My question is about which FEA software, with concrete plate design ability, is the best for the US. It seems that STAAD is the most popular and has the majority of the market. What are your opinions of STAAD overall and would you recommend buying it compared with competitors? I have reviewed STAAD, Robot, SAP200, IES VisualAnalysis, RISA 3D(No Concrete until 2002), and STRAP, but it is very hard to get a good grasp of the programs with demo versions and limited experience. From past threads it seems that RISA is the best, with STAAD offering many problems. Thanks for your input.
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
STAAD vs. competitiors 11
- Thread starter Mark10
- Start date
-
1
- #2
For my $0.02, I don't use any post-processors not created by myself or others at my company. The use of codes to design is subjective and usually those software companies have programmers deciding the gray issues. Of course, the argument will be made that the programs are checked; and they are. But are they checked against the problems we face day to day? I don't think so. When's the last time we were asked to do something right out of a textbook?
As a structural program, STAAD is mediocre, SAP and GTSTRUDL are much better and, of course, more costly.
As a structural program, STAAD is mediocre, SAP and GTSTRUDL are much better and, of course, more costly.
-
3
- Thread starter
- #3
I agree with your view about the reliability of software not created by the user. But, STAAD claims that 75% of engineering firms are using their software, which seems very impressive. Also, when looking at structural job openings, most firms are looking for a STAAD backround. As a young engineer without a lot of FEA backround, the decision becomes a little difficult. I will be getting full evaluation versions of STAAD and SAP shortly for a complete review. Any other suggestions would be very valuable. Thanks
Those numbers are impressive yet consider that at a time when the cost of complex structural analysis software was out of reach for 90% of the firms STAAD comes along and produces a mediocre product for an astounding low price - quite a bargin. I myself am a former STAAD user and my company still has a license for the software although we are moving toward SAP as a bread-and-butter program. We also have licenses for GTSTRUDL, SAP, COSMOS and a number of other more specific structural analysis programs. It's been our experience that for complex analysis we just couldn't rely on STAAD and as I stated we have used STAAD for routine analysis for some time.
Good Luck.
Also check out Modern Steel COnstruction at AISC website as they have a yearly survey on structural software.
Good Luck.
Also check out Modern Steel COnstruction at AISC website as they have a yearly survey on structural software.
Mark10...
I would agree with Qshake on the Staad viewpoint; although my experience with Staad dates back to around 1989; I didn't enjoy or trust using the product.
Also...I'd be careful about trusting the 75% claim. Marketing is really just honesty with a sly grin. How would they know the percent USING their product. When I used Staad, we also had McDonnel Douglas STRUDL (bought out by GTSTRUDL) and tried to utilize both as a check on our work. No comparison. We stopped USING Staad, yet I'm sure Research Engineers would have counted us as a Staad user.
I would agree with Qshake on the Staad viewpoint; although my experience with Staad dates back to around 1989; I didn't enjoy or trust using the product.
Also...I'd be careful about trusting the 75% claim. Marketing is really just honesty with a sly grin. How would they know the percent USING their product. When I used Staad, we also had McDonnel Douglas STRUDL (bought out by GTSTRUDL) and tried to utilize both as a check on our work. No comparison. We stopped USING Staad, yet I'm sure Research Engineers would have counted us as a Staad user.
-
1
- #7
This minor comment is almost certainly hugely outdated, but may be so am I, so I will persist.
In early 1992 I checked the design of some cranes and other temporary equipment to be used for construction of a major bridge between Thailand and Laos. The designer had used STAAD for the analysis of the 3D truss structures involved.
I was puzzled by output that reported the stresses in bending members, when the member properties entered had been limited to Area and I values (ie no section moduli, no member dimensions). That looked like a pretty clever trick to me, except that practically none of the reported stress values were correct.
Eventually I realized that the bending stresses had been calculated on the basis that all members were symmetrical and 10 inches deep.
However skilled the programmers at writing good code and elegant solution routines, I would have dark doubts about the engineering skills available to a software team that could build such an assumption into their published product.
I would heartily support Qshake's suggestion that software programmers are unlikely to be sufficiently skilled in structural design to leave it all to them.
In early 1992 I checked the design of some cranes and other temporary equipment to be used for construction of a major bridge between Thailand and Laos. The designer had used STAAD for the analysis of the 3D truss structures involved.
I was puzzled by output that reported the stresses in bending members, when the member properties entered had been limited to Area and I values (ie no section moduli, no member dimensions). That looked like a pretty clever trick to me, except that practically none of the reported stress values were correct.
Eventually I realized that the bending stresses had been calculated on the basis that all members were symmetrical and 10 inches deep.
However skilled the programmers at writing good code and elegant solution routines, I would have dark doubts about the engineering skills available to a software team that could build such an assumption into their published product.
I would heartily support Qshake's suggestion that software programmers are unlikely to be sufficiently skilled in structural design to leave it all to them.
msajjadh_imported
Structural
I also agree with the views presented above. We are using STAAD since 1994. But now we realize that we should switch over to SAP. STAAD people claim a lot but it is difficult to prove it.
I'm also an old Staad fan since 92. I've found it's very useful but you've to be very careful, esp. with not-basic features, eg. inclined supports, master-slave:RIGID, nonlinear analy, etc. I also faced with so many strange bugs, including the one raised by austim. I really recommend small model test before using it even though in the present 2001 version, I found it's much better.
Anyway, if you talk about RC Plate design I don't think either Staad or Sap is suitable, you have to combine yourself the Mxy to Mx, My yourself to get the design Mx, My before calculating reinforcement. Strap on the other hand combine and graphically show the design Mx, My, as well as the computed reinforcement grid. You can grasp a prelim.view of the reinf.density before you can make a detail design yourself if you don't trust its algo. But if you deal mainly with RC/Post-tensioned slab, ADAPT-Floor or Floor are much better. Or if you also require buckling analysis or cable element but you have to write Mx,My,As module yourself, Gt-strudl should be the choice. Therefore, which suits you depends on your need.
Anyway, if you talk about RC Plate design I don't think either Staad or Sap is suitable, you have to combine yourself the Mxy to Mx, My yourself to get the design Mx, My before calculating reinforcement. Strap on the other hand combine and graphically show the design Mx, My, as well as the computed reinforcement grid. You can grasp a prelim.view of the reinf.density before you can make a detail design yourself if you don't trust its algo. But if you deal mainly with RC/Post-tensioned slab, ADAPT-Floor or Floor are much better. Or if you also require buckling analysis or cable element but you have to write Mx,My,As module yourself, Gt-strudl should be the choice. Therefore, which suits you depends on your need.
- Thread starter
- #10
Thanks everybody for excellent feedback. After some initial use of the SAP and STAAD evaluation copies I can see the drawback with the lack of design Mx, My. I will look further into STRAP as suggested for this analysis and concrete design. Any other/more suggestions would be great.
I nice question is being discussed here and I'm a luck guy for this, cause I'm a Staad Pro user and since long time I've been tricked by this software, not speaking about automatic load and structures generation, design issues and analogue things that I don't trust even in my father only I'm my own judgment, spreadsheets and little Pascal progs I've created.
But the question is as long a software package is reliable? I've used SAP90, SAP2000 and GTStrudl, the interfaces ares the the worsts I've ever seem. But you should say that the results are trustable, ok I agree, but have you guys ever stopped to think about how much time we spend creating a complex structure geometry plus loading cases, releases and etc... for what we have allready in mind? It will be very helpfull for me a good interface and automatic reliable features. What you have to say about this?
I've tryed two packages that seems to be very good, Prokon, a guess that it's Britsh, and an Australian one the Space Gass. NE1 of you have formed opinions about this two, and maybe about MultiFrame 4D.
TIA
Fred
But the question is as long a software package is reliable? I've used SAP90, SAP2000 and GTStrudl, the interfaces ares the the worsts I've ever seem. But you should say that the results are trustable, ok I agree, but have you guys ever stopped to think about how much time we spend creating a complex structure geometry plus loading cases, releases and etc... for what we have allready in mind? It will be very helpfull for me a good interface and automatic reliable features. What you have to say about this?
I've tryed two packages that seems to be very good, Prokon, a guess that it's Britsh, and an Australian one the Space Gass. NE1 of you have formed opinions about this two, and maybe about MultiFrame 4D.
TIA
Fred
v2
If you satisfy with the design results w/o considering Mxy, membrane forces, and treatment of different elevations, SAFE is OK. Otherwise, just take a look at Floor or Adapt-Floor, you might feel different.
fkd
I don't know what kind of problems you're dealing with. I'm not sure about the stability of the Prokon modules, esp. if you've to solve large problems. If you deal with only line elements, I believe Microstran and Spacegass are among the best, esp.if you're dealing with cables. ( Both are Australian stuffs.) Microstran looks nicer and has moving load generator.
Regarding StaadPro, 2001 is much better, less bugs and capable of showing moving load graphically.
If you satisfy with the design results w/o considering Mxy, membrane forces, and treatment of different elevations, SAFE is OK. Otherwise, just take a look at Floor or Adapt-Floor, you might feel different.
fkd
I don't know what kind of problems you're dealing with. I'm not sure about the stability of the Prokon modules, esp. if you've to solve large problems. If you deal with only line elements, I believe Microstran and Spacegass are among the best, esp.if you're dealing with cables. ( Both are Australian stuffs.) Microstran looks nicer and has moving load generator.
Regarding StaadPro, 2001 is much better, less bugs and capable of showing moving load graphically.
I have read all the messages above.
I think one should try STRAP, as i am also doing this kind of survey to pick up the best among available software and i think STRAP is impressive.
As an alternative one should also try PROKON. it is limited in abilities but very handy to use.
I think one should try STRAP, as i am also doing this kind of survey to pick up the best among available software and i think STRAP is impressive.
As an alternative one should also try PROKON. it is limited in abilities but very handy to use.
I have read all the above information. I also worked on Staad, STAAD/Pro and STRAP. I found STRAP is the MOST GUI based software for generalstructures to most complecated industrial structures. Regarding the Plate analysis & design STRAP , one can get the results the way he needs. It means the program will automatically convertes the the mxy and Myx etccc to the MX & MY design moments. In other softwares we have to convert them manually. ALso in STRAP one can see the STress contour for any result type for bottom face or top face indipentently. Ultimately It gives the reinforcement area required for the forces otherway it also gives bar dis & spacing in the slab element.
In elements results, one can draw a line on the element and request the program to produce the results in the section line. ( say moment or shear or steel area in that line )
If any one is really looking for a FEM software with Fully GUI based and realiable results and offordable price , they can try for STRAP in the following address.
In elements results, one can draw a line on the element and request the program to produce the results in the section line. ( say moment or shear or steel area in that line )
If any one is really looking for a FEM software with Fully GUI based and realiable results and offordable price , they can try for STRAP in the following address.
-
1
- #17
I have used STAAD since 95 and I've had enough, way too many bugs and dodgy answers. I've turned to Robot, ts the most user friendly I've seen especially for slabs and stuff. I have just received the latest version and it has Pushover analysis in it which is a bit of a bonus. If you like programming your own postprocessing environments our other stuff then Robot has its own Windows Object Model so yu can directly program into/from Robot in VBasic/C++ etc.
- Thread starter
- #20
After a complete review of many of these programs, I also decided to go with ROBOT. It has the concrete capabilities of STRAP, but includes many more features and is much more advanced at a lower cost. ROBOT also was the only company that actually demonstrated their program with an example that I gave them over the internet. The only drawback seems to be that the program is not as establish as a program such as GT Strudl, with user groups and newsletters.
- Status
Similar threads
