I might actually designate the initial release a BETA number but I'm still not decided on that yet.

Right now the plugin is all torn apart as I continue to add in a few additional features like presets and the "remove joist list" option:

This is my current desk setup, I've just added the big monitor to my left which gives me more screen real estate and improves my coding efficiency.  This is where all the magic happens, at least for now.

I also initially used the slab-on-grade code for moving edges of the floor perimeter but now that I'm testing it more extensively it appears that I should probably switch to the code I use for the complex roofs, so some additional adjustments required there as well.

This is how the sausage is made, one line of code at a time.

My wife said my design was boring so I saved a new version and let her try to come up with something a little more interesting…

Version 1.9.7 - 04.23.2024

• Fixed a compatibility bug with SketchUp 2024 (Fixnum & Bignum) while maintaining backward compatibility with previous versions of SketchUp.

Version 3.4.3 - 04.30.2024

• Added ceiling gypsum for tray and coffer trusses.
• Enabled the "Edit Truss Assembly" function for tray and coffer trusses (imperial and metric units).
• Enabled labels for tray and coffer trusses.
• Updated the license verification system with a more secure and improved algorithm.

The original 3D cladding tutorial showed the following four materials:

• Board and Batten
• Shiplap
• Log
• Lap

The three additional ones added since this video are:

• Metal
• Shiplap (Vertical)
• Dutchlap

There are now seven different types of 3D cladding materials one can configure within the Custom Material Library.

Version 3.5.0 - 05.26.2024

• Enabled "flat" ceiling gypsum for dutch gable rafter roofs.
• Enabled "flat" ceiling gypsum for hip rafter roofs.
• Fixed a bug with the global settings for rafter and truss roofs when the layer/tags option is turned off.

CRITICAL BUG FIX!
Version 3.4.7 introduced a bug for both rafter and truss roofs when the layers/tags option is turned off. This release fixes that bug. I highly recommend that everyone download this latest update to correct this bug.

Double sliders are kind of interesting windows.

Sometimes I forget how cool it is to be able to create something like this in SketchUp and have it animate like it does. Can I say I love my job?

The new Rafter Roof menu should be a bit more visual and intuitive for selecting the appropriate roof type:

Version 3.5.6 - 07.03.2024

• Enabled a graphical user interface for Rafter Roof selection.
• Enabled a graphical user interface for Floor selection.
• Fixed a bug introduced in Version 3.5.3 for all I-joist, lumber and truss floors (when adv. floor options disabled).

Version 2.0.1 - 08.01.2024

• Added a duplicate foundation assembly check to the regen module for the following foundation types: Stemwall, SOG, Slab, Stemwall Step, Grade Beam, Strip Footing, Footing.

The instructions for usage are the same as the recent update to the Wall plugin, see Wall Plugin Tutorial #51:

The other issue I am a bit unclear on is the unbraced length (lu) especially in the case of checking negative moments in multi-span situations (unbraced bottom). I've checked a number of examples in Donald Breyer's book "Design of Wood Structures". Rather than considering the lu as the actual span he is calculating the lu as the distance between the points of zero moment. I could use a bit of clarification on this. Section 3.3.3.4 of the NDS (page 17) only talks about the distance between points of intermediate lateral support.

After giving this some more thought and digging through the NDS a bit more I think the reason that Breyer makes this assumption is that the language in the NDS for computing the Cv (volume factor) does say the distance between points of zero moments. He then seems to extends this idea to computing the CL by using the same logic to determine the unbraced length (on both sides of a support). See example 6.28 in chapter 6.16.

My only problem with this is that it would seem like it would be unconservative in many cases with multi-span beams where you are computing the CL for negative moments (at supports). However by using the full intermediate span length as the unbraced length perhaps it is too conservative. I wish the NDS would give more guidance on this matter, I can only guess at the intent and supposed correct algorithm at this point.

Let's consider the example shown in the image below:

If we consider that there is no lateral bracing at the intermediate support at 84" (bottom of beam) then per Breyer's method the unbraced length is between points of zero moment (x=67" to x=108"), so the unbraced length for the negative bending (neg. moment) is equal to 41". However I would argue that it is the full beam length, both spans, so 144".

If we do consider that the beam is laterally braced (bottom of the beam) at the intermediate support at x = 84" then Breyer considers the worse case of the two conditions 84 - 67 = 17" and 108 - 84 = 24" and he concludes that the unbraced length should be 24". I would look at both spans on each side of the support or max. negative moment and take the larger of the two 84" > 60", so the unbraced length should be 84".

Thoughts? Am I too conservative?

On a slightly different note I would use 41" length to compute my Cv for the negative bending (for both cases given above). This is per the NDS verbage (Sec. 5.3.6).

Tutorial 2 - Lateral Stability (18:31 min.)

Version 0.8.4 - 11.21.2025

• Fixed a bug with partial bearing at end supports.
• Added the bearing area factor (Cb) to the bearing calculations and adjustment factors table.
• Added the "Braced at Supports" option to the top and bottom lateral bracing options.
• Fixed the lateral bracing algorithm for bending so that blocking at supports is enabled (bracing at top and bottom).
• Fixed the algorithm for lateral bracing so that the unbraced length is correctly calculated.

Version 0.8.3 - 11.12.2025

• Enabled a detailed and simple engineering report/analysis for sawn lumber beams.
• Added an option to switch between Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam analysis.
• Report now includes live load and total load deflection graphs.
• Shear, Moment and Deflection graphs can be toggled to all load combinations within the report.

Tutorial 1 - Beam Calculator

I'm very excited about this release, it is the first time in history (that I know of) that one can do actual engineering all within SketchUp. The API is magical, you can turn SketchUp into just about any thing you can imagine.

Here are a couple examples, everything should be complete, but I will now spend the next couple of weeks error checking and seeing if I can break the engine or the report formatting. I will also need to test against other third party programs to make sure all my calcs are indeed correct. It is amazing how easy it is to make errors in the code on something this extensive.

https://design.medeek.com/resources/engplugin/TEST1/EB_TEST1_2SPAN_1POINT_REV8.pdf

https://design.medeek.com/resources/engplugin/TEST1/EB_TEST1_3SPAN_3POINT_REV1.pdf

Currently the calculator will only handle sawn lumber beams. Once I'm fairly certain I've eliminated any bugs or other issues I will then extend the logic so we can handle glulam and timber beams. Once that is done I will probably next work on LVL, LSL, and PSL and then finally I will include the ability to analyze various I-joists from the major manufacturers.

I've been slowly working on this for about three months now, probably another month to go.

I will be running a Thanksgiving promotion beginning Oct. 30th until Dec. 1st with 30% off of the regular mdkBIM bundle price (permanent license) using the coupon code GIVETHANKS25.

This will reduce the bundle price from $280.00 USD to $196.00 USD. This promo code does not apply to any of the extensions purchased separately. As part of this promotion a permanent license for the Electrical, HVAC and Engineering plugins will also be included upon request at no additional cost. The offer ends on Dec.1st and no rain checks will issued thereafter.

design.medeek.com

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

Here are the different EB (Euler-Bernoulli) and TIMO (Timoshenko) deflections for the same simple supported beam with a basic UDL (no self weight, just the external load applied) :

My parameters are:

2×10, L=144 in, E=1.7e6 psi, I=98.931 in⁴, A=13.875 in², G=106250 psi, κ=5/6

As you can see the Timoshenko analysis yields slightly more deflection since we are accounting for deflection from both shear and bending. According to my calculations my results are within less than 0.05% of the theoretical value so I think the algorithm is working correctly

Now I need to check a few different multi-span configurations as well as overhangs to make sure everything is indeed robust.

When I calculate the Timoshenko beam I'm wondering if I should adjust the tabulated E value since it is being adjusted for the shear already by %3 for sawn lumber per Appendix F of the NDS (Sec. F.3). So the listed value is is actually 3% larger than the (shear-free) or true value of E.

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.