RISA 3D V20.0 2

[OH_PA_AISC]

All;

From my understanding, Risa 3D V20.0 will be out within several weeks. Some people still remember the mini crisis with V18.0. Lots of improvement since that time. Look for some minor enhancement in the seismic area.

Thanks for reading.

 

[dold]

Thanks for the heads up. Where'd you get the inside scoop? Tech support?

I'm looking forward to re-introduction of wood diaphragm design when working with Floor>3D models.

Any idea when they plan on releasing the updated interfaces for Floor? (to match the current R3D interface?)

 

[OH_PA_AISC]

dodd;

You are correct with Tech Support.

Just a general head up that V20 is on the horizon, with little details on the topics of the release.

I generally work on industrial non-building structures and large weldments. My floors are usually thick concrete floor that are deemed rigid.

Will be reviewing the release notes to see what goodies are in store for us.

Thanks for reading.

 

[dold]

Gotcha. Yep I'm always excited about new releases. Cheers!

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Any idea when they plan on releasing the updated interfaces for Floor? (to match the current R3D interface?)

You'll have to ask them, of course. But, let me think on my experience there for a bit.

The previous incarnation of RISA Technologies started work on the *.Net release of RISA-3D (as it was known internally) quite a long time ago. My guess would be sometime between 2012 and 2014 was when it was begun. Then it wasn't completed until something like 2020. So, that was something like 6 to 8 years. And, they dedicated a lot of development resources to it as well. Some other projects had to be "sidelined" in order to get this done. Even then it was really buggy when it first came out.

Based on that, I wouldn't be surprised if RISAFloor and RISAFoundation are not updated to the new interface until 2024 at the earliest. Perhaps as late as 2028.

You guys will know better than I (because I don't use v19 at all). But, if what I've read on these forums is true, the v19 release was very buggy. And, I'd expect something similar from any re-written / re-vamped version of Floor or Foundation that the Nemetchek/RISA folks release.

 

[dold]

@JoshPlum
Good info, as always. It was actually v18 that was the first release of the *.Net (i think that's what you were describing - i.e., the 'updated' look) update that was very buggy. To the point of having to revert to v17 (old interface) in order to use it for production. v19 (current*** release) is 1000x better than v18. I've grown to like it very much. It's slick. Still my favorite design software by far. Except for larger steel structures I'm still more comfortable with RAM structural system. Not that I don't trust RISA, but nobody else in the office uses RISA, so nobody else in the office can validate my models during production.

At any rate....

@OH_PA_AISC (and others),
I just got an email from tech support. v20 has been released. Yay. I know what I'm doing tonight They've addressed a couple of the bugs I sent them. We'll see what else is in store.

 

[dold]

It looks like Floor v16, Foundation v14 are also out. In addition to 3d v20.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://risa.com/post/support[/url] new...stuff

 

[JoshPlumSE]

They added geometric stiffness adjustment for P-Delta. That's a feather where RISA-3D had really been behind the curve compared to competitors. So, good on them!

It was especially problematic to not have this when you were doing a dynamic analysis.

Of course, I would test it out thoroughly before I use it. Specifically, I'd run the AISC "benchmark" problems. Then I do a few test with a simple dynamic model. Just to test:
a) If it matches up with the benchmark problems without any sub-division. Or, whether some sub-division is required.
b) Does the stiffness reduction properly affect dynamic analysis results like natural period / frequency? Making sure, of course, that the results are consistent between Ritz vectors and the normal dynamic solution.
b) Checking it with time history analysis to see how much it affects the results.
c) Try this with and without the Direct Analysis Method stiffness adjustment to see how those too stiffness adjustments behave together.

I mention this here because the biggest "brain drain" at RISA has been among the Tech Support engineers who used to be the ones responsible for most of the verification and validation testing. Ergo, I don't necessarily trust the new / inexperienced people to get the testing correct.... as they were likely hired more for sales / marketing skills than engineering ability.

 

[dold]

That seemed to be one of the more prominent features of the new release.

Admittedly, I've never used r3d for dynamic analysis. Or really for anything other than small/non-building structures and misc frames, and wood structures (apartments) where we're comfortable using static analyses. I suspect I'm missing out on probably 50% of the capability of r3d... We've always used RAM SS for such models (steel/concrete). And double-admittedly, dynamics is probably the biggest hole in my engineering knowledge. Suffice it to say I know what you're talking about generally, but I wouldn't be able to make any meaningful assessment of what I'm looking at if I went through the exercise

I did look through the new files that came with v20 and did not see any verification problems for the new feature you're describing. But nonetheless I'd be curious to compare the results with the AISC benchmarks, and also compare against some samples in RAM SS, just for S's & G's.

Otherwise, I've been toying around with a basic catwalk model in r3d all day and have been pleased with some of the enhancements/creature comforts they've been working on. Save for a single error I keep getting about shear modulus of 'rigid-column' material. But I suspect that has to do with my heavily modified databases/redesign lists/etc.

Still waiting for the re-introduction of flexible diaphragm design in floor>3d models. They did fix a (rather massive) bug relating to flexible diaphragm load attribution in models with discontinuous diaphragms. E.g., an apartment building with a big courtyard in the middle of it where diaphragms are defined around the perimeter of the 'courtyard hole', the 'transient area load' type attribution of lateral forces to lateral elements completely neglected the giant void in the middle of the building. Bad explanation... but essentially the inner walls surrounding the courtyard would still have the entire flexible load from the courtyard 'void', plus the true tributary load from the real/existent flexible diaph regions attributed to them. Which resulted in extremely conservative (well...just completely incorrect) results. Haven't verified it yet though.

 

[bones206]

Not sure RISA will be doing many updates in the near future considering the Ukrainian programmers are likely fleeing for their lives with their families right now.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Bones -

Good point, I didn't even think of that. I really liked some of those guys and gals. I'll have to say a prayer for them tonight. It's scary. I know some years ago (when Russia went after Crimea), at least one of them joined the army. Not sure if he was drafted or whether he enlisted.

FWIW, a lot of them were pretty "Russian" either culturally or ethnically. Not necessarily Putin / Russia haters.