Don't know if if is because I have been using if for 10 years but it just does the job and is easy. Using regular TEDDS has each calc in separate file. TEDDS you can use the word interface but it is not as EASY (IMO). All my calcs are in a single file and at the ready to access. I like Enercalc much better for several reasons: Both have very comparable modules and get the job done. RE: EnerCalc flight7 (Structural) 23 May 12 14:13 This can lead to an easy to make and (possibly) dangerous mistake. Enercalc specifically notes bracing as compression-flange bracing. There is not way to specify whether brace points (or continuous bracing) are top or bottom flange.

That module has never been included in V6 and they do not even advertise it as a future feature ash060 - The beam design module seems pretty good, but watch out for cantilevered and continuous beams. 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'. 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. 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. It is just often enough to make me doubt results from Enercalc as a whole. Every time I look really carefully at a set of design calcs I seem to find some small quirk or error. 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. I have noted several bugs in Enercalc in the past, some of which were corrected in software updates.

Enercalc cracked member check