I have recently been using Enercalc Fastframe. I have seen mention of bugs in it in these forums. Could someone tell me what bugs to look out for?<br><br>Also, I have input a small frame with a horizontal load. The plot function (load values) does not compare with the values I input. Is this a bug or my lack of knowledge of the program?<br>
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Enercalc Fastframe - Bugs?
- Thread starter ChrisBuck
- Start date
Hi, Chris<br><br>I am not familiar with Enercalc Fastframe, but the way linear-elastic analysis works is that deformations are calculated from the input loads and resolved to lead to output loads. If the two are not equal except for a small margin, I would noe use the program.<br><br>Regards, Helmut
Chris<br><br>I am familiar with Enercalc Fastframe and the bugs in it make it unuseable. I called Enercalc two years ago and asked them to fix it. They said they would but I haven't seen any action yet. The main problem is that when you want to display shear and moment diagrams of individual members, the program locks up.<br><br>The best advice is: don't waste your time with Fastframe--use Staad3 instead.<br>
- Thread starter
- #4
Chris<br><br>Pl look at <A HREF=" TARGET="_new"> use any software off the shelf. It is better to run it for known soltions to knwo how it works and to find out the problem areas. Always you can overcome such problems. I believe we can still use STAAD with caution.
Although STAADIII is far from free, they had (and i believe they still have) an analysis application through the internet; where you build the model on your PC and then analize it through their website. The run are charched by runtime. Visit their website to find out more and see if that works for you. <A HREF=" TARGET="_new">
I am not familiar with the Enercalc program you mentioned, but from the looks of the replies you're getting, it doesn't sound like a real winner.<br><br>I suggest paying a visit to Archon Engineering's site:<br><A HREF=" TARGET="_new"> have dozens of great little structural programs that you can download on a shareware basis, and they are functional enough to decide whether or not you want to buy them. The prices are very reasonable for what they can do.<br><br>They do have a frame analysis program which I have used on a number of occasions for quick solutions. <p>The Polecat<br><a href=mailto: > </a><br><a href= invite people to visit my website if you wish to discuss these issues further.
USStructuralist
Structural
Enercalc's Fast Frame was never actually released on the market as part of the Enercalc Library. The software was very late on the market due to it's conversion from spreadsheet based design to a compiled version. To make up for the delays, Mike Brooks,SE the developer of the software released it to the engineering community as free-ware but was very clear that although he intended to continue to improve the software that it was not on his priorities and he warned the users that the software was not fully tested.
Mike did this at the same time that Avansee' was made available to SEA members in California (and all members on the SEAINT Listservice ( to make up for a problem that occured some years before when licensed users in the US were left holding the bag because of a distribution problem between the South American developer of the software and his American distributer.
Subsequently, Avansee struck a deal with Ram Analysis who recently released Ram Avanse as part of their family of products.
Enercalc has not pursued Fast Frame but still is strong in with one of the better Library of Structural Engineering software tools.
It's hard to demand a software developer to fix "bugs" in a software if he is giving the product away after paying many thousands of dollars to write it. On top of this, he also announced that there was no technical support on the product and that it was - essentially, given as is.
If you want a good FEM program for a reasonable price, you might look at both Risa3D, Bruce Bates, SE- the developer who is more than happy to help explain how the model should be setup if that is your concerns. Another fine program originally written for the MAC but converted to PC is Daystar's MultiFrame - very user friendly.
Each of these are much less expensive than SAP and the other high-end FEM programs, but offer as extensive a package for other than very tall high rise structure. [sig][/sig]
Mike did this at the same time that Avansee' was made available to SEA members in California (and all members on the SEAINT Listservice ( to make up for a problem that occured some years before when licensed users in the US were left holding the bag because of a distribution problem between the South American developer of the software and his American distributer.
Subsequently, Avansee struck a deal with Ram Analysis who recently released Ram Avanse as part of their family of products.
Enercalc has not pursued Fast Frame but still is strong in with one of the better Library of Structural Engineering software tools.
It's hard to demand a software developer to fix "bugs" in a software if he is giving the product away after paying many thousands of dollars to write it. On top of this, he also announced that there was no technical support on the product and that it was - essentially, given as is.
If you want a good FEM program for a reasonable price, you might look at both Risa3D, Bruce Bates, SE- the developer who is more than happy to help explain how the model should be setup if that is your concerns. Another fine program originally written for the MAC but converted to PC is Daystar's MultiFrame - very user friendly.
Each of these are much less expensive than SAP and the other high-end FEM programs, but offer as extensive a package for other than very tall high rise structure. [sig][/sig]
USStructuralist
Structural
Enercalc 5.1 is the latest versions which does not include an FEM module. The work that was done with FastFrame was to compete with other FEM programs on the market but, as Mike Brooks explained (the developer of Enercalc) the delays in getting Fastframe on the market left a lot of dissatisfied people and in the process created a niche for other inexpensive FEM programs. Rather that proceed with FastFrame, it was dropped from the Enercalc library. To make up for the delays, Brooks provided the software as free-ware but warned the user that it would only be supported when there was time.
I have used the Enercalc Library since its old days of Lotus 123 compatibility. Sure, there are errors from time to time, but the library overall is exceptional and has developed a lot of respect in the engineering community.
I am hesitant to discuss the issue of "bugs" because what appears to be a bug is often a misunderstanding by the user as to how proprerly to interpret the input of the program. One example might be that the latest version of Enercalc uses the latest wood stress values which means that it is not backward compatible to analysis done six or eight years ago which used higher stress values. Although this is in the manual, it is not on the calc sheet and comparing hand calc to the results of enercalc may not yield the same results.
I am not trying to defend the library either - I just do see the advantage of hurting a developers reputation or putting him out of business for an error that can be corrected.
If that were the case, we would be complaining more often about the errors in the written code. Even more to the point, I read a recent document between members of SEAOC which indicated how profitable the sale of the Seismic Design Manual - Volume II was to the SEA membership. The document spoke highly of the income it brought into SEA as did the seminars. It did not mention how riddled with errors the Seismic Design Manual was - giving practicing engineers the wrong information.
I know this to be the case, because my name appears in the Seismic Design Manual as one of the problem checkers.
My point is that accuracy and problems exist in both the software we use and in the codes we follow. Still, it is the engineer of records responsiblity to satisfy him (or her) self of the adequacy of the results obtained. Many of us are so quick to condemn software on the market because we see ourselves as the peons who the wealthy developers of software take advantage of.
Even with the best in beta testing, the fact remains that errors occur and developers rely heavily upon the user to bring it to their attention rather than write reviews to condemn them.
It is easier for us to condemn software than to chastise the Seismology Committee of SEAOC for the errors they allowed to be published in the Seismic Design Manual. The difference is that SEAOC was aware of the problem but published anyways to generate income. To make matters worse, they used the software analogy to try and convince their members to invest in the SDM so that there would be sufficient income to refine and correct the manual in the future. How fair is that?
In my opinion, Enercalc has some of the finest tools that have changed the way we work and allowed us to be much more productive than we had been in the past. If there is a complaint about the accuracy of the software, you should be discussing it with the vendor rather than spreading the word among end-users on a forum which hurts the developer and could remove one more usefull productivity tool on the market.
I am sorry if this sounds like preaching but let me give you one more example. I created a multi-story lateral design spreadsheet with another engineer in Northern California. We asked others with spreadsheet skills to participate in the development of the spreadsheet, kept it completely unprotected and placed it into the public domain for anyone to use so as to make it much easier to design a multi-story wood structure using flexible and rigid diaphragm analysis. Few people participated in beta checking but the availability of the software was announced to over 15,000 subscribers to the SEAINT Listservice.
There are, most definately, minor bugs in the software which any knowledable user of spreadsheets can repair. For one story structures the only discrepency comes from my position to ignore the redundancy factor Rho as I firmly believe it should not apply to single family homes as they are unarguably redundant (reference Gary Searer's paper submitted to the SEAOC Seismology Committee on the problems with the Rho calculations). I have used the spreadsheet sucessfully on many one story structures but know that there is a problem on multi-story which simply do not use the correct material deadload in the analysis (an error in the look-up function).
On engineer wrote a very critical review of the software on the SEAINT List - siteing some issues that were, in fact, correct. He indicated that there was no published verification problem (something any user of the software could provide) and there was no Users manual or help files (again this is correct). He recommended that the program was inaccurate and should not be used by any one until the verification problem and help files or manual were provided - siting that because it was freeware does no mean that those using it should be greatful or satisfied about the work done.
The spreadsheet, less these features, is still a useful tool. Considering the hundreds of hours that went into the development of the spreadsheet by a couple of people who provided it for nothing to their peers, those who choose to use it could do a little of the work to provide the design examples and help files to finish it off. However, the concensus is that it is all of nothing regardless of cost.
Enercalc provided Fastframe for free to the public, but few have used it and provided feedback to Brooks on the problems associated with the program. By the time others responded, Brooks was busy on upgrades to software that provides his income, yet he is critized for putting his freeware on the website for those who wanted it.
Personally, I think this is uncalled for. As a community, we need not invest in software that yeilds incorrect results, but we certainly should be protecting good ideas and encouraging the developers of software that will be of use to us - if only because a very small minority of us have the capability or resources to develope the tools that all of us need to stay in business.
Dennis S. Wish, PE
admin@structuralist.net
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON ISSUES SUCH AS THIS YOU MAY WISH TO LEARN ABOUT OUR AEC-RESIDENTIAL LISTSERVICE AND DISCUSSION FORUMS AT:
Note: Software users forums are only located on the Website Discussion Forums in the TEAM-2000 Profession Category. The address of the Discussion forum is:
(all on one line with no spaces).
To subscribe to our Residential Listservice:
Send an email to:
For Digest format address to:
aec-residential-digest-request@polhemus.cc
For Regular format address to:
aec-residential-request@polhemus.cc
To subscribe or leave the List place one of the following words in the body of the message:
subscribe
unsubscribe
Do not place anything in the subject line and send the message. You will receive a confirmation which must be responded to. Follow the directions on the reply. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or problems.
[sig][/sig]
I have used the Enercalc Library since its old days of Lotus 123 compatibility. Sure, there are errors from time to time, but the library overall is exceptional and has developed a lot of respect in the engineering community.
I am hesitant to discuss the issue of "bugs" because what appears to be a bug is often a misunderstanding by the user as to how proprerly to interpret the input of the program. One example might be that the latest version of Enercalc uses the latest wood stress values which means that it is not backward compatible to analysis done six or eight years ago which used higher stress values. Although this is in the manual, it is not on the calc sheet and comparing hand calc to the results of enercalc may not yield the same results.
I am not trying to defend the library either - I just do see the advantage of hurting a developers reputation or putting him out of business for an error that can be corrected.
If that were the case, we would be complaining more often about the errors in the written code. Even more to the point, I read a recent document between members of SEAOC which indicated how profitable the sale of the Seismic Design Manual - Volume II was to the SEA membership. The document spoke highly of the income it brought into SEA as did the seminars. It did not mention how riddled with errors the Seismic Design Manual was - giving practicing engineers the wrong information.
I know this to be the case, because my name appears in the Seismic Design Manual as one of the problem checkers.
My point is that accuracy and problems exist in both the software we use and in the codes we follow. Still, it is the engineer of records responsiblity to satisfy him (or her) self of the adequacy of the results obtained. Many of us are so quick to condemn software on the market because we see ourselves as the peons who the wealthy developers of software take advantage of.
Even with the best in beta testing, the fact remains that errors occur and developers rely heavily upon the user to bring it to their attention rather than write reviews to condemn them.
It is easier for us to condemn software than to chastise the Seismology Committee of SEAOC for the errors they allowed to be published in the Seismic Design Manual. The difference is that SEAOC was aware of the problem but published anyways to generate income. To make matters worse, they used the software analogy to try and convince their members to invest in the SDM so that there would be sufficient income to refine and correct the manual in the future. How fair is that?
In my opinion, Enercalc has some of the finest tools that have changed the way we work and allowed us to be much more productive than we had been in the past. If there is a complaint about the accuracy of the software, you should be discussing it with the vendor rather than spreading the word among end-users on a forum which hurts the developer and could remove one more usefull productivity tool on the market.
I am sorry if this sounds like preaching but let me give you one more example. I created a multi-story lateral design spreadsheet with another engineer in Northern California. We asked others with spreadsheet skills to participate in the development of the spreadsheet, kept it completely unprotected and placed it into the public domain for anyone to use so as to make it much easier to design a multi-story wood structure using flexible and rigid diaphragm analysis. Few people participated in beta checking but the availability of the software was announced to over 15,000 subscribers to the SEAINT Listservice.
There are, most definately, minor bugs in the software which any knowledable user of spreadsheets can repair. For one story structures the only discrepency comes from my position to ignore the redundancy factor Rho as I firmly believe it should not apply to single family homes as they are unarguably redundant (reference Gary Searer's paper submitted to the SEAOC Seismology Committee on the problems with the Rho calculations). I have used the spreadsheet sucessfully on many one story structures but know that there is a problem on multi-story which simply do not use the correct material deadload in the analysis (an error in the look-up function).
On engineer wrote a very critical review of the software on the SEAINT List - siteing some issues that were, in fact, correct. He indicated that there was no published verification problem (something any user of the software could provide) and there was no Users manual or help files (again this is correct). He recommended that the program was inaccurate and should not be used by any one until the verification problem and help files or manual were provided - siting that because it was freeware does no mean that those using it should be greatful or satisfied about the work done.
The spreadsheet, less these features, is still a useful tool. Considering the hundreds of hours that went into the development of the spreadsheet by a couple of people who provided it for nothing to their peers, those who choose to use it could do a little of the work to provide the design examples and help files to finish it off. However, the concensus is that it is all of nothing regardless of cost.
Enercalc provided Fastframe for free to the public, but few have used it and provided feedback to Brooks on the problems associated with the program. By the time others responded, Brooks was busy on upgrades to software that provides his income, yet he is critized for putting his freeware on the website for those who wanted it.
Personally, I think this is uncalled for. As a community, we need not invest in software that yeilds incorrect results, but we certainly should be protecting good ideas and encouraging the developers of software that will be of use to us - if only because a very small minority of us have the capability or resources to develope the tools that all of us need to stay in business.
Dennis S. Wish, PE
admin@structuralist.net
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON ISSUES SUCH AS THIS YOU MAY WISH TO LEARN ABOUT OUR AEC-RESIDENTIAL LISTSERVICE AND DISCUSSION FORUMS AT:
Note: Software users forums are only located on the Website Discussion Forums in the TEAM-2000 Profession Category. The address of the Discussion forum is:
(all on one line with no spaces).
To subscribe to our Residential Listservice:
Send an email to:
For Digest format address to:
aec-residential-digest-request@polhemus.cc
For Regular format address to:
aec-residential-request@polhemus.cc
To subscribe or leave the List place one of the following words in the body of the message:
subscribe
unsubscribe
Do not place anything in the subject line and send the message. You will receive a confirmation which must be responded to. Follow the directions on the reply. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or problems.
[sig][/sig]
Whew! That was a bit of verbage....yet helpful. I would like to add my own opinion that ANYONE writing any kind of software these days who thinks about providing it free to the public to use, should consider that their work can be seriously mis-used.
As an engineer, I have a responsibility to the public safety in performing engineering design. While mis-use of any software that I might write is not under my direct control, I feel that before I issue any software as free-ware, or for sale, I should thoroughly check it and perform some level of quality assurance review on it prior to release.
Like it or not, there are many individuals out there that use software like it was an "inerrant ghost in the machine". It's their direct responsibility if they mis-use it, but why provide them so many opportunities? [sig][/sig]
As an engineer, I have a responsibility to the public safety in performing engineering design. While mis-use of any software that I might write is not under my direct control, I feel that before I issue any software as free-ware, or for sale, I should thoroughly check it and perform some level of quality assurance review on it prior to release.
Like it or not, there are many individuals out there that use software like it was an "inerrant ghost in the machine". It's their direct responsibility if they mis-use it, but why provide them so many opportunities? [sig][/sig]
USStructuralist
Structural
JAE
Playing Devils advocate here - It is my opinion (and that of most terms and conditions on the software) that the user is responsible for the accuracy of the software. Whether it is free or for sale, problems do occur in software that may not be found until pointed out by the developer or a user in practice.
First, my apologies for the verbage - I do get carried away :>)
There are mistakes (errors) in the Uniform Building Code and in the ICBO Seismic Design Manual Volume II which is used by, perhaps, thousands of engineers throughout the US and who are not aware of the problem.
The Webmaster of the SEAINT Listservice and Website posted a message on the List to engineers that he believed it important for engineers to purchase the SDM even if there are errors in it. His philosophy is that, like software, the sale of the manual will generate funds to make the corrections in future editions.
I think this is a sign of a troubled profession when we start treating building codes and commentary as if it were vaporware - released with known errors to avoid a loss in revenue from waiting for corrections. I am, unfortunately, mentioned in the SDM as a checker to the cold-form steel problem. Although this was, in my opinion, without error, I did report many in the wood design section that had sufficient time to correct. Still, the decision was made to publish the manual so as not to lose the revenue that it could bring to the professional association.
In a private letter to the next president of SEAOC by one of the committee chairs (which I was asked not to publish) the sucess of the SDM in revenue to SEAOC was touted and it was strongly suggested that the manual be expanded and marketed to reach its full profitability to the organization. Nothing was mentioned of the thousands of engineers, many of whom are unaware of the problems or errors, who will be duplicating the errors in design.
My point is that we have grown to expect software to have potential problems. As long as it is clearly stated that the software is unprotected and accessible to changes without documentation, it probably will not be accepted by building officials as reliable or correct without some sort of verification problem.
The City of San Jose recently published an addendum to the 1997 UBC which adds additional commentary to the code that requires equivalent or greater complliance. This includes the submittal of computer programs. Those which are not recognized as industry standards (as is Enercalc and others like it) must include a users manual and/or verification problem to check the programs accuracy. The city of San Jose does allow programs like Enercalc to be used to verify the accuracy of another software.
You can read the article in PDF format at:
Finally, there is the issue of liability. This is resolved by most softwares which disclaim any liability for the use of their programs and possible incorrect results. As the phrase "Anyone who defends themself has a fool for a lawyer" the same is true of anyone who uses a software to practice in an area they are not qualified to be in - simply because the tools are available. Engineers should not be using software tools if they have not developed an engineering intuition for how the materials behave and if the results are reasonable.
One example that I try to instill upon my students (Elementary Structures) is to look at a beam problem with a concentrated load. They should begin to see the relationship of the load to it's distance from each reaction. The closer to the suppor the greater the reaction. This seems like common sense, but this is the very begining concept of developing an intuitive relationship between statics and physical problems.
Finally, we do take much for granted in Structural Software. The fact is that many packages are not adequately beta tested because the market is so narrow that there are not enough professionals willing to spend the time to adequately check the accuracy of the software. We "assume" it to be correct and we should not.
Therefore, your final statement "It's their direct responsibility if they mis-use it, but why provide them so many opportunities? " is a catch-22. The opportunities are inherent in most softwares which unavoidably have problems. The responsiblity lies with us all to verify the accuracy of the tools we use. This is simply the sign of the times of technology - as much as if the lines on a slide-rule were in the proper location to yield appropriate results. The difference is that it is much easier to create a mistake in a computer program that is unforgiving in syntext.
[sig]<p>Dennis S. Wish, PE<br><a href=mailto:admin@structuralist.net>admin@structuralist.net</a><br><a href= Structuralist.Net Professional Discussion Foru</a><br>To join the aec-residential listservices send an email to: aec-residential-request@polhemus.cc for full service or aec-residential-digest-request@polhemus.cc for digest format. Include the word subscribe in the body and send.[/sig]
Playing Devils advocate here - It is my opinion (and that of most terms and conditions on the software) that the user is responsible for the accuracy of the software. Whether it is free or for sale, problems do occur in software that may not be found until pointed out by the developer or a user in practice.
First, my apologies for the verbage - I do get carried away :>)
There are mistakes (errors) in the Uniform Building Code and in the ICBO Seismic Design Manual Volume II which is used by, perhaps, thousands of engineers throughout the US and who are not aware of the problem.
The Webmaster of the SEAINT Listservice and Website posted a message on the List to engineers that he believed it important for engineers to purchase the SDM even if there are errors in it. His philosophy is that, like software, the sale of the manual will generate funds to make the corrections in future editions.
I think this is a sign of a troubled profession when we start treating building codes and commentary as if it were vaporware - released with known errors to avoid a loss in revenue from waiting for corrections. I am, unfortunately, mentioned in the SDM as a checker to the cold-form steel problem. Although this was, in my opinion, without error, I did report many in the wood design section that had sufficient time to correct. Still, the decision was made to publish the manual so as not to lose the revenue that it could bring to the professional association.
In a private letter to the next president of SEAOC by one of the committee chairs (which I was asked not to publish) the sucess of the SDM in revenue to SEAOC was touted and it was strongly suggested that the manual be expanded and marketed to reach its full profitability to the organization. Nothing was mentioned of the thousands of engineers, many of whom are unaware of the problems or errors, who will be duplicating the errors in design.
My point is that we have grown to expect software to have potential problems. As long as it is clearly stated that the software is unprotected and accessible to changes without documentation, it probably will not be accepted by building officials as reliable or correct without some sort of verification problem.
The City of San Jose recently published an addendum to the 1997 UBC which adds additional commentary to the code that requires equivalent or greater complliance. This includes the submittal of computer programs. Those which are not recognized as industry standards (as is Enercalc and others like it) must include a users manual and/or verification problem to check the programs accuracy. The city of San Jose does allow programs like Enercalc to be used to verify the accuracy of another software.
You can read the article in PDF format at:
Finally, there is the issue of liability. This is resolved by most softwares which disclaim any liability for the use of their programs and possible incorrect results. As the phrase "Anyone who defends themself has a fool for a lawyer" the same is true of anyone who uses a software to practice in an area they are not qualified to be in - simply because the tools are available. Engineers should not be using software tools if they have not developed an engineering intuition for how the materials behave and if the results are reasonable.
One example that I try to instill upon my students (Elementary Structures) is to look at a beam problem with a concentrated load. They should begin to see the relationship of the load to it's distance from each reaction. The closer to the suppor the greater the reaction. This seems like common sense, but this is the very begining concept of developing an intuitive relationship between statics and physical problems.
Finally, we do take much for granted in Structural Software. The fact is that many packages are not adequately beta tested because the market is so narrow that there are not enough professionals willing to spend the time to adequately check the accuracy of the software. We "assume" it to be correct and we should not.
Therefore, your final statement "It's their direct responsibility if they mis-use it, but why provide them so many opportunities? " is a catch-22. The opportunities are inherent in most softwares which unavoidably have problems. The responsiblity lies with us all to verify the accuracy of the tools we use. This is simply the sign of the times of technology - as much as if the lines on a slide-rule were in the proper location to yield appropriate results. The difference is that it is much easier to create a mistake in a computer program that is unforgiving in syntext.
[sig]<p>Dennis S. Wish, PE<br><a href=mailto:admin@structuralist.net>admin@structuralist.net</a><br><a href= Structuralist.Net Professional Discussion Foru</a><br>To join the aec-residential listservices send an email to: aec-residential-request@polhemus.cc for full service or aec-residential-digest-request@polhemus.cc for digest format. Include the word subscribe in the body and send.[/sig]
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
