Enercalc Question - General Footing Module Putput 1

[msquared48]

We are using the General Footing module in the Enercalc program to check the design of a spread footing.

Project description is a square spread footing with a square pedestal centered on the footing. Gravity load plus shear and moment from wind load are applied at the top of the pedestal. The overturning and sliding stability tab on the Results page give safety factors against both sliding and overturning as one would expect.

Confusion arises when looking at the detailed report with the report preview function because the detailed report says that there is no sliding, and there is no overturning for the footing. The help file for this module does not explain the report at all.

Does anyone know why the module calculates sliding and overturning safety factors, but the detailed report says there is neither sliding nor overturning?

Thank you.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[RWW0002]

I tried to replicate your issue and could not with Enercalc V 6.13.8.31. Overturning and sliding checks are performed and the results show up as expected. There is a checkbox that allows sliding to be neglected, but that is the only way that I can make the results vary from the calculated values.

Just a note of warning though, I noted an error a year or two ago with the way that overburden loading was incorporated into overturning calculations (It seems that a factor of 2 was being applied to overburden loads for the resisting moment). I informed the company, but have not checked to see if the issue was corrected.

 

[msquared48]

The conflict in the report is that in the Design Summary, the applied overturning and sliding values are listed with their safety factors, but in the Detailed Results section, neither the Overturning Stability or Sliding Stability sections have any values shown. Both of these sections say that there is no overturning or sliding, which should not be the case. Why is this the case - That is the question...

Am I missing something here?

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[RWW0002]

I understand now. I turned on the detailed sections you are referring to and I agree with you, nothing shows up. Sorry for the confusion. I'm sorry that I an not more help, (except for possibly a sanity check).

 

[a2mfk]

Enercalc has been very responsive in the past with these types of questions, give them a shot directly.

I love Enercalc overall, but there are these little quirks from time to time. I remember having to tweak cantilever beam and columns slightly to get them to make sense and work right.

 

[TDIengineer]

M^2:

I am getting the same crummy results. We have tech support.. I'll email them.

 

[AELLC]

I gave up on Enercalc a long time ago - I believe they started in 1983, it was Lotus spreadsheet-based - I have had a few conversations w/ Michael Brooks. To me, it is a lost cause. I like RetainPro, but I do not like Enercalc any more.

 

[TDIengineer]

@ AELLC:
I agree with you. I try to stay away from it. But we do use it here and pay for support... So I'll see what happens.

It used to be much much worse, they have actually cleaned up the coding quite a bit. But again, there are better apps out there in my opinion. Or use excel.

 

[TDIengineer]

Mike:

They agreed there is a problem and will work on resolving it! See below.

Thanks for sending the Project File.

I am able to reproduce the effect you are describing, so I will write this up for the developers and ask them to diagnose it. This will go to them with a ticket number of xxx for tracking purposes.

I will let you know when I have a resolution.

Regards,
Chris

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

 

[msquared48]

Thanks. Please keep me posted on the results. I will need to update the program when they have a fix.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[dhengr]

Mike:
Quit playing with your “Putput” and get back to work. The important thing is that some of you keep paying the maintenance fees, that keeps the economy spinning, and the computer company rich. Correct answers and sensible output is a secondary issue and much less important. If you have a computer printout in the calc. file it must be right, right? Who even reads all that crap that closely, to determine that the second time results are given, they agree with the first time?

 

[msquared48]

Who rang your bell dhenger?

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[TDIengineer]

Regarding the putput... Still haven't heard back from ENERCALC.

they must really be taking a nice looong Chrismas break!