I see that the 1.5 story plan can be modified in 2' increments. Is this also possible for the single story plan? I am considering purchasing the plan, but would like to build 20x36 instead of 20x30. Is this easy enough?

I am using the stiffness method per Ch. 15 of R.C. Hibbeler's book, Structural Analysis. For intermediate loads between supports I use (FEM) fixed end moments. I'm actually still working on the matrix analysis piece. I've got point loads pretty much in place I've just got to implement distributed loads next. I suppose I could have it generate the entire polynomial for both shear and the moments since I am generating them for each applied load, it is probably just matter of using superposition on them as well.

Here is a first look at the ability to switch between various load cases for the deflection graph:

I've been wanting to finish this beam calculator for some time now so I'm trying to dig deep and see if I can't get it out the door, even if it only has the capabilities to handle wood (sawn lumber, glulam, SCL, I-Joist) beams and joists initially..

Unlike my previous web based beam calculator this new tool will be completely open ended, there will be no limit on the number of supports or loads one can assign. Each load can have up to six different load types (dead, live, live roof, snow, wind, or seismic) So in a sense it is a general solver or engine which makes it quite powerful and much more useful in my opinion.

The one other harsh reality with engineering though is that the code is always changing. I will need to continually update the tool as future revisions to the ASCE7 and NDS are released as applicable. I've noticed as I review various copies of the ASCE7 (2005 - 2022) that the load cases are continually changing, which I find a bit odd, you would think that after years of refining the code we would slowly arrive at suitable load combinations and stick with them. This constant flux is rather annoying to be perfectly honest, and makes me really question the powers that be and why they can't iteratively arrive at a standard and eventually stick with it.

We all know how the (engineering) sausage is made. Why continually tweak the recipe? The technology and materials used in the building industry has not dramatically changed in my lifetime (50+ years). All of this continual tweaking and minor adjustments to the engineering code really does nothing to safety of the structure in my mind and simply adds to the cost of engineering since new software updates are required and additional training is imposed. Maybe the ASCE needs to keep itself relevant and the revenue from selling updated pricey copies of its signature standard (ASCE7) is a serious cash cow? I don't know what the story is with all of this but I feel I need to rant a bit when I just shelled out $260.00 for a paperback book that I will only crack open once every few months at best.

Here is another screenshot of a multi-load conditional with multiple spans:

Now that I have the shear, moment, slope and deflections algorithms in place for point loads it is just a matter of algebraically adding multiple loads for more complex loading scenarios (ie. multiple loads and load cases). Here is a very simple example of two point loads applied to a two span beam. Note that self weight of the beam is not yet being considered:







I need to add some formatting logic into the top beam diagram to account for shorter spans so the dimensions don't run into the supports as shown. This is why a lot of testing and debugging is necessary.

This beam engineering tool with its matrix analysis engine is probably the single most complicated piece of code I've ever written, it certainly rivals the truss calculator (2013) and the complex roof (2019) module. I will admit that I now freely use ChatGPT with some of my coding puzzles lately and surprisingly it even understands the context of what I'm coding and offers suggestions to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the engine itself.

The numerical integration (for the slope and deflection) was initially stymied by incorrect boundary condition constants and I had no easy way of analytically solving for them. At that point I was fully aware of the issue but I was stumped at how to arrive at the right solution. ChatGPT suggested a normalization algorithm which proved to be correct and was even an easy fix within the algorithm. It's like having a really smart graduate student looking over your shoulder pointing out what your doing wrong and how to make it all better.

Hi all,

Just FYI for the community - we've sent Motovista multiple solutions via email & DMs since way back in July 2024, but curiously only get responses here on the forum (never via email or phone). 

If you're having email troubles, Motovista, try calling us. If you're a bot... well, you're a very dedicated one!

For everyone else: we're always happy to work with real humans on getting plans. Just reach out!

-Adam

Version 4.1.3 - 08.21.2025
- Added a "Label Scaling" parameter for all wall types.





Update per customer request.

https://countryplans.com/

Bunch of plans there that may suit your mother....Or what about a manufactured house, not a "trailer"

Version 4.1.2 - 08.18.2025
- Added hexagon windows to the window module.



Note, that to get a regular hexagon window you will want to enter in a window height that is given by this formula:

height  = width x 0.8660254

So for example if window is 48" wide its height will be: 48" x 0.8660254 = 41.569219"

One can always enter in any size for example an elongated hexagon or squished hexagon but I suspect most manufacturers will typically only stock a "regular" hexagon shaped windows in various sizes.

Version 4.1.1 - 08.17.2025
- Added Fixed - Slider (L) and Fixed - Slider (R) windows to the window module.



These two window types added per customer request.