STAAD vs others 1

[user277418]

Hi

I never used STAAD before, but I used a lot of other similar software (SAP2000, ETABS, RFEM, Autodesk Robot, SCIA etc.). The thing is I might have to use it in the nearest future. Watched a couple of videos online about it. From the 1st look STAAD's GUI is like from the previous decade or two. This is unpleasant but survivable if the software has some kind of very valuable functions missing in other products. I have been told that in the US and Asia many companies like it. If it is true there must be something that hooks engineers despite the awful GUI. That is why I have the question.

What are major benefits of STAAD compering to other similar software (I really hope it is not price only)?

Regards

 

[Tstruct]

I would like to know how people model complex architectures in STAAD. Used it in university and it didn't attract me at all.

 

[SethGuthrie]

Many of our power users still take advantage of the input file to create models. You can also import various formats including dxf, ifc and Bentley's own Integrated Structural Modeling (ISM) format which is helpful for complex structures already defined in CAD.
The program includes many design codes and standards and it's easy to switch between them. Overall, it has a lot of flexibility in analysis and design that people like. It's also trusted because it's been used for structural analysis and design for a long time.
We will continue to update and maintain the software in the future and working on more modern GUI for pre and post-processing.

 

[user277418]

Just to be clear. I am not intended to shade STAAD. Just want to know it's strong sides. Currently what SethGuthrie has told doesn't sound like the very valuable functions missing in other products.

I am looking forward for replies of actual happy users . Tell your success story related to STAAD. Example I had a structure ... and used ... at the time, but it wasn't able to solve ... and than I tried STAAD which had ... to help me to do the job.

 

[Tstruct]

@SethGuthrie I am an ETABS user. This feature (to import from CAD files) has been there for a long time. It can be useful, but still it has it's limitation. We don't use it with even ETABS. Not having each floor plan and grid elevation views is a big turn down. It is not only about creating models, but studying them and making changes. In university, I used v8i SS6 version. Since STAAD is relatively in demand in market, I would like to know if newer versions are any better. BTW I really like RAM connections and use them, in this line CSI is far behind.

 

[Tstruct]

@SethGuthrie Do you think creating a CAD file for the sake of making model then importing it to STAAD and then checking it if everything sits right is a smart and time saving process?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Do you think creating a CAD file for the sake of making model then importing it to STAAD and then checking it if everything sits right is a smart and time saving process?

I think the point you're making is that many of us do not find it useful to create a CAD model of our own for the sole purpose of importing it into an analysis program. I would guess that you're probably misinterpreting Seth's comments.....

First, I think Seth was hyping up the text input file that a lot of STAAD (and SAP) users (including me) used way back in the day to get started. If you know how to use these input files, it can indeed be a good and quick way to get a model started. Though, in my opinion, few people are willing to do this anymore. I'm not. But, that's more because I would have to remember all the quicky generation features that made it so useful. Since I don't use those features anymore, I can't be efficient with those text files anymore.

Next, I have found the importing of a CAD file into a structural analysis program to be extremely useful over the yeas. However, in the vast majority of those cases, I was using a CAD file created by someone else. Frequently an architect, or an owner who already had a CAD layout of his building (or proposed building).

I'm not trying to flame you here. Just trying to point out some perspective that I think you may be missing.

PS / Caveats: I work for CSI the company that sells SAP and ETABS. Before that I worked for RISA for a number of years. My limited experience with STAAD comes from the first few years of my career when I was tasked with doing some NQA testing for all the structural programs my company might want to use for nuclear work (STAAD, RISA, SAP2000, & GTSTrudl). I will say that was a long time ago (1990's), but I don't think STAAD ever passed the NQA testing that we did. That was almost certainly a snapshot of the poor management that STAAD had back then, which was 25+ years ago, long before they were acquired by Bentley.

 

[CarlosAguera]

As product manager of STAAD.Pro, I clearly have a particular view about what it is that STAAD.Pro offers that has made it the solution adopted by so many engineers globally. The reality is that it is almost a different reason for each organisation and every engineer. What I can say without hesitation is that a lot of its success is indeed derived from its history and I see many occasions engineers revisit projects from back when STAAD was first released. They can in many cases, use the data in the current version of STAAD.Pro without having to make any significant changes. The longevity of data is much under rated until you need to access it. The issue is more often in being able to extract the data from systems that are no longer supported. In other situations, the interop story is becoming more important in being able to be effective designers. This is a story that continues to evolve and with iTwin, is central to Bentley's solutions in offering engineering solutions. I would encourage all engineers to push all software vendors to make interop the heart of their solutions so designs can be efficiently progressed through the full design life cycle, something we have focused on in STAAD.Pro and continue to evolve with Physical Modelling. So basically STAAD.Pro is serving engineers that span from two ends of the designer spectrum, engineers working efficiently with older methods and historical data and at the other end, those who operate more effectively by working with interop, physical models and digital design reviews. I am sure you as a designer will have some requirements that might be unique or niche, so having an open API that allows for customisation and extracting data into third party solutions has become a growing value offering being adopted by more organisations to create unique solutions. STAAD.Pro is more than just a simple analysis tool, if used wisely , it is a major cornerstone in an efficient design practice.

Carlos Aguera
STAAD.Pro Product Manager

 

[Tstruct]

@CarlosAguera I understood two of your points.
1. Compatibility of older versions with newer versions. I haven't tried it in Staad but in ETABS too you can easily open older version models in newer versions.

2. Compatibility with third party softwares. This feature is available in csi products too.

So what is unique here?
Also please explain in easy words about interop and what you wrote about it.

 

[user277418]

Sorry to say that, but I don't see the text input file as of some sort advantage. It definitely was in 90s I guess, but this train has left long time ago. I understand that from a program developer point of view all those fancy models are still boiling down to text files, but from a practicing engineer point of view it is too cumbersome. Unless all your structures are rectangular prisms or other basic 3D shapes. But nowadays architects are wild

Regarding CAD/DXF import. Indeed I have seen frames of very complicated structures to be built in 3D by lines and then exported into FE software. But this technology was available since 2010 I guess. It is not STAAD's advantage.

Regarding possibility to use old files. If we are talking about an ongoing but long lasting project (1-5 years) and engineer need to go back to revise some structures, then this option is available in most of the modern software. If the project let's say is a reconstruction of relatively new structure (5-30 years) then the structure owner is not going to search for a company that use STAAD only (even if they have an available calculations in STAAD). They will look for a cheapest option with highest credentials. To model a structure doesn't take a lot of time in modern software. Besides to remodel/reanalyze the structure will bring an advantage of cross-checking the old calculations. If we are talking about some kind historic structures then I guess STAAD is not the proper software for the task. Thereby I don't see any STAAD's advantage in that either.

Regarding interoperability. I see it as a positive development in the world of AEC software in general. If @CarlosAguera means the interoperability through different AEC fields then great. Most of the modern software has it (not without cavities but in general on OK level). But I would not proud too much about the interoperability within a single field. It might means that your software can not satisfy all user's needs. So the user must have a lot of other software to do their job. It is hard for me to say is STAAD better in the field in any way then other competitors without actually trying STAAD. As the feature is in continuous development in most of AEC software there are a lot of sales department promises on the market and not so much actual results. So I don't believe to video presentations any more

Still hope to hear more from users then from sales department.

 

[CarlosAguera]

To both @Tstruct and @user277418, the point I was trying to make was not about comparing against any provider, but about the importance of having a system that retains the data in a consistent way without changing the fundamentals as engineers frequently have to return to historical data, sometimes this is data from over 30 years ago. Keeping the STAAD format and methods to view that in the way that the original model was created makes understanding of original intent much easier to comprehend. As I said, this is not important for all users, but I have been informed this is why many engineers have continued to use STAAD.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I've already stated my biases in this thread, so I won't repeat myself there. But, I will point out what I've heard over the years when comparing the various programs out there. At least the ones commonly used in North America.

STAAD: They seem to have a lot of users who are in the industrial sector. I'm talking about power plants, refineries, that sort of thing. It probably means that they have a bit of an advantage with importing / exporting from or to software in that sector.

CSI/ SAP / ETABS: They have an advantage with more advanced analysis. Non-linear and such. Also seem to have an advantage with Concrete buildings and high rise buildings. Anything involving push-over / ASCE 41 or "performance based" designs.

RISA: They have invested some time and energy into wood design that the others don't seem to have matched.

RAM: They seem to have some advantages with the steel frame/ composite beam / steel joist type of structures. Especially mid-rise structures. I'd argue that ETABS and RISAFloor match them (or beat them) in most important areas now. But, they have still retained a lot of their user base.

That's the "Big 4" in North America. But, I'll also mention some "honorable mentions":

GTStrudl:They were the best with their "validation" or "Quality Assurance" documentation for years. So much so, that many companies used them (and continue to use them?) for nuclear work. In my opinion, this was mostly because of the amount of time and energy those companies could save in the NQA testing / validation. Not because the program was inherently better. But, because their published volumes of documentation could be easily submitted without much extra effort by the firm using them.

Visual Analysis: I'll call them the "little engine that could". They're a much smaller company, but I believe they have something of a price advantage and there are benefits with working with a small company. I haven't used them much, but they have been very open and responsive whenever I've talked to them.

Dlublal(sp?): This is a foreign company without much market presence here in the US (at least not yet). A friend of mine looked into buying it. I'm pretty sure he was using a "trial version" to design a swimming pool, or figure out how to use their API (I'm assuming) to auto-generate a reasonably complex geometry with plate elements. My friend seemed like he was going to buy it (and he'd evaluated a number of the programs listed). It seems like it was a well thought out program and could be competitive if it started gaining any market share. Though it doesn't seem to have happened. Meaning my friend did not buy it and I don't think it's gained much market share.

Robot: This is another european company. They would make a fairly aggressive push to get the US market to adopt their program every 10 years or so. But, they never really seemed to gain much market share. Not sure why. I've never used it. But, I just remember seeing lots of advertising for a 2 year period or so..... Followed by they totally abandoning the North American market. Now, that they're owned by AutoDesk (right?), they might be more permanent. But, I still don't recall speaking to more than two or three engineers in the US who have told me they used it for actual design work.

 

[user277418]

@JoshPlumSE thank you for the review

 

[user277418]

@SethGuthrie and @CarlosAguera
I want to take my words back regarding GUI of STAAD. Just were watching relatively recent (1 year ago) presentation of the Connect Edition. The GUI is quite fine. Could be better, but should be enough for most of engineers.

 

[user277418]

@SethGuthrie and @CarlosAguera
I have looked how meshing works in STAAD. OMG I supposed that Robot had one of the most inconvenient meshing engines, but STAAD definitely overreached it. I haven't used software with such meshing engine since 2008. 3D solids without engine to mesh it just killed me. Some guy in a 2 year old video used Excel to manually draw every 3D solid FE. Mind-blowing. Now I am starting to understand why do you proud of text input file.

 

[STpipe]

My general thoughts on Staad is no secret (and I've been quite vocal about my displeasure with the software in past post). The software seems to me like it was really cutting edge for its time, but the gui and workflow have been frozen in that time period, and other software providers have kept improving, introducing new features and implementing items that streamlines and makes things more efficient.

I feel that for that subscription price, Risa3D is better value, and easier to pick up.

For the few that still offer a perpetual license like SAP2000/ETABS and Dlubal's RFEM/RSTAB, within five or so years, you've already paid the same for those software's full capabilities with what you could get with a five year subscription of Staad.

 

[WARose]

Me personally, I like STAAD because I have always found it very easy to mesh and (also) to make changes via the text in the edit/input file. Speaking of the latter, if you save that text as a .txt file....it means it is permanently preserved. I have seen cases with other software where the file was corrupted or not compatible with later versions.

I can build models in minutes in STAAD....whereas with program like RISA, I use to pull my hair out to get anything done. I hated that thing.

I also love STAAD's output files and the stress contouring.

All that being said, I did prefer the v8i edition of STAAD to the newer one.

 

[user277418]

@WARose c'mon. Damage control?

I really don't want to make the topic into what you hate in ... I am still hoping to see actual responses from real users about what they like in STAAD. From good... During the GUI presentation I have noticed pushover analysis among analysis tabs. This is definitely a strong feature if actually functional.

 

[WARose]

@WARose lol c'mon. Damage control?....I am still hoping to see actual responses from real users about what they like in STAAD.

Real user? What am I? A imaginary user? I've been using STAAD now for nearly 30 years.

I really don't want to make the topic into what you hate in....

Sure sounds to me like that is what you are looking for here. If you don't like it (a lot of amateurs don't) that's great. But there are those of us who do.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

During the GUI presentation I have noticed pushover analysis among analysis tabs. This is definitely a strong feature if actually functional.

I'd be skeptical of this if I were you.... I just remember reading a press release of theirs a few years ago promoting this feature and (in my opinion) it sounded like the it had not been reviewed by anyone who knew anything about push over analysis. So, much so that I showed it to some other engineers and we laughed about it together.

I've never tried that feature in STAAD, so what do I know? But, I remain pretty skeptical.

That company (before they were acquired by Bentley) had something of a reputation for releasing "marketing" features that didn't work for a long time. I'm not just talking about minor bugs, I'm talking about completely an unusable feature.