS calculations are based on different numbers from CASE 2.

Do you understand my point or did I confuse you (sorry if I did :-))? If I am mistaken, I would really appreciate if you clarify this point for me because I am having doubts that I am missing something; otherwise, please confirm my understanding.

Thanks for your help.