Accuracy of results and presentation would be improved if we had the option to enter and display lengths/widths in inches instead of feet. I get that it may not be critical if designing a beam that is 20ft long, but I am often using ClearCalcs for more precise measurements like door headers, rafter tie locations, short cantilevers, etc., and units displayed to only a tenth of a foot is not accurate enough. This can also lead to mistakes when converting feet to inches in the head.
Are you inputting lengths with formulas?
I wind up using formulas for practically all my non 1/2 foot lengths… so 17’-4" would be 17+4/12 in clearcalcs; or back when it didn’t do plan dimensions for supports, I’d often wind up with a funny (L-2)/.949 slope conversion to set support distance (side note: that clear calcs allows you do input formulas for various inputs is super convenient, good work there!).
I have had some oddities arise when trying to use a more complicated formula in the past (e.g. a support that I may want at L/2 + 1’, or a way to define my retaining wall footing width location based on stem thickness), but usually just the basics work pretty good…
It doesn’t solve the display issue (which would be handy as a quick check, especially when some of those oddities rear their ugly head), but at least no conversions are required on the input side - the less mental math required, the better!
3 Likes
I am sure I could learn to use the ClearCalcs formulas better, but I’ve always worked in inches and prefer to keep it that way. Most of my work is with items that require precise dimensioning to 1/8" of an inch or less. I’d lose my mind if I had to keep track of the formulas and fractions in “ft” with that level of accuracy.
Most of my work is in spreadsheets and Tedds, where it is easy to use whatever units are preferred. The limitations with having only the “ft” option in ClearCalcs is mitigating my interest in using ClearCalcs even more.
So you’d normally dimension a 20’-2.375" beam as 242 3/8"? (Just out of curiosity)
I do, yes. Most of my work is in the facade industry, so working with pieces of glass, sheets of aluminum, handrailings, etc. Even long items are typically detailed to 1/8" or less, so it’s just easier for me to use inches.
It all started with spreadsheets where keeping track of feet and inches and having them display that way is a lot of extra work, and leads to additional risk of error.
1 Like
Loving this discussion - units are always a headache, and working in inches/feet makes it so much more fun!
@WilsonEngineers - totally understand the need for higher precision. Could you share some examples of where you’re having trouble? We should have some spots that show “X ft Y in” (see below), does that work well?
I Mr. Wilson is looking for a toggle to get away from 25 ft - 5.2 inches into something that would look like 305.200" It seems especially important to him that your inch precision extend down to three decimals for 1/8" measurements… (i.e. 0.125")
Honestly, I didn’t know until this discussion that units could be entered with the units in the suffix and that ClearCalcs would know what to do with that. This is very helpful now.
Responding generally, I would like to see any beam span dimension with more precision than 1/10th of the foot. And sometimes ClearCalcs truncates and other times it rounds. I can’t recall that situation off hand, but it has happened. That’s in one of my Help emails dating back a couple of years.
Thinking way back to high school science class, what’s the term for using consistency with decimal places? I don’t recall, but Clear Calcs presents floor deflections to the 1000th of an inch while spans are shown to the 1/10th of a foot.
FWIW, here’s an example of a facade drawing that I typically receive for analysis.
Units are 100% shown in inches. Granted, I don’t use ClearCalcs for multi-span “beams”, but rather use a program called “CBeam” that is tailored to this type of application. That program also works only with inches or millimeters.
(For the curious, this is an elevator shaft for an elevated train platform in NYC)
Glad we’ve been able to help somewhat with the inputs @WilsonEngineers ! And thank you for the example - very cool.
As for the precision we show - we are currently using 3 significant figures which I believe is what you’re referring to - that would be why you’re seeing something like 10.3 ft and 0.624in - they are both at 3 significant figures. Your example with spans in feet is a great one though where this system isn’t adequate. We’re always looking to improve and this is a great opportunity for that!