Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Evaluation of ENERCALC5.5

Evaluation of ENERCALC5.5

Evaluation of ENERCALC5.5

I would like anyone's opinion on the use of ENERCALC5.5. I use it as a "second check" tool for my own hand calculations and find it quite useful.  But I also know there is much more powerful software I could be using.  What software is available?  Could you also describe their intended uses, strengths, and weaknesses?

My thanks to all respondents.

RE: Evaluation of ENERCALC5.5

I have been using Enercalc since it was run on the Lotus 123. I have full confidence in it and the results it spits out. Of course one must be careful in the input and boundary conditions.

I was once warned about the CMU wall in Enercalc. Of course I do not use it because it is based on UBC and I live in Florida. I use the ACI 530 for CMU wall design.

I like their latest release. I do not like the graphics portion. I found few bugs that I was able to communicate to Mike Brooks and he always gave me direct support to resolve these issues.

Research Engineers put out a similar package called Staad Etc. I have some friends who have both and they continue to use Enercalc.

I will continue to use Enercalc to design structural components.

RE: Evaluation of ENERCALC5.5

For steel or concrete beam and column analysis the results appear to be very good.  

BUT, the pile group analysis gives erroneous results frequently (try a square 4 pile group centered on the origin with the load at the origin).  Our firm has reported these findings to Enercalc but the response does not match what the program is doing.  The pile analysis also appears to give slightly (within 10%) erroneous results when the pile group has no axis of symmetry (Ixy not zero).

For analysis of bolt groups; it uses an elastic method that is generally BUT not always conservative (AISC uses the instantaneous center method even for ASD).

Before using it extensively prove to yourself that the portions you wish to use perform calculations accurately.

RE: Evaluation of ENERCALC5.5

We also have STAAD.etc, Enercalc and Risa Foot to do footings. STAAD.etc is a good product in that it gives you all the necessary calculations that go behind all the results. This comes in handy. I find Enercalc to be a little outdated in its graphics and its codes, but a good product for few modules (especially timber). Risa Foot is not as strong as STAAD.etc's footing - STAAD can handle top reinforcing, pedestal design and uplift.

RE: Evaluation of ENERCALC5.5

Has anybody ever tries Tedds (www.tedds.com)?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close