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
Alexstruc,
It seems brutal to be laid off for something like that...that is very bad.
The issue you mention of not knowing the member orientation is common to many packages. In fact, I have not seen a good solution to the problem. The best solution I have found is to use a member "rendering" function where you can actually see the real shape of the member rather than just its centerline.
Debugging a model for that kind of small thing is a whole skill in itself. For example, when I am debugging I like to look at the mode shapes (even if I am doing a static or time history analysis). You might think of it as a step up from the old technique of looking at deflected shapes. If the mode shapes look about right, you know you have gotten your stiffnesses and geometry approximately correct.
Software developers need to make more user friendly interfaces so that you make less mistakes in the first place, and also to provide more debugging tools. Often you spend more time debugging a model than you spend building it.
It seems brutal to be laid off for something like that...that is very bad.
The issue you mention of not knowing the member orientation is common to many packages. In fact, I have not seen a good solution to the problem. The best solution I have found is to use a member "rendering" function where you can actually see the real shape of the member rather than just its centerline.
Debugging a model for that kind of small thing is a whole skill in itself. For example, when I am debugging I like to look at the mode shapes (even if I am doing a static or time history analysis). You might think of it as a step up from the old technique of looking at deflected shapes. If the mode shapes look about right, you know you have gotten your stiffnesses and geometry approximately correct.
Software developers need to make more user friendly interfaces so that you make less mistakes in the first place, and also to provide more debugging tools. Often you spend more time debugging a model than you spend building it.
Alexstruc,
I am sorry to hear of your experience.
My view of paying for software relates to well written software.
For engineering purposes (and other uses) where the results of using the software can impact on the health safety and well-being of people, it is better to avoid poor software altogether unless one has the time to manually check every significant aspect of the calculation.
I am sorry to hear of your experience.
My view of paying for software relates to well written software.
For engineering purposes (and other uses) where the results of using the software can impact on the health safety and well-being of people, it is better to avoid poor software altogether unless one has the time to manually check every significant aspect of the calculation.
ALEXSTRUC,
I am deeply sorry to hear of your experience. I hope you find work soon as you seem to be a discerning engineer and a valuable assest in terms of experience.
As for staad, this is all to familiar and the response of making an engineer out of a high-schooler leaves me disgusted.
I am deeply sorry to hear of your experience. I hope you find work soon as you seem to be a discerning engineer and a valuable assest in terms of experience.
As for staad, this is all to familiar and the response of making an engineer out of a high-schooler leaves me disgusted.
msajjadh_imported
Structural
ALEXSTRUC,
I suggest you to forward all these comments to your ex-boss.
I would be a good lesson for them.
I suggest you to forward all these comments to your ex-boss.
I would be a good lesson for them.
SOFiSTiK from Germany sells a program called SLABDESIGNER. It is based on AutoCAD 200x and is capable of doing also material nonlinear analyis (cracking, creep+shrinkage).
Codes: DIN, EC,ACI,BS, Indian, Chinese
P.S: CADS sells an OEM-Version of it in the UK.
Cheers
Christof
Codes: DIN, EC,ACI,BS, Indian, Chinese
P.S: CADS sells an OEM-Version of it in the UK.
Cheers
Christof
-
1
- #67
Christof,
I have had the unfortunate pleasure of using cads Slabdesigner software and was not impressed with the stability of the software or the support provided by the company.
Anyway good luck with your sales, I take it youwork for either cads or sofistik and are bludging some free advertising from this forum - never mind you won't be the last!!
a
I have had the unfortunate pleasure of using cads Slabdesigner software and was not impressed with the stability of the software or the support provided by the company.
Anyway good luck with your sales, I take it youwork for either cads or sofistik and are bludging some free advertising from this forum - never mind you won't be the last!!
a
I have also not been pleased with CADS software.
I have used CADS Analyse 3D which is an excellent frame analysis tool but I was not impressed with their other products. In particular, I have used a product called SmartEngineer (general design of structures) which was, quite frankly, rubbish!
I have used CADS Analyse 3D which is an excellent frame analysis tool but I was not impressed with their other products. In particular, I have used a product called SmartEngineer (general design of structures) which was, quite frankly, rubbish!
I have used STAAD for almost 9 years and found many bugs in the program. We have ababdoned STAAD for FEM analysis. We have been using a program called STRAND-7 which is by a company called G+D computing. I have used SAP and other FEM packages. I would rate STRAND-7 very highly especially its mesh generating capabilities and fantastic user interface. The program is very robust with minimal crashing.You can download a demo and check from their home site
Having worked on both sides of the fence both selling supporting and using software (civil) I find it amazing the number of times we engineers will use a package expecting to work the way we do. We quite often don't read the manuals in detail or proceed to ignore the programs limitations and expect it all to work. Quite fun when I was a technical officer teaching engineers how to use software but downright frustrating when I was the user (yes I work the same way as everyone else and don't follow the manual when I should).
The day someone has sufficient experience as an engineer to write a good program before they are behind in programming trends will be a miracle. Quite often the programmers young and are led by the genius who created the original program. Even more often the genius forgets how to keep it simple and the programmers loose their way as they are not engineers of experience and do not realise that they are creating "bugs" by trying to get the programm more complex.
Ah bloody hell I'm raving on again!
To me a good program does the simple number crunching of the monotonous tasks without error and the extremely complex maths (FE) with a risk of error (remember rubbish in rubbish out). Good engineering comes from recognising bad results from good and fixing them.
Anyway regards to all.
sc
sc
The day someone has sufficient experience as an engineer to write a good program before they are behind in programming trends will be a miracle. Quite often the programmers young and are led by the genius who created the original program. Even more often the genius forgets how to keep it simple and the programmers loose their way as they are not engineers of experience and do not realise that they are creating "bugs" by trying to get the programm more complex.
Ah bloody hell I'm raving on again!
To me a good program does the simple number crunching of the monotonous tasks without error and the extremely complex maths (FE) with a risk of error (remember rubbish in rubbish out). Good engineering comes from recognising bad results from good and fixing them.
Anyway regards to all.
sc
sc
Well the STAAD boys do it again.
I work closely with a company in Europe and they have proven beyond doubt that the finite elements in STAAD are useless and more to the point dangerous!!.
Simple/complicated tests were created and tested against hand calculations and Robot Millennium.
Results of thefindings were that STAAD produced errors of up to 57% error whereas Robot produced a maximum deviation of between 2 & 3%. Results considered were displacements, stresses (principal, von mises etc). It is worrying when you see these type of errors occurring especially when one of the simulations is just a beam created from varying densities and combinations of element types.
Other findings were that STAAD is clumsy when inputting data and one of the more complicated models took 3 days to run because of the modelling assumptions that you have to make (Robot took 5 minutes):-(
I have big concerns about the ability of this company as a software developer and engineering firm - they seem to employ muppets and are only interested in making a fast buck.
Be aware!! STAAD can seriously effect your health or worse still someone elses!!
a
I work closely with a company in Europe and they have proven beyond doubt that the finite elements in STAAD are useless and more to the point dangerous!!.
Simple/complicated tests were created and tested against hand calculations and Robot Millennium.
Results of thefindings were that STAAD produced errors of up to 57% error whereas Robot produced a maximum deviation of between 2 & 3%. Results considered were displacements, stresses (principal, von mises etc). It is worrying when you see these type of errors occurring especially when one of the simulations is just a beam created from varying densities and combinations of element types.
Other findings were that STAAD is clumsy when inputting data and one of the more complicated models took 3 days to run because of the modelling assumptions that you have to make (Robot took 5 minutes):-(
I have big concerns about the ability of this company as a software developer and engineering firm - they seem to employ muppets and are only interested in making a fast buck.
Be aware!! STAAD can seriously effect your health or worse still someone elses!!
a
- Thread starter
- #72
Thank you arniec for some actual results feedback, it does not occur often. As a Robot Millennium user, I'm glad to see that the Robot results were very accurate. I have been a Robot user for 6 months now and have been very pleased with both concrete and steel model analysis and design capabilities. The technical support will take as much time as needed to explain any type of questions and even offer design tips to utilize the program. Having the technical support handled by a helpful structural engineer seems like a very logical decision for the entire industry to try.
artnkman, my view of IES Visual design is that it is very conventional in terms of concrete modeling. If you have a straightforward application that follows their examples, the program works somewhat effectively. If you do not expect too much from it, you will not be let down. This is typical with most of analysis packages I have investigated.
artnkman, my view of IES Visual design is that it is very conventional in terms of concrete modeling. If you have a straightforward application that follows their examples, the program works somewhat effectively. If you do not expect too much from it, you will not be let down. This is typical with most of analysis packages I have investigated.
You got the straight arniec! We have Staad/Pro release 2000 (not 2001) and I've now found out that I can't input a simple, straight forward rectangular tapered concrete beam. Or at least I can't find out how to do it in the manual, and the Staad technical support says I have to have release 2001 (by the way, why don't they have a toll-free no.?).
And what's up with their attitude?? It's as if your question isn't worthy of their time. Bunch of A-holes.
And what's up with their attitude?? It's as if your question isn't worthy of their time. Bunch of A-holes.
I have never personally used STAAD, but I was involved with a project several years where the engineer used STAAD to model a POST-TENSIONED floor system. I am not exactly sure what they did to model the post-tensioning (probably just equivalent loads due to prestress) but the resulting rebar and P-T was total crap.
We end up re-designing with a 2D P-T program and a few manual checks, and resulted with 50% of the rebar and 50% of the P-T compared to conforming.
The confoming design with 2x the P-T would have been disasterous if it was ever built!
With the number of responses to this thread, it does seem that the program IS indeed technically flawed, and they have NO customer service....how does that work? Maybe the program is very inexpensive, and so you do indeed get what you pay for!
INGENUITY, it is indeed cheap, that is the number one selling point and certainly one of the reasons that it appeals to many small companies that can ill afford to go elsewhere. I was extremely glad when other programs hit that market...the SAPs, RISAs, IES etc. More power to them!
Qshake,
if that is STAADs sole selling point then there are a lot of engineers out there who need to question themselves. Engineers require software to speed up their work - if you buy crap and pay peanuts for it then you will spend more time checking than you would designing by hand - which defeats the whole point. The purchase of software also should extend to the service that you are offered after you have bought - RE don't believe in that concept.
They now seem to have adopted a slogan on their website that STAAD is developed by 'practising engineers for practising engineers' - what a good game that would make at the RE offices (Spot the Engineer)!
a
if that is STAADs sole selling point then there are a lot of engineers out there who need to question themselves. Engineers require software to speed up their work - if you buy crap and pay peanuts for it then you will spend more time checking than you would designing by hand - which defeats the whole point. The purchase of software also should extend to the service that you are offered after you have bought - RE don't believe in that concept.
They now seem to have adopted a slogan on their website that STAAD is developed by 'practising engineers for practising engineers' - what a good game that would make at the RE offices (Spot the Engineer)!
a
So what does that do to all the structures put together by young engineers without experience? A pancake building? Is there anything REALLY new designed in the last twenty-five years or just copies? I'll take a nice stone building any day.
;-)
The rentapen
;-)
The rentapen
Going by the number of staad users cropping up in this forum, I can't see how the staad people don't know that they produce crap. How about telling them or not buying the software as a way of getting the message across. Its amazing how many software companies never improve their software because no one told them how bad it was.
If you are using the software for a company, then tell the management how bad it is. After all in these times it is pretty hard to get the sack over a difference of opinion.
sc
If you are using the software for a company, then tell the management how bad it is. After all in these times it is pretty hard to get the sack over a difference of opinion.
sc
My experience has been that companies buy STAAD based on a "feature list" and it is relatively cheap. They spend a bunch of time learning it. Then realize that it has many bugs and all of the users complain about it. So why don't they buy something else? A couple of reasons. First, people remember that they spent $2000+ for STADD and they have spent a fair amount of time learning STAAD. Given their assumption that all software will be like STAAD, they don't want to spend more time and money buying and learning another program. Second, STAAD actually does some things right. It is reasonably accurate (<5% error) for the basics like frame analysis. The bugs start when you do something like extra like tension or compression members. So their is some value for the money spent. Thirdly, given their assumption, they further assume that other programs will be buggy just like STAAD. So, they figure "better the beast you know than the one you don't." Lastly, most large companies have signed up for STAAD's "maintenance" program because the powers that be are used to the mainframe model of having to pay for the software every year.
So you have an entrenched attitude resisting change and a cash flow every year for REI. Hence, they continue in business.
Imagineer
So you have an entrenched attitude resisting change and a cash flow every year for REI. Hence, they continue in business.
Imagineer
- Status
Similar threads
