EnerCalc 2

Haven't used it in a while but when I did I liked how it worked. I would compare it to a set of excel spreadsheets that have already been checked and have a graphical interface.

I have used it but was not a fan. It was an older version but was very "block box". As Teguci mentioned it is similar to a spreadsheet. To me that means it is tough to follow there design methodology in some cases. However it is fast and pretty easy to use.
I would prefer CSC's Tedds. It has a bunch of built in modules and also has "Tedds for Word" which is similar to a 'dumbed down' mathcad. That is if you are looking for a "hand calc" type program. I don't have experience with too many other systems though so my opinion is slightly skewed.
RISA is good for whole building FE type analysis and I'm not sure if they offer any "hand calc" type modules.

EIT

Tehuci, it definitely gave me that feel from looking at it, as well. RFreund, I am not sure how you mean it is a 'black box'. Do they not provide a user manual to explain their design assumptions? Critical intermediate calcs are hidden from view? Also, you mention RISA. I use RISA and I like it for its analysis speed and simplicity, but its code checking is very limited and doesn't show intermediate calcs, either. RISA modules for base plates and such are very useful. I think I looked at Tedds but it was limited on the type of modules? I'm going to check it again.

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

My experience with Enercalc is also limited to older versions of the program, but I was not a fan when I used it.
There are a number of assumptions built into the program that vary from module to module and are sometimes counterintuitive.
For example - when designing a one span steel beam, you can define a steel section and it includes the dead weight. When designing a multi span steel beam, you can define a steel section but it does not include the dead weight.
Also - I had issues with their calcs for retaining wall sliding. Even after several calls with their tech support, I couldn't get anywhere near the sliding capacity that the program claimed to have.
At this point - I don't use it for design - just for order of magnitude/approximate checks on things I've already designed.

I've used both the old and new version. I would rate is as average. The software can be buggy and I have found some discrepancies in the output compared to my hand calculations. However it can be useful for some design applications, hand calc checks, and magnitude approximations.. They offer a full version 60 day trial.

Interesting, particularly the dead load issue. Do you guys know what is the version number of your old program? That may help me do some more research to see if there have been large improvements and bug fixes.

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

I would define a "black box" as a program where you put numbers in, get numbers out, but can't verify what happens in between. The answers might be correct, but most of us engineers are too anal to trust what we can't see.
This has been discussed before. Count me as not a fan. I don't like the output, the input or much else. It's hard to get support or any questions answered. We're looking into TEDDS as a replacement.

It doesn't deal with uplift well. I used the combined footing module and had a net uplift on one column and the foundation exploded. I got bearing pressures of a million psf, than I checked it with the same geometry in a spreadsheet and got reasonable answer and it was close to my hand calc.

Also, for some reason it gives me a horizontal component in bolt ledger design even when I don't have a horizontal load applied to the ledger.

Jed, I agree that is the definition. I dislike when I can't see the steps in between answers; anal is definitely the right word! Personally, RISA (what I currently use) is pretty elusive with intermediate calcs, but I guess Enercalc isn't much better based on the majority of the opinions so far. I had seen TEDDS, but couldn't find pricing information. The bosses like to hear the pricing before even considering a trial download.

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

Ash, that sounds very nerving regarding the footing output. I would imagine the horizontal component was due to minor eccentricities creating moment. Did it consistently give substantial horizontal components?

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

I use it for quick calcs, but I do most of my work on smaller projects, and it's the only program I could afford. The others just aren't priced for one-woman shows. It has definitely gotten better over the years and they just a few weeks ago came out with a huge update, but I haven't needed to use it much since then.

slta,

We are in the relatively same situation, i.e. many diverse small projects.

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

For my two cents, I found Ram Elements pretty good. Tedds is VERY limited. You can write code in tedds, but it is not in any standard programming language. Further, if a peice of informaiton changes in the middle of a calc, it is not re-sent back tot he beginning unless you direct it to. For my money, I would develop spreadsheets that can be used for the specific item you are working on. I might also buy Enercalc or Ram Elements to compare the spreadsheets to.

Tedds is more expensive (I believe) but I didn't notice any modules 'missing' or that it did not provide and that encercalc did provide.

The Word program is limited but there are alot of 'work arounds' and if you need to prepare calculation reports I have found it quite helpful. Also if you develop your own calcs it is 'easier' for others follow your calculations. As VTPE said it is a line by line process and can be limiting but for most calcs it works pretty well.

Also just as an FYI - most responses I've heard from people tend to be please or satisfied with TEDDS but this is only a handful of people. My biggest complaints are that it can be buggy at times and I wish the word program was more 'powerful' or that it could atleast create matrices.
I don't know whats out there so I don't want to come off as I'm promoting it but just relying my experiences with it.


VTPE - Have you used TEDDS?

EIT

a7x1984

I don't think it was from moments because it was always on the capacity side where this anomaly would show up and the load it was comparing the answers to had no horizontal component.

It does do beams well, though.

I have noted several bugs in Enercalc in the past, some of which were corrected in software updates. At one time (and maybe still) there was a sign convention error in the "combined footings" module as well as an error in the way overburdon was included in design checks. Every time I look really carefully at a set of design calcs I seem to find some small quirk or error. It is just often enough to make me doubt results from Enercalc as a whole. Since it is "balck box", it is usually not worth my time to dig through and find where errors are when results differ from my hand-calced values. I echo those who use it a a convenient check of other work as well as a good starting place for design, but hesitate to rely on it independently.

On a seperate note, when V6 of enercalc we bought in again (instead of letting our license expire) specifically for advertised modules for "masonry shear walls with opening". That module has never been included in V6 and they do not even advertise it as a future feature anymore.

@ ash060 - The beam design module seems pretty good, but watch out for cantilevered and continuous beams. There is not way to specify whether brace points (or continuous bracing) are top or bottom flange. Enercalc specifically notes bracing as compression-flange bracing. This can lead to an easy to make and (possibly) dangerous mistake.

My company switched from Enercalc to Tedds a few years ago. Like others, we didn't like the black box methods of Enercalc. I also had problems with several bugs. I can't speak to whether the current version has addressed the bugs or not.

Tedds output is exactly the opposite of a black box. Every line is printed in the output and you can verify whether you concur with the methodology.

I use both TEDDS and Enercalc. Both have very comparable modules and get the job done. I like Enercalc much better for several reasons:
#1) file is project based. All my calcs are in a single file and at the ready to access. I can print all calcs in a batch. TEDDS you can use the word interface but it is not as EASY (IMO). Using regular TEDDS has each calc in separate file.
#2) Very intuitive. Don't know if if is because I have been using if for 10 years but it just does the job and is easy. Sure there are things I might want to know more or tweak but that is what MathCAD is for. TEDDS input is very unintuitive and hidden at times or you have to step through the process. Enercalc is more like a checkbox fill in the blank style. Left Brained thinking here!
#3) Reasonable support. TEDDS wins here as they have an army. but usually the answer I get back is "we are working on it" anyway.
#4) Updates. There was a while there when Enercalc wasn't getting updates. Now - I think the company has grown and updates/fixes are regular 1-2 months. Regular new modules are coming online too now. Same with TEDDS.
#5) Cost. Enercalc is Best value out there IMO. I have tried many other similar like Strucalc etc and I always come back to Enercalc.

In tedds for example they have a load calculator for dead loads. You can have any color you want as long as it is black. Great. Why did I spend all the money? Don't know. I guess it gives me a nice printout. The point is not that it isn't nice to have this but I requires heavy customization anyway and I can do that with Excel, Mathcad, or good old pencil. Just becuase it has 100 modules doesn't mean you will use them. On the flip side, Enercalc doesn't even have a dead load module... so anyway.

Before each demand a demo. Enercalc has a free 30 day demo and you can get a temporary license (3-6 mo). TeDDS I couldn't get a demo outside the eyes/screen of a sales person. If you are getting enough seats then they maybe different. There are a few modules that I use TEDDS for but I am thinking of letting my subscription lapse the next time around.

P.S. if you don't' like black box programs then nothing will really satisfy except MathCAD or some such. Tedds gives the output like Mathcad for SOME (most) items and can be easily checked but there are still some things that happen behind the scenes. You can't have everything with a program that does the work for you.

MAP

RWW0002

Thanks for the heads-up. I typically only use it for concrete beams, but I will keep in mind what you wrote about the steel module.