Risa-Tekla Link / Connections

[TimNorton]

I use Tekla for detailing on a daily basis. My office also will be responsible for shear and moment connections we are detailing. To try and help coordinate the two efforts, we signed on for the RISA-Tekla Link about a year ago. I thought it would help coordinate the detailers work with the engineer's connection designs. Well, I found it very limited and was generally disappointed with what it could do. Over the past year I've typically gone back to designing connections with RAM Connection and just passing along the information to the detailers for input.

Can anyone tell me...
- Does RISA still support the RISA-Tekla Link? (Everything I search online seems to be dated early 2013 when it was released.)
- Am I in the minority saying the overall capabilities on the RISA-Tekla Link have been disappointing?
- Has RISA done any upgrading to the Link in the past year to warrant a consideration of renewing my license with them?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Tim -

Yes, RISA still supports the Connection - Tekla link. There has certainly been development in the last year. In fact, the development is pretty rapid as version 3.01 of the Link was released in March 2014. Version 4.0 just a few months later in June. And, I expect that a version 5.0 could be released sometime in late fall (November).

Surprised that someone would revert to RAMConnection after using RISAConnection... even if the Tekla link were imperfect. I would hope that in a fair competition between the two programs RISAConnection would win out. Am I correct in suspecting that RISAConnection doesn't have some connections that you are using frequently? If so, please let us know as we are constantly working on expanding our library of connections.

I don't work too much with that Tekla link personally. So, if there are things that you really want to see in that link then it is probably best to contact Mike Olson (my colleague here at RISA Technologies) directly.

If you're interested, a list of items added with version 4 of the link:
[ul]
[li]Added support for Component Wraparound gusset cross (60) for vertical brace connections for L's, LL's, tubes, pipes and WT's. These connections are for use if the brace attaches directly to the gusset.[/li]
[li]Added support for Component Hollow brace wraparound gusset (59) for vertical brace connections for tubes and pipes. These connections are for use if the brace attaches to a knife plate that then attaches to the gusset.[/li]
[li]Added a warning for shear connections if there is a moment force applied in Tekla Structures. This moment force will be ignored for standard shear connections in RISAConnection.[/li]
[li]Added WT's and LL's to our default mapping files.[/li]
[/ul]

Additional items that were added with version 3 of the link:
[ul]
[li]Added support for Tekla v20[/li]
[li]Added support for Component Column with Stiffeners W (182) for column/beam direct weld moment connections.[/li]
[li]Added support for Component Splice Connection (77) for beam and column splices. This component supports shear tab splices, moment plate splices, and directly welded moment splices.[/li]
[li]Added support for Component Joining Plates (14) for beam and column extended end plate splices.[/li]
[li]Added support for Components Clip angle (141), End plate (144), and Shear plate simple (146) for HSS and Pipe columns.[/li]
[li]Updated the link to be compatible with the German and UK environments.[/li]
[li]Enhanced many aspects of the US Imperial and US Metric environments.[/li]
[li]Added a Mapping FIle Editor utility to help quickly map custom shapes, materials and bolts between Tekla Structures and RISAConnection.[/li]
[li]Added an option that allows a user an option to not send the connection to RISAConnection.[/li]
[li][/li]
[/ul]

 

[TimNorton]

Josh,

Thanks very much for the response. First, I have to clarify, I have no issue regarding RISAConnection on its own and its abilities for connection design. It has worked fine for the times I have used it. However, I do prefer RAM Connection. Partly because it was the first connection design I used and learned on, and am more comfortable with the input, results layouts, etc. In the end, I think there are a lot of similarities with the two programs.

As far as the RISA-Tekla link, there are a few basic functions that I was hoping to see, that it does not allow...
- Sloping Beams. Does it still not recognize a connection if the beam is not flat?
- Staggered bolts. Does it still not design a double-angle, double-bolted connection if the bolts are input as staggered?

Those are just two examples. But even with those items, the biggest disappointment from my perspective, is the 50%UDL option. Tekla lets you input a percentage of the maximum uniformly distributed loading you want to design the connection with. This I handy, because a lot of the project specifications we need to design to, tell us to design to 50%UDL, or 75%UDL, etc. AND, a detailer can set his default to whatever the percentage is within the Tekla macro's, and just run with his detailing. But RISA Connection wont take this input, convert it to a load based on the configuration, and design the connection. Instead each individual connection needs to have values input for live and/or dead loads. Well, this value varies at so many conditions, because the shear connections support beams of so many varying lengths typically. This would be tedious enough for the engineer to input into Tekla. But now, the engineer has to pass this information along to the detailers to input, to then get connection designs? It's just counter-productive.

It is the combination of all these things that, in the end, there really was no significant benefit to using the link. I'd be willing to give the Link another shot, but it still seems like these limitations are there.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Those two issue are more RISAConnection issues than issues with the Tekla link.

RISAConnection doesn't currently do staggered bolts. It wouldn't be that hard to do, it's just that we haven't yet gotten too many requests for it yet. This isn't for a standard shear connection is it?

The spot were we have gotten staggered bolt requests is for bolted vertical brace connections. I suspect as we add more brace options we will get this request more often as those brace forces can be pretty significant and would likely require more bolts than your typical beam to column connections.

Similarly RISAConnection doesn't have skewed / sloping connections. I believe we allow some tolerance in Tekla so that slight slopes (which don't affect the design theory behind the connection) are allowed though the slope is ignored in the design. This is actually the the most commonly requested feature for RISAConnection (after seismic connections). Therefore, I suspect that it will become part of the development plan in the relatively near future (after the version 5 release).

Regarding the 50%UDL options in Tekla, I will send that off to Mike (who is out of the office for a few days) and the Tekla development team. I've not heard this request before. Since I don't get too involved with Tekla that's not all that surprising. The biggest challenge (in my opinion) with the link has been with our understanding of Tekla. It's just such a massive program with massive amounts of options. Therefore, I imagine it is easy to miss more advanced options that are not fundamental to the connections that we support.

 

[TimNorton]

Josh,

We tend to detail a majority of bolted-bolted typical shear connections with staggered bolts, to help access in the field. So this may be more of a common connection for us than others. And the ability to treat 5% slope or less as flat is a helpful option.

Tekla is a powerful program. We run into glitches here and there just within its own confines. So trying to interface with it, I can appreciate that there are challenges.

Thanks very much for your input. I know you said you will be passing on, but again, I would really consider utilizing the UDL input from Tekla as a carry-over to RISAConnection.

Tim