CalculatorsPro ToolsLearnAboutHire MeSign InGo Pro
Validation

347 independently verified
benchmark cases.

Across 17 of Enginus's 19 calculators, checked against published code tables, hand-derived first-principles calculations, real named worked examples, and independent audit-verified benchmarks — not just "the code runs without crashing."

Last audited 2026-09-06. This is a live count of current test coverage, not a certification — see "What this isn't" below.

Methodology

What counts as “verified” here

Every calculator on Enginus has a benchmark test suite that runs its actual underlying formulas against known values before that code ships. We went through all of them — every file, every individual check — and separated genuine independent verification from internal software testing that doesn't belong in a claim like this one.

A published code table

EN 1992-1-1 Table 3.1, EN 1997-1 Annex D, EN 14080:2013, ACI 318 tables, ASCE 7's published load-combination coefficients, EC6's masonry formulas, and others — the calculator's output is checked directly against the number the standard itself publishes.

A hand-derived first-principles calculation

Worked out independently — by hand or in a standalone script — from the governing formula, without calling the calculator's own code, then hardcoded as the expected value.

A real, named worked example

Classic textbook problems with known published answers — like the Hibbeler/Kassimali Pratt truss below — reproduced through the actual calculator engine.

An independent audit-verified benchmark

A specific worked example whose result was independently confirmed during a dedicated code-quality audit of that calculator, separate from its everyday test suite.

A sample, not the full list

14 representative cases pulled directly from the real benchmark files, values exactly as computed. The full set lives in each calculator's own __tests__/*.bench.ts file in the codebase.

CalculatorWhat was checkedReferenceResult
Material PropertiesConcrete C30/37 — mean tensile strength (fctm)EN 1992-1-1 Table 3.1≈ 2.9 MPa
Material PropertiesGlulam GL28h — fm / ft,0 / fc,0 / fvEN 14080:2013 Table 528 / 22.3 / 28 / 3.5 MPa
Material PropertiesMasonry fk — Clay Group 1, general-purpose mortar, fb=10, fm=5EN 1996-1-1 §3.6.1.2 (hand-computed)≈ 4.47 MPa
Retaining Wall DesignBearing capacity factor Nγ at φ=30°EN 1997-1 Annex D20.09
Truss Analysis4-panel Pratt truss — top-chord force T1-T2Classic Hibbeler/Kassimali worked example−266.67 kN (compression)
RC Slab DesignInterior panel negative-moment fractionACI 318-19 Table 8.10.4.10.65 × Mo
Load Combination GeneratorASD seismic combo 9ASCE 7 published coefficients(1.0+0.105·SDS)D + 0.525ρE + 0.75L + 0.75S
Connection DesignBolted double-angle shear connection, utilizationEN 1993-1-8 Table 3.4 (hand-derived)26.57%
Unit Converter1 inch → millimetresInternational exact inch (ISO)25.4 mm exact
Rebar CalculatorEC2 anchorage length — T16, C30/37, B500, good bondEN 1992-1-1 (independent hand calculation)matches within tolerance
Wind Load CalculatorDefault worked example — total wind forceAudit-verified benchmark937.9 kN
Steel Beam DesignW16x50, A992 — lateral-torsional buckling limiting length LpAISC 360 published formulaLp = 1.76·ry·√(E/Fy)
Foundation DesignMinimum flexural reinforcement, Grade 60 (413.7 MPa)ACI 318-19 §7.6.1.1ρmin = 0.0020
Column Interaction DiagramEC2 rectangular column — balanced-point momentStrain-compatibility hand derivationmatches within tolerance

Coverage varies by calculator

Some calculators have a long, mature benchmark history; others are newer or don't yet have an independent verification suite of their own. Shown honestly, including the zeros.

Truss Analysis and Frame Analysis also share a stiffness-method math engine (steelAxial.ts for member buckling/tension capacity, matrix.ts for the linear solve) with 18 more independently-verified cases underneath both tools, not counted in either calculator's own total above.

What this isn't

This is not a certification, and it doesn't mean every feature of every calculator has been independently checked. 347 is a real, growing number of test cases we can actually stand behind individually — not a finish line, and not a claim that Enginus is exhaustively verified or approved by any code body or regulator. Two calculators above (RC Column Design, Design Basis Report) currently have zero cases of their own. Coverage will keep growing as new benchmark cases are added; this page will be updated to reflect that, not left as a static number.

As always: Enginus supports engineering calculation and preliminary design workflows. Final engineering decisions, verification and professional responsibility remain with the project engineer.