Medeek Engineering

[Medeek]

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.

[Medeek]

 

[Medeek]

After giving unbraced lengths some more thought and digging through the NDS a bit more I think the reason that Breyer makes the assumption that he does 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).

 

 

[Medeek]

Similar to RISA 2D and RISA 3D I think it would be nice to show the actual deflected shape of the beam superimposed on the real beam, as well as a simple tool to exaggerate this deflection. Here is an example of the “passed” shaded deflected beam (deflection scale 10X) .

 

 

[Medeek]

You can exaggerate the deflection to better understand what is happening with the beam.

 

[Medeek]

Version 0.8.5 - 12.05.2025
- Updated the licensing system with an improved algorithm (bug fix for SU 2022 and greater).
- Added a "Deflection Analysis" tool to the main toolbar.
- Added deflection analysis as an option within the beam context menu.
- Updated the "Beams" tab of the Global Settings with various options.

 

 

 

[tundra_dweller]

I'm looking forward to digging into to this over the slower winter months. Looks like a very intriguing tool and love to see the dedication to making improvements.

[Medeek]

I think with all the rapid developments in AI there will begin to be an increase in AI assisted workflows. We are only seeing the beginning of this. 

 

 

Tutorial 82 - Medeek Wall API (18:43 min.)

 

  

 

 

Edited March 16 by Medeek

[Medeek]

 

[Medeek]

 

I find this fascinating, that he is able to connect Claude to SketchUp.  This AI thing is moving fast.

Edited April 3 by Medeek

[Medeek]

 

[Medeek]

[Medeek]

I’m not sure if I want a basement or a second story but this is already bigger than I initially wanted. The water heater (and possibly furnace) will have to live in the basement or second floor (attic). The cut out for the stairs isn’t final yet since I don’t know what the basement depth might be.

The rectangular outside dimensions is 28’x40’, which already puts me at 1,120 sqft for the main level. The bedrooms are quite large, but I prefer larger bedrooms than smaller ones.

Its good for me to use my own plugins once in a while, it helps me find the weak spots or should I say the annoying things about it. One of those things is the placement of doors along a wall when there are other walls that tee into the wall you are trying to place the door into. I need to have some mechanism for snapping or measuring from these other walls. Once can always go back in and adjust or move the doors to fine tune the placement (which is what I had to do) but it does burn too much time. I guess I learn something new everyday.

Most of my time was actually spent trying to space plan and figure out what made sense, its kind of like playing Tetris. For this sort of thing a rough layout tool might be useful, but just the native tools at this stage is adequate for most of it. The biggest aid was using the grid to help me find my way. Once my initial layout was more or less final, I popped in the walls in less than two minutes.

Fussing over the windows and doors probably took another hour, and then another hour grabbing fixtures from another model and placing them and then mocking up the kitchen cabinet layout (counters, sink, range, dishwasher and fridge). At this stage I’m not too worried about rendering or making my fixtures all that amazing, so mostly they were added just to make sure my space planning was still logical.

I don’t design houses professionally (I’ve only ever really designed three actual residences and a few detached garages) so if this design is a bit of a cludge please forgive my lack of experience and designer feng shui. Most of my professional work was as an engineer and to be honest that type of work is less about creativity and more about the numbers. I find this type of work far more challenging and invigorating.

 

 

 

 

[Medeek]

 

[Medeek]

 

[Medeek]

Version 4.4.8 - 04.18.2026
- Enabled custom components as posts for vertical handrails

 

[Medeek]

Version 4.4.8c -  04.19.2026
- Fixed a minor typo in the stair module.
- Added a ornamental iron baluster into the baluster component library.

 

The limitations of profile cutting balusters can be overcome by using a predefined component instead, which allows for much more intricate baluster geometries.

However as I have been researching various baluster layouts I've noticed that with iron balusters usually more than one baluster style is utilized.  The typical scenario is two or three different baluster geometries are alternated along the run of stairs.  I will need to give this some more thought.

 

 

Stairs can be a "rabbit hole".

Edited Sunday at 08:29 PM by Medeek

[Medeek]

Version 4.4.9 - 04.19.2026
- Enabled a secondary custom profile/component parameter for balusters.
- Added additional ornamental iron balusters into the baluster component library.

 

I think I've beat this horse to death.  Hopefully with this added option we can configure most of the common baluster layouts, however there will always be a few that will be beyond the scope of the plugin (ie. three or more baluster types in various repeating patterns).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 02:24 AM by Medeek

[Medeek]

Version 4.5.0 - 04.20.2026
- Enabled custom components as posts for OTP handrails.
- Enabled "profile cutting" of posts for OTP handrails.
- Modified the bottom trimming algorithm for balusters to better accommodate complex baluster components.
- Added one additional ornamental iron baluster into the baluster component library.
- Added one OTP newel post into the newel post component library: LJ4270_43

 

 

 

 

I will readily admit configuring OTP handrails with their associated posts and fittings is a bit tricky, adjusting the various offsets takes a few iterations to really hone things in.