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:

First look at the bearing check:

I also need to update my disclaimer, the disclaimer shown is for my previous online calculator, it needs some changes.

Working on assembling the actual engineering part of the report now, adjustment factors, shear, moments, deflection and bearing checks.

Version 0.8.2 - 09.09.2025

• Enabled loads and reactions (values) within the load diagram.
• Fixed a bug with end supports that are not centered on the start or end of the beam.
• Improved the formatting logic (SVG and HTML) for the load diagram.

Version 0.8.1 - 09.07.2025

• Developed the matrix analysis engine for the beam calculator using the stiffness method.
• Added a load diagram to the beam report.
• Added shear and moment graph to the beam report.
• Added a deflection graph to the beam report.

The engineering report is still not complete however by rolling this beta release I can allow potential users of this plugin the ability to test it out and assist in the debugging. The plugin can be directly downloaded from this link:

http://design.medeek.com/calculator/sketchup/medeek_engineering_ext.rbz

First look at partial UDLs with overhangs:

So with that I think the basic nuts and bolts of the matrix analysis engine is in place and functioning pretty much as expected. Of course it will probably be a few more days or even weeks before I am able to put out every little fire that may be burning undetected thus far, but we will see.

Now I will turn my attention to the following items on the todo list:

1.) Try to fix the truncation in the shear graph so that vertical jumps actually are vertical.
2.) Add in the standard engineering checks for wood beams (glulam, lumber, timber, LVL, SCL and PSL)
3.) Finish the formatting and layout of the HTML report. I may also include an option between a condensed report and a detailed report (or that may come later).

Things that are not specifically on the todo list but are interesting:

• Add in fixed and partially fixed supports, currently every support is assumed pinned.
• Engineering for steel beams
• Trapezoidal distributed loads
• Moment loads

Overhanging beams with point loads now check out. Once again ChatGPT to the rescue to help debug my syntax and even debug my actual algorithms. This AI stuff is getting crazy good, sometimes it makes mistakes but then it is able to reason and catch itself, it's uncanny.

Now I just need to debug for uniform distributed loads on overhanging beams. Then it is on to the actual engineering portion (AWC stuff for wood) and some final formatting of the PDF/HTML report.

I'm also not entirely satisfied with the clunkiness of the tools used to move and create the supports, some improvements on this end are needed. A load/support copy tool would be really nice, rather than having to create completely new loads and supports from scratch.

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:

First look at the shear and moment diagrams being generated by the report generator. It took me most of yesterday and today to learn the ropes of Chart.js, an open source charting library for Javascript. It's not perfect but it does seem to get the job done. My only real issues with it is that I still can't figure out how to make it render to a higher resolution (300 dpi for printing purposes). The sample below is a screenshot of the PDF that is printed from the HTML output.

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.

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.