RFEM Design

[BadgerPE]

Hello all,

Does anyone have input on building design using Dlubal's RFEM software? I was recently contacted by them to attend a webinar and through some research, I am intrigued to say the least. I have used RISA since I have been out of college and I don't have much to complain about, but there are a few things that appear to be more user friendly in Dlubal.

First, I really like the CAD-like drawing interface. Drawing in RISA 3D can be a bit tedious with having to set nodes before drawing(assuming not using the "Grid" function)new members. Second, when marrying two lateral systems together in RISA (rigid diaphragm/flexible diaphragm) at a common grid line requires dummy members and offsets to make this work. I'm unsure if RFEM can handle this easier, but it seems like it would. Third, they have a post-tensioned module which RISA does not. This is a market that we are looking to expand to in the future and I am a big fan of programs that can do all types of design.

At this point, I am just interested and looking for any feedback from engineers using this program in the real world. They offer a full 90 free trial version which I will be checking out as well.

 

[klaus.]

Hello
In Germany RFEM and RSTAB are very often used by structural engineers
RSTAB is the original program for space structures ( beams,truss,cables and so on )
RFEM is the second program which is a 'real' FE Program that can handle almost everything.....

The Basic Program ( RFEM or RSTAB ) have many many addons for different tasks
All information can be found on their homepage
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.dlubal.com/en[/url]

I know and use their programms since 25+ years...very happy with it...

 

[Akeee]

Looks good. Better then CSI pack.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Some suggestion / ideas I have about comparing software:
1) When you anticipate a little slow down in billable work, try requesting a trial version of the program. And, really put it through it's paces.
a) Go through the basic introduction tutorials or such. That way you should be getting familiar enough with the interface to try something a little more advanced.
2) If you've got another software you use frequently, then take a simple project from that previous program and try to create it in the new program.
a) You might first see if it can be imported easily.
b) But, definitely try to recreate it manually. I like to start with the simple tutorial, training or verification problems that I had in the other software.
c) Then I compare results and try to see where they're different. This helps to make sure I understand the different default settings and design assumptions. Maybe different ways of handling P-Delta or such. These sorts of comparisons are really good for composite beam design because there are so many little things that may or may not be taken into account.


Granted, we don't always have time to do something as thorough as I describe. But, this is the goal, whether we are able to completely fulfill it or not.

Personally, I recently transitioned from RISAFloor / RISA-3D over to ETABs. Project was mostly steel frames and composite beam systems. I really wished I'd taken my time doing this in a more deliberate way. While I'm an absolute RISA expert (I worked for RISA from 2002-20017) I'm pretty new to ETABs. While it's not all that difficult to learn, doing so within the context of a pending project deadline was overly stressful / frustrating.

 

[JAE]

Also look closely at the way the software handles design (vs. analysis). Various products are more focused toward US codes or towards European codes so what you use may not be best for your particular area of projects.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[Akeee]

Never let design go unchecked by you!