Enercalc Wind Calc Module ASCE 7-10 - PROBLEMS 1

[TopKnot]

Has anyone tried to use enercalc's ASCE 7-10 wind calculation module? Yikes. The default pressure coefficients all totally wrong. When you correct them, You get a reasonable wind load. The problem is that when you hit save or print, it automatically resets to the default values that are wrong. There is literally no way to save or print your results.

I have had an exchange with their Director of Development (Chris Conrad, PE), and the best he can do is say they do not guarantee a flawless product. It took him four emails to acknowledge that there was a problem. What bothers me most about this is that with these major problems, it is obviously that the module was never tested on a real problem by a real PE. You would think that there new yearly $350/seat/year maintenance fee ought to cover a little product testing.

How often do you or your employees actually verify structural software results with real calcs? I guess there is no substitute for making your own spreadsheets or hand calcs.

_________________________
Tony Krempin, PE
TopKnot Engineering

 

[frv]

I used to like Enercalc for simple clacs, but I try to avoid it now. It seems to be riddled with inaccuracies. And non-stop updates.

 

[efsinc]

Haven't used enercalc, but have had similar issues with other software. As far as I am concerned, I always verify. Of course, one of my teachers insisted we form the habit of doing a mental calculation to verify the output of the then new contraption, what's it called... o yes, the hand calculator.

 

[Once20036]

At this point, I never use Enercalc for design. Last year I had a similar issue with totally inaccurate/unsafe retaining wall results.
Every software has the same "use at your own risk" disclaimer, but I've never found issues as frequently or as seriously as I have with Enercalc.

I still use it, but just for quick checks on work I do by hand/elsewhere.

 

[CConrad]

Tony,

I understand that you are frustrated with a calculation that doesn’t seem to be working the way it is expected to. But please understand that we are on the same team here. Please take my text below as a conversational and informative response, and not a defensive retort. I am taking my time to write some thoughts out for you, because we value you as a user, and we want that to come through in our product and in our communications.

A thorough QA/QC process does not guarantee a flawless product over its useful life of edits and enhancements. It is a benchmark to try to ensure that the product is in significant compliance with the software design specification, and that it is performing as expected. In work that is as complex as the wind forces module, there are bound to be some minor issues that are going to crop up when the module is used in a production environment. (I consider default values and saving to be relatively minor, as compared to a calculation error of some sort.) That is normal and expected. We strive for excellence, but not perfection, because the pursuit of perfection is futile.

This module is excellent, because it takes an incredible number of variables into consideration and simplifies them into useful information for a designer. At this point, we welcome user observations like yours, and we address them to further improve the module where necessary.

When you came to us with an observation about default values and saving, I promptly investigated, confirmed with you, and submitted case WIND-5 to the developers. My role and my actions are based on fact, engineering principles, and business ethic…not on a perceived need to “defend EC programming” as you assert. This company and this product have a thirty year track record that stands for itself, and doesn’t need little old me to defend it.

So looking forward, if you observe any unexpected behavior in this or any module in Structural Engineering Library, please let us know. You can expect the same prompt response from me that I delivered on WIND-5. And as a further suggestion, what really helps us is if you can include a Project File and a list of very specific steps to take to observe the effect you are trying to describe.

Thanks Tony.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[TopKnot]

I thought errors in Enercalc wind calculations warranted a public forum warning to others, which is why I posted it here. As an MSCE with an emphasis FEM and a programming background, I found it troubling that an untested module of a three-year-old calculation method is put in a major software program. If it had been tested, the default values would have the right sign/decimal point, and you should be able to hit print or save without unknowingly resetting to the default incorrect values. These errors result in wind loads 30% of what they should be. I'm sure the next update will fix the problems.

_________________________
Tony Krempin, PE
TopKnot Engineering

 

[frv]

Chris,

I used to like Enercalc, but it's getting to the point where it's unusable. I don't know if you tried to cram too much into the program, but as soon as you get a few calculations in, it takes way too long to do anything, and there are the inaccuracies brought up earlier. I used to use Enercalc for all minor calculations, but I'm using it less and less now- it's just not worth the hassle.

And, all due respect, I think you've got it wrong. You should achieve excellence in pursuit of perfection. Nobody expects you to achieve perfection, but you should certainly attempt to get there. Your statement to the contrary seems cavalier.

 

[ztengguy]

Yea, I am not a fan of it. Heck, the version I have you cant even enlarge the window box to full screen. The little box to click is greyed out so you cant go full screen.

I find it better to take the time to develop your own spreadsheet. Thatway you know whats in it, and whats right.

 

[CConrad]

FRV,

If you are a licensed ENERCALC user, I would encourage you to contact us directly at support(at)enercalc(dot)com. We will be glad to assist with your concerns through the normal support process.

Cheers,
Chris

Chris Conrad, P.E.
Director of Development
ENERCALC, Inc.
Web:

http://www.enercalc.com

 

[XR250]

I had a similar issue with VirtualPC - a PC emulator that runs on a Mac. Microsoft bought it from the developer a few years before I started using it. Well it turns out that Windows on used 64 bit math, but the Mac used 80 bit. No a big problem you say, but when you are using software that does iterative design, the error added up to about 30%. It was not enough for it to be obvious to me as the results were within the realm of reason. Fortunately, I caught it before construction started. Microsoft's response was similar in that they do no guarantee a flawless product. I responded that an assumed basic premise of emulators is that it can do math correctly. They never solved the problem or owned up to it and ended up discontinuing the product. IDIOTS!
Ironically, a few months later, a former collegue of mine called and asked if I could figure out why his stormwater calc numbers were off - he was using the same f'n emulator.

 

[CConrad]

For the benefit of the others following this thread, just wanted to mention that the issue with the default values in that particular section of the ASCE 7-10 Wind Forces module was reported to the developers midday on Wednesday, and the they have already addressed it by late afternoon Friday.

Cheers,
Chris

Chris Conrad, P.E.
Director of Development
ENERCALC, Inc.
Web:

http://www.enercalc.com

 

[bookowski]

The Enercalc response that "I consider default values and saving to be relatively minor, as compared to a calculation error of some sort" is irresponsible and dismissive. This means that if engineer A is working on a project, saves the file, and engineer B opens the file he should always work on the premise that all results are invalid? Seems a bit ridiculous.

In respect to default values being wrong as a "minor" issue I would think this is top level QC when checking software prior to release. It is a lot harder to detect some internal calculation error for some very atypical condition than it is to see that the default screen is wrong.