Woodworks Software

[SE2607]

I tried Woodworks many years ago and didn't find it productive at the time. I found it too tedious for single member design. For an entire framing system, it didn't provide a "final" analysis, but a "conceptual" analysis (based on my feeble memory, I could be in error with the terms). That experience discouraged me from even trying the shear wall module.

What I did instead was create a beam spreadsheet. I now build a workbook with many beams. Instead of inputting uniformly distributed loads, I enter the tributary width of the load type. When a beam is supported by another beam, I link the worksheets. With ACAD on one screen and Excel on the other, I can easily measure spans and tributary widths and enter those values in the spreadsheet. Once the beams are sized, the supports (mostly wood posts in my practice), can be easily designed by linking the reactions of the beams to the posts. After that, the foundation can be designed using the loads on the posts. It took quite a bit of work to get here, but I have a hard time believing there is a faster method. Maybe it would be if my structures were more complicated, but it has been sufficient for me.

Of course, in my mind, the Holy Grail^(tm) is to enter a complete framing plan and have the entire building analyzed.

Last year, I experimented with RISA 3D to do just that, model an entire building. Maybe if I had not built a library of beam templates, a post template and a footing template, it would have been a good solution. However, based on the fact I had those resources, I found building a RISA model for my structures to be more work than it was worth. It was fun, though. I was able to see secondary stresses (and deformations) I wouldn't have seen using spreadsheets. For example, it was interesting to see how much a wall will bow when a ridge beam deflects. Alas, the entertainment value was not worth the price of the subscription to me.

My question is: has Sizer improved? Is it worth looking at again?

Thank you

 

[XR250]

I do most beams on my calculator in 10-15 seconds. More complicated loadings go to my 2D frame or BCCalc. I have never been able to justify software that can model an entire building.

 

[SE2607]

I do most beams on my calculator in 10-15 seconds. More complicated loadings go to my 2D frame or BCCalc. I have never been able to justify software that can model an entire building.

I realize that WL^2/8 and Mc/I doesn't take very long, but....
First you have to determine W (trib width x unit load) for each load case, including reductions for tributary area.
There are those pesky load combinations.
Back in the day, I could do hand calcs pretty fast (compared to my peers), mainly because I write with my left hand and used the calculator with my right. I didn't have to put down my pencil to use the calculator. Alas, I haven't done hand calcs since 2008 (WOW! That's 17 years!). I don't have a pencil on my desk. I don't have a calculator on my desk (although I do have an app).
I know you are a really amazing engineer, but, for me, there is no way I can do a beam calc suitable for a building department submittal in 10-15 seconds. Then, when I have 20 beams on a project, keeping track of reactions, load combinations, etc. became unrealistic doing them by hand.

 

[Eng16080]

I use sizer for designing wood beams and columns, with the exception of some proprietary products that it doesn't directly support (like I-joists). IMO, it's a quality piece of software. I don't use it for the entire building design, only individual member calcs. I manually trace loads within my cad drawing through the structure down to the foundation.

I've only used the shear wall module many years ago and it was a bit rough then. I don't know what it's like now.

I occasionally use RISA3D to model entire buildings, or more realistically the major structural elements of buildings (not every joist, wall stud, etc.). It's a very tedious process, but it can have its benefits. It's also great for modeling isolated trusses, moment frames, and other less simple structural components. For me, it's worth the cost. I seem to use it on maybe every other large house design I'm involved in.

FWIW, it sounds like you have a pretty good system in place that works well for what you do. As long as you've tested it thoroughly and provide secondary spot checks on occasion, maybe there's no point looking for an alternative. I've spent significant time working on software of my own which would be used for entire building design, somewhat like what you've described. It's been a long struggle. The fact you have a working system that you're using for actual design work is a huge win.

 

[XR250]

I realize that WL^2/8 and Mc/I doesn't take very long, but....
First you have to determine W (trib width x unit load) for each load case, including reductions for tributary area.
There are those pesky load combinations.
Back in the day, I could do hand calcs pretty fast (compared to my peers), mainly because I write with my left hand and used the calculator with my right. I didn't have to put down my pencil to use the calculator. Alas, I haven't done hand calcs since 2008 (WOW! That's 17 years!). I don't have a pencil on my desk. I don't have a calculator on my desk (although I do have an app).
I know you are a really amazing engineer, but, for me, there is no way I can do a beam calc suitable for a building department submittal in 10-15 seconds. Then, when I have 20 beams on a project, keeping track of reactions, load combinations, etc. became unrealistic doing them by hand.

I rarely have to submit calcs so that is helpful. I also don't typically reduce for trib area or use load combinations. This is for residential and light commercial though I have a hidden layer on my drawings where I note the reactions so it makes it easier to trace them thru to lower level beams. I "adjust" for trib reductions and load combinations when I am deciding which member to specify. i.e If I am down at the foundation level and I am 20% OS under full design loads from two stories and a roof, I am willing to let that slide.

 

[SE2607]

I rarely have to submit calcs so that is helpful.

You are a lucky man. Here in California, there is an incredible amount of scrutiny (which results in my outrageous fees, so I'm not really complaining).

I also don't typically reduce for trib area or use load combinations.

I understand ignoring trib area reduction for residential work, but how do you get by without load combinations? While writing this, I am visualizing a floor beam supporting a post which is loaded by roof live load. For me, it is not always clear whether D+L or D+0.75(L+Lr) or even D+0.75(L+Lr+0.6W) and D+0.75(L+Lr+0.7E) governs. Additionally, I have to deal with that pesky 0.7E = 0.7(0.2)S_DSW_D. Here, that can amount to an additional 15%-25% vertical load on the beam, although C_D = 1.6 and may not govern. And, of course, all those load combinations have different load duration factors (C_D).

I have a hidden layer on my drawings where I note the reactions

That's pretty cool, but, again, it's not always clear (to me) which load combination governs.

 

[XR250]

I use 1.0 for all loads. Honestly, the spectrum of beams I can use for a particular area is quite large. I could design anywhere from L/240 to L/600 ish and still be fine so load combos typically get lost in the noise. I usually try to keeps things at L/480 total load minimum. Time is money, afterall, I will consider a load combination if I am near capacity on a beam and need to make it squeak by but deflection controls most things until I get down into the foundation area anyway.

 

[jhnblgr]

Check out BC framer I haven’t used it much since it takes a bit more effort and time but I think it allows you to 3d model and send to BC calc for design.