A calculator that is merely plausible is a liability. This page records, for every calculator on the site, what its results are checked against and when that was last done. It is published rather than kept internally, because an engineer putting a number into a submission is entitled to know how that number was verified.
A calculator cannot be marked verified unless it reproduces at least three independent worked examples, and the check runs in continuous integration — the badge below is generated from the test suite, not maintained by hand.
4 of 9 calculators verified
| Calculator | Basis | Checked against | Examples | Last verified | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beam Bending Moment, Shear and Deflection Calculator | Elastic beam theory — no design code governs it | Closed-form solutions, cross-checked against hand-worked round numbers | 6 | 2026-09-13 | verified |
| Concrete Beam Deflection Checker | ACI 318-08 §8.5.1, §9.5.2, Eq. (9-8) to (9-11), Tables 9.5(a) and 9.5(b) | Structurepoint, Simply Supported Reinforced Concrete Beam Analysis and Design (ACI 318-14), section 6 (checked there against spBeam; 318-14 keeps 318-08's procedure): Ec, kd, Icr, Mcr, Ie at each load level, the immediate deflections, the creep and the after-attachment deflection, all to the published precision, with Ec from the unit weight as the example takes it. Also the uncracked case against 5wL⁴/384EI. | 1 | 2026-10-12 | verified |
| RC Beam Detailing from ETABS — Bars, Cutoffs and SMRF/IMRF Hoops, Drawn and Checked to ACI 318 | ACI 318-08 Ch. 10, 12 and 21 (SMF §21.5, IMF §21.3) and the 318-19 renumbering in the checklist; the owner's Python beam detailer ported rule for rule; As from ETABS | The owner's Python beam detailer (seismic-check beam_detailer, PR #50): twelve beams through both — FB-05C as SMF and IMF, the format 1 / format 2 beam, forced formats, hand-set bars and hoops, a deep beam, four spans, cantilevers, a heavy beam — every bar, cutoff, spacing, D/C, Ve and checklist status the same (with the Python's clear-spacing rule); CRSI's table of the most bars in a single layer, all 104 entries, from the rule the page uses by default; hand checks of ℓd, ℓdh, the cutoff rule, Mpr and the layer counts; the moment-diagram cut-off (PCA Notes on ACI 318, Example 29.2's method) against a closed-form M3 diagram; real beams read live from the owner's ETABS through the bridge. No published example reproduced number for number. | 12 | 2026-10-13 | unverified |
| Column Schedule from ETABS — Bars, Ties and Hoops for Every Column, Drawn and Exported to DXF | ACI 318-08 §7.6.3, §10.9.1; tie rules cite the edition (OPEN-QUESTIONS §19); As from ETABS | Hand checks of spacing, held bars, ℓo, tie sets and Ash; the owner's own schedule's bars reproduced. No published example. | 2 | 2026-10-11 | unverified |
| Concrete Test Cylinder Calculator | ACI 318-08 §5.6.2, §5.6.3.3–3.4, §5.6.5 (the MPa floor by 318M-08); BNBC 2020 Part 6 Sec 5.12.2–5.12.5, read in the gazette | Four hand-worked cases: an ACI slab over three days (each criterion and the minimum of five), a BNBC slab counted day by day, the default series of results (each test's floor and each running average), and every floor at exactly its value in psi, MPa and N/mm². No published worked example has been found. | 4 | 2026-10-12 | unverified |
| Concrete Volume Calculator | Geometry — no design code governs it | Closed-form arithmetic, derived independently in the test suite | 5 | 2026-09-13 | verified |
| Isolated Column Footing Design | ACI 318-08 or ACI 318-19 (every clause read in ACI 318M-08); load combinations from the cases by BNBC 2020, ASCE 7-05 or ASCE 7-16 | Four independent hand calculations — the default footing, an offset column with biaxial seismic moments, base shears and lift-off, an edge column flush with the footing edge (checked against the closed-form triangular pressure and the textbook edge-column Jc), and the ACI 318-19 one-way shear — worked by grid integration independently of the engine's exact polygon integrals. PCA Notes on ACI 318-08, Examples 22.1–22.4: the 13 × 13 ft footing's size, one-way and punching shear, flexure and the column's bearing and dowels, to the book's precision (differences only from its rounding and its §12.2.2 development length). The load combinations are checked term by term against ASCE 7-16 Sec 2.3–2.4, the ASCE 7-02/7-05 basic combinations and BNBC 2020 Sec 2.7 (the last as reproduced in RAJUK's training, not yet in the gazette). | 5 | 2026-10-04 | unverified |
| Pile Cap Design | ACI 318-08 (every clause it cites checked against the code text) or ACI 318-19 (cited by edition, numbers still to confirm); pile shear and the optional column-face and corner-pile checks per the CRSI Design Guide for Pile Caps (2015); Bowles / CRSI pile arrangements | CRSI Design Guide for Pile Caps (2015) Design Examples 1 (16 piles), 2 (5 piles) and 3 (6 piles) reproduced as golden tests: every capacity to within 0.5 % as nominal Vc (CRSI designs with φ = 0.85; 0.8 % for one vc that turns on Mu/(Vu·d)), the demands to within 0.1 % with the cap's own weight in the strength design at CRSI's 1.6 (a tick-box; off, the engine leaves it out). Five independent hand calculations besides — the default 4-pile cap, a two-column cap by free body, a C-shaped core, the ACI 318-19 size effect, and two piles punching together. | 8 | 2026-10-04 | verified |
| Punching Shear Check with Column Moment — Two-Way Shear, Moment Transfer and the Depth Required | ACI 318-08 §11.11.1.2, §11.11.2.1, §11.11.7.2 and §13.5.3.2 (registered); ACI 318-19 cited as an edition, its two-way shear clause numbers not yet confirmed | Four hand calculations — a square and a rectangular interior column, an edge column both ways and a corner column — against ACI's closed-form Jc and centroids, with γv, vc's three expressions and the 318-19 size effect, and vu at the worst corner in both senses and as signed; also the load deducted inside the section, the depth required (stress ratio 1 there), and the steel for γf·Msc by iteration on the stress block. No published worked example has been reproduced yet. | 4 | 2026-10-06 | unverified |
Stated per test and justified. Typically 0.5–1%, tighter where the source is exact arithmetic rather than a rounded published value. Where a published example and this engine disagree, the discrepancy is documented rather than tuned away — including the cases where the published example itself contains an arithmetic slip.