Differences between RISA 3D and STAAD 1

[sema79]

Hi everyone,

I have seen some job openings recently that require knowledge of STAAD. I have not used STAAD but am competent using RISA 3D and Solidworks Simulation as I have been doing so for years on large, complicated projects. I was wondering what differences there may be that would be a problem for someone like me if I was to try to learn STAAD. Are we talking about a few weeks of learning curve or much more time in your opinion? I imagine that the concepts of 3D analysis still apply although a different interface is used. That should give me some advantage. What are your thoughts?

 

[SteveGregory]

Check with Bentley and maybe you could download STAAD and run it in a demo mode to see for yourself.

 

[DCBII]

I have done some large and complicated projects in both programs. STAAD is nothing like RISA. I've been using RISA for 4 years and STAAD for 2 years. Here's a rundown of the major differences.

#1) The interface is about 10 years behind RISA's. I learned RISA in about 3 weeks. STAAD took about 3 months to learn. STAAD has a user interface, but the program still requires you to occasionally tweek a text file. Much of using STAAD feels like learning writing computer code.

#2) STAAD has a LOT more bugs and crashes regularly.

#3) Trying to get any kind of nonlinear analysis (p-delta analysis or a tension only analysis) done in STAAD is murder. This is because STAAD analyzes, then combines loads. RISA combines then analyzes.

#4) Optimization is clunky. With RISA it's a piece of cake.

#5) Dynamic (modal) analysis is way faster and easier to run in RISA.

#6) The latest version of RISA now does seismic design to AISC 341. STAAD doesn't.

#7) I actually learned new concepts by reading RISA's help menu. STAAD's is next to impossible to navigate, full of typos, an frustrating.

#8) Plate generation & submeshing is much easier in RISA.

#9) STAAD does do pushover analysis (which RISA does not do)... but it does it to an old superceded code (FEMA rather than ASCE).

#10) STAAD doesn't keep track of most user settings. If I set up my results to look one way, and then tweek something and rerun the model, I have to re-setup the results (e.g. color codes for member checks).

RISA is a much better program, hands down.

 

[DCBII]

Yes, I realize after complaining about typos my reply was full of them. See how frustrating it it.

 

[sema79]

Thank you DCBII,

I think I will stick with RISA! I've just recently heard similar comments from other engineers in my office. I have to wonder why STAAD is still used by so many companies. Is it just that they are familiar with STAAD and don't want to change? I have met arrogant engineers that hate RISA but I think it's just because they were used to more expensive software and didn't want to "lower themselves" to use RISA. I say, if it works and is easy to use then USE IT!

 

[S275]

STAAD pro has one major advantage that is the very user friendly interface and you can learn much of the software in short period. Also you can easily model your structure there either through the GUI or by defining members nodes coordinates then connect them through the code editor, first you may feel it is complicated, but doing small example or tutorial will make things clear enough.

However, it is not recommended for structures design nor cable analysis and maybe other non-linear analyses?

But for usual multi story buildings it is easy and efficient in analysing and that maybe the reason of having many companies using it.

I would highly recommend you to go for SAP2000 and its relatives such as ETABS;

http://www.csiberkeley.com.

The only negative point is that modelling the structure from zero isn't as simple as in STAAD but you can transfer your STAAD model to SAP2000. However, after having short and limited experience with Risa I think SAP2000 more easier and efficient for both analysis and design.

Good luck

 

[DCBII]

STAAD's user interface is terrible compared to RISA's. As far as using a code editor, RISA files can be opened and edited as text files just like STAAD's (Try opening a RISA file with Notepad). The only difference is STAAD forces you to dabble in the code editor from time to time and RISA is so smooth most user's don't even realize they're working with nothing more than a text file.

Again with nonlinear analysis... STAAD analyzes then adds loads (superposition goes out the window)... RISA adds loads then analyzes. STAAD has a built in workaround (Repeat Loads & Reference Loads) but it's easy to screw up and clunky to use.

I've never used SAP2000 or ETABS, but from what I understand they are better packages for complicated nonlinear, inelastic analysis. If you're looking for a simple elastic analysis and design, RISA is about as easy as it gets.

I've worked with a lot of engineers who like STAAD and think it's easy. It's probably because they remember the days when FEA was typing in each node and beam line by line, and are grateful to have a user interface at all. I've been somewhat spoiled entering the workforce at a time when nice software is commonplace.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Immediate disclaimer: I work for RISA, so anything I say will be coming from a somewhat biased perspective. Though, I will try hard not to appear to be "bashing" the competitition at all.

RISA and STAAD used to be direct competitors. To some extent they still are. Though Bentley seems to think of STAAD less as a generalized structural FEA program and more as a specialized program suited mainly to industrial plant design. I'm not sure why that is. But, we still view RISA-3D as a very good general purpose FEA program for all types of structural engineering (commercial, industrial or whatever).

RISA-3D has recently spent a lot of time adding some new features that may be missing in STAAD. I'm talking Shear walls design and code checking to the NDS code for Wood, to ACI 530 and 318 for Masonry and concrete. Also, seismic detailing for steel (to AISC 341 and 358).

STAAD does some things that RISA does not (like push-over analysis). But, they don't have a particularly good history with getting these types of advanced analysis features correct. I read their press release about the push-over feature when it came out and it was clearly written by someone who had no idea what push-over analysis was and when it would be used. My guess is that very few people are actually using this feature in STAAD.