I have a Clerestory Shed Roof in my house with a full row of vertical windows.  It is my favorite feature of my home.  It provides great sunlight through my living room and most of the first floor.  But it also "lights" the rooms at night, most nights.  

Mine are fixed windows, I've wondered if windows that open would be better and let hot air rise and leave the house.

The shed roof exterior looks a little dated architectually, but the benefits are worth it.

I still have completely finished the PDF reports since I've had my head so buried in the Timoshenko stuff for a couple of weeks (probably not a good use of my time but I couldn't resist).  Here is some output for a couple of cases (two span and three span beam, equal spans with a UDL).  What is interesting is the shape of the deflection graphs for the Timoshenko analysis.  I think the numbers are correct but to be honest I really don't have another 3rd party program I can fully test against.


I'm using a kappa of 5/6 and a G of 1/16 the E value, so in this case G = 106,250



Also I am just using the listed value of E for my Timoshenko calculations even though it already includes a 3% bump for shear built in.


EB = Euler Bernoulli, TIMO = Timoshenko


http://medeek.com/resources/engplugin/TEST8/EB_TEST8_2SPAN_UDL.pdf


http://medeek.com/resources/engplugin/TEST8/EB_TEST8_3SPAN_UDL.pdf


http://medeek.com/resources/engplugin/TEST8/TIMO_TEST8_2SPAN_UDL.pdf


http://medeek.com/resources/engplugin/TEST8/TIMO_TEST8_3SPAN_UDL.pdf


As a sanity check I multiplied my calculated value of G above by 10,000 in the code and then ran the TIMO analysis, the results are almost identical to the EB analysis as expected, so that tells me that with an extreme stiffness the TIMO degrades to an EB analysis as it should in theory.  Here are the links to the TIMO analsys with a 10,000X inflated G:


http://medeek.com/resources/engplugin/TEST8/TIMO_TEST8_2SPAN_UDL_GMAX.pdf


http://medeek.com/resources/engplugin/TEST8/TIMO_TEST8_3SPAN_UDL_GMAX.pdf

In order to keep the clutter to a minimum I will put these two options at the very bottom of the HTML menu under "Advanced Options". I will also add them into the global settings so they will default to the preferred choice of the user everytime the tool is run:



The simple report style will be one page report only showing the loading the diagram and the design results, supports and loads tables. The detailed report will probably be about seven pages showing all the calcs and additional graphs.

The deflection section is fairly basic but it does specify the span used to calculate the L/d as well as the x location and load combination:

I'm planning to move out next week and really don't want to handle everything by myself this time. It's a short-distance move, but I've got a few bulky items that need extra hands. I found a company called ThreeMovers while searching online, has anyone tried them before? Open to any other moving company recommendations too.

Here is the L/d given for both the LL and TL diagrams:



However, in this case I have an overhanging beam (right side only) and I recalled that with overhangs the L/d was usually calculated differently (from previous engineering projects working with decks). Sure enough when I ran a quick test in Forte I noticed the 2L/d overhang criteria being used, see sample below:



Where in the code (ie. IBC, ASCE etc...) is this actually codified, to use twice the actual span for overhangs? I can't seem to find it but it does appear to be common practice.

I would look at how RVs and travel trailers are laid out, they ar optimized for storage and utility space.

The vertical jumps now look at lot better. So far it seems pretty solid:

Spent the last two days adding in some additional code so that the vertical jumps in the shear graph (at point loads and supports) are actually vertical. It was a bit more complicated than I originally bargained on but I think I finally have it figured out:



�The code seems fairly robust but tomorrow I will throw the kitchen sink at it to see if I can find any weaknesses in the algorithm.

I have't been posting much lately but that is because I've had my head buried in the code.  Most of this engineering code is completely new (not my typical plugin stuff) so there is no refactoring old code or any other shortcuts I can take.  Some of the old beam calculator is relevant however since it was so limited in its application I'm kind of on my own with this new calculator.