Ram Elements Vs. Risa 3D 1

[PEnSE]

For those of you that have used BOTH Ram Elements(Advanse) and Risa 3D, which do you prefer and why. Is there anything you can do with Risa 3D that you cannot do with Ram Elements.

In terms of cost, Risa 3D is more expensive than Ram Elements.

Risa 3D Initial Cost $3000 + $600/year maintenance/ license.
Ram Elements

 

[PEnSE]

oops...didnt finish what I was writing....
Risa 3D Initial Cost $3000 + $600/year maintenance/license
Ram Elements Initial Cost $2500 + $300/year maintenance/license


I have used Ram Elements or prior Ram Advanse for the past 10+ years, but am considering switching due to their server type license. I'm tired of crashes and I prefer the portability of a hardware lock...which Ram use to have prior to being bought out by Bentley. It is my understanding that RISA 3D allows the use of a USB hardware lock, so I can have it on my laptop.

Thanks.

 

[WWTEng]

I have RISA 3D & Fastrak. I have used RAM Frame & STAAD Pro but really didn't like the support dept plus I found RAM to be a little less user friendly then RISA 3D. RISA Floor sucks but RISA 3D is the fastest tool for simpler stuff.

My $.02.

 

[PEnSE]

Thanks for the reply WWTEng. So is Risa 3D more of a nodal based FEA program like Ram Elements and Risa Floor a similar program to Ram Structural System (Ram Frame)?

Are you able to quickly crank out building designs in Risa Floor like you are able to do in Ram Structural Systems? Does Risa Floor quickly apply gravity, wind and seismic loads as Ram Structural System does?

I typically use Ram Struct System (Ram Frame, Ram Concrete, Ram Steel) for probably 90% of my building designs.

I'll use Ram Elements for the more unusual architectural designs.

I just downloaded Risa 3d and Risa Floor to check them out....they don't appear to be as developed graphically as Ram. Looks like Visual Basic programming.

 

[SethGuthrie]

In addition to general finite element analysis and design for steel, concrete and wood, RAM Elements also includes several special design modules for concrete shear walls, tilt up walls, retaining walls, foundations and trusses. For those who use RAM Structural System or Connection then there is more to gain with interoperability.

If you want a nodal lock, Bentley can provide that. It's not a physical hardware lock but a permanent license for one computer which is the recommendation if you don't need to use the program on multiple machines.

One of the potential crashes we have seen lately can be caused by using the Sparse solver (from Intel). We should have that ironed out in v13 this summer, but try the direct solver in the meantime.

 

[PEnSE]

Seth,

I was asking for a response from engineers who haved used BOTH Ram Elements and RISA 3D to determine the difference between the two programs.

After using RAM software for the past 10+ years, I am thinking of changing to RISA...and here is why:

I want a physical hardware lock that I can use on my office computer and then switch over to my laptop when visiting clients or doing work on my laptop from home.

RISA offer a physical USB hardware lock...RAM/BENTLEY does not. (RAM use to offer physical locks prior to being bought out by Bentley).

I am tired of Bentleys select server locking up, wasting my time and costing me money. Regarding your nodal lock, I should not have to buy 2 licenses for 1 user.

 

[abusementpark]

I have used Ram Elements or prior Ram Advanse for the past 10+ years, but am considering switching due to their server type license. I'm tired of crashes

What crashes? I use RAM products religiously and haven't had any problems.

I want a physical hardware lock that I can use on my office computer and then switch over to my laptop when visiting clients or doing work on my laptop from home.

You do work on RAM Elements while visiting your clients?

Seems like you could use remote access to your office computer to work on laptop from home.

 

[PEnSE]

"What crashes? I use RAM products religiously and haven't had any problems."

I have had problems with Ram Struct Sys crashing when running frame analysis. It started about a year ago when I purchased a new computer, so it might be the sparse solver issue that Seth mentioned.

I have also had issues with the Bentley Select Server...license checked out/not checked out...I have called tech support many times on this and it very well may be a problem on our end...However, this problem is eliminated by offering a physical hardware lock which RAM INTERNATIONAL use to provide.

"You do work on RAM Elements while visiting your clients?" I don't "do work" while visiting my clients, but I have brought my laptop (or use to when I had a physical lock) into my clients office to spin the model around and make sure we were on the same page with some of our more interesting projects.

"Seems like you could use remote access to your office computer to work on laptop from home." Yes that would be great...however if you're on a laptop at your clients office...they would have to give you access to their wifi for internet conn...again...no issue if you have a physical lock.

 

[Ron]

I have used STAAD, STAAD-Pro, FeMap/mTab, RAM demo, and RISA 3D. I have a single license for RAM 3D and use the hardware key as you have suggested you would like....works great. I do not like server-validated software as this can be a real pain in the a$$ at odd hours if there is a problem.

I selected RISA 3D over RAM when I purchased about 5 years ago. RISA's customer service is excellent. One of their very knowledgeable engineers is a member in here and is helpful here as well.

 

[haynewp]

What I don't like about RISA 3D over RAM Elements is the text results output. RAM can give very detailed calculations on what it has done where RISA gives limited output.

 

[JAE]

I've used Ram Steel and Ram's lateral system (can't recall the name) but not Ram Advanse - which is the 3D modeler competing with RISA 3D.
I've used RISA products since about 1989 (or earlier) including RISA 2D, 3D, Floor, Foundation, Footing, Base, and Section.

In terms of the 3D analysis - RISA 3D is great. I've not used Advanse so can't compare them directly.
In terms of apples to apples comparison between Ram Steel and RISA Floor - I think the Ram program would tend to provide a more mature, less quirky experience and is very fast. RISA Floor is good - OK - but still is maturing and there are aspects that are frustrating but overall nothing to cancel my subscription over.

My experience with Ram was that they were constantly sending my bug fixes and program updates. Almost bombarding me with bug fixes which in some cases were quite un-nerving ("this bug fix corrects the program in that it was previously incorrectly deriving the moment capacity of a WT member in compression and bending where the stem was in compression..."). OK - so how many projects in my history do I have to go back to and re-check or re-run?
Ram output (per haynewp) is very "full" in that a lot of parameters, assumptions, etc are provided.

RISA tends to wait long periods of time between program updates with much fewer bug fixes but you have to wait a long time to get any updates. RISA's output is adequate but there is a lot of hidden parameters in the design portions that make it difficult to verify the programs assumptions and results.

I agree with Ron that the RISA service is excellent.

 

[abusementpark]

I have had great experiences with RAM's technical support staff. They almost always very knowledgeable, friendly, and helpful.

I have never used RISA, but I am curious if their 3d analysis and design capabilities are as far advanced as RAM. We have the entire RAM package and you can almost seamlessly design every major component of both steel and concrete structures, including foundations, connections, PT floors, and two-way slab. You input the geometry and loading criteria once.

 

[JAE]

My view is that RISA 3D is more advanced that RAM Advance (or whatever they call it).
Just due to the fact that 3D has been around much longer than RAM's product.

But can't testify under oath about that.

 

[sbouvia]

If you know you are going to go to a clients office and play around with the model couldn't you just check out the license to RAM Elements? This allows you to check out the license to the local machine (it will no longer be available on the selectserver) and allows you to use the program until the license automatically checks the license back in at the time you had selected or you can manually check them in when you get back to the office. To check out the license go to start---all programs---Bentley engineering---RAM Elements---Licensing---Select Server License configuration---Click on RAM Elements and then click on check out, make sure you change the date to a couple of days later, the default is one year from the day you check it out. Once if has been checked out you can go back to the same place and manually check it back in by clicking on it and hitting check in. Also note for the RISA license you do not need to explicitly take the hardware lock with you, you can commute the license and not have to remove the hardware lock (saving you from having to keep pulling it from the server)

Now for my thoughts on the two programs. I think that RISA 3D is laid out a little better to get faster answers for simple problems. I do not think either program is really all that good at designing in that neither one takes into account composite sections easily. Typically I only use RISA 3D for simple floor analysis that does not take into account composite action (RISA Floor will). Luckily both RISA and Bentley have amazing technical support staff.

Our office is in between, we have people who really like to use RISA 3D and some people who like to use RAM Elements, I prefer to use RISA over RAM Elements, but as I said we have both.

Hope this helps.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

PEnSE -

Personally, I'd recommend downloading a Demo version of each program. RISA has a free Demo version which can be requested from their website (see below). RAM / Bentley probably has something similar.

http://www.risatech.com/forms/demo_request.html

Play with the demo programs a little bit and run through a tutorial or two. You should get a pretty good sense of how easy or difficult the program is to use. You should get a good sense of the level of quality / detail given in the output.

Also, some companies offer a number of Add-On modules not included in the base purchase price. So, make sure that the price quoted to you includes all the modules that you will be needing. You don't want to be 6 months in before you run your first dynamic analysis and find out that module costs another $500. You just want to make sure that you're comparing apples to apples price wise.

PS Full disclosure: I am an employee of RISA Technolgies. Therefore, I am not exactly an unbiased observer. I try not to shamelssly plug our software on these forums (cause I think that's inappropriate). But, a li

 

[dcarr82775]

RISA is quick, easy, incredibly user friendly. Does most everything you want an analysis program to do.

If you want a software to design you your building while you take all the liability, get RAM.

 

[spats]

OK dcarr... you're going to have to explain that last statement.

 

[UcfSE]

I've used both RISA 3D and RAM Elements, though it's been a while since I last used RISA. I've found I'm able to do pretty much whatever I encounter in RAM E or RAM Structural, and I like the custom section ability that RAM Elements provides using the LEO language. I've written a few leo's for that and found them to be of great use. I don't know that RISA has that capability, but like I said, it's been a few years. I've always found RAM's support to be very responsive. RAM Connection is a good tool to have, though the other RAM Modules I find to be a bit limited or oversimplified when I have a special case, which is the norm.


I think both programs are very user friendly, and similar in the way they function using spreadsheets to layout information rather than a more graphical approach you find with RAM SS, or even SAP and ETABS.

 

[bookowski]

RISA 3D is great for smaller frame analysis but not for overall building design which it sounds like you are interested in. RISA Floor will in theory allow you to 'crank out designs' as you asked but in my opinion it's not as good as Ram. I really like RISA but it doesn't sound like it's right for what you are doing, it's not the best tool for designing overall buildings/floor systems - it's much more suited for a truss or a little frame or individual components.

 

[JAE]

I did have a couple of issues with RAM when I used it - (granted - about 7 years ago). When modeling load-bearing walls in RAM and then trying to have the program design a continuous spread footing under the wall based on the loads, the program spit out a huge amount of reinforcement (longitudinal) for what typically would have been a basic, traditional footing - say 24 to 36" wide and 12 to 14" deep. It was giving me something like six #8 bars top and bottom.

I called their support and was told this was correct. I asked them where the need for the large amount of rebar came from and they told me that the program alternated loads from above so the long continuous footing would have bending in it due to the discreet wall segments being loaded alternatively.

I told the guy there was no way that a 10 ft. tall concrete wall on top of this footing would ever bend the footing - no distortion means no moment (Hooke's Law). They simply disagreed with me. I told my staff to stop using RAM for continuous footing design and do it by hand or spreadsheet. The spread footings design in RAM was good - just not their continuous footing design.

The other issue that came up (and perhaps has been improved in recent versions) was the use of RAM Frame. This is the lateral analysis portion of the building modeler and in using it I found it was very black box. There was no way to determine the actual load paths of the lateral loads through the framing. I was simply given a completed X-brace design with the brace member forces but no way to "see" how the loads got there. We also stopped using it as a tool due to the inability to verify results.

I'm not trying to slam RAM here but just pointing out that there were limitations and (in the case of the footing) just wrong-headed design concepts....which is true in all software products to a degree.