Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
Structural Analysis Software Evaluation.... 5
- Thread starter Ron
- Start date
-
1
- #2
I have used all 3 a good bit. My opinion on the order of user friendliness and speed of modeling:
1. RISA
2. RAM-Advanse
3. GT-STRUDL
The one I would trust the most would probably be GT-STRUDL, just because I know it is vigorously tested by the developers. And it would be what I would use for a very complex model. For most simple tasks, I would use RISA. Not saying RISA and Advanse can't handle very complex models, I would just personally sleep better if I used STRUDL.
1. RISA
2. RAM-Advanse
3. GT-STRUDL
The one I would trust the most would probably be GT-STRUDL, just because I know it is vigorously tested by the developers. And it would be what I would use for a very complex model. For most simple tasks, I would use RISA. Not saying RISA and Advanse can't handle very complex models, I would just personally sleep better if I used STRUDL.
-
1
- #3
-
1
- #4
Ron,
Will you be using the code checking part of the program, or using it mostly for structural analysis? Last year I bought an analysis program with integrated code checking. While I think the analysis part is very good, I'm not too impressed with the code checking.
Just thought I'd mention it. It migth be a good idea to download a trial version, if you haven't already done that.
Regards,
-Mike
Will you be using the code checking part of the program, or using it mostly for structural analysis? Last year I bought an analysis program with integrated code checking. While I think the analysis part is very good, I'm not too impressed with the code checking.
Just thought I'd mention it. It migth be a good idea to download a trial version, if you haven't already done that.
Regards,
-Mike
- Thread starter
- #5
mrMikee...Mostly analysis. I do manual code checking. Since a large part of my analysis is for aluminum, I have to do code checks manually as none of these are integrated to the Alum. Assoc. requirements.
haynewp...glad to see that you've used all three and can offer a comparison opinion. Your point about the development testing is an important one, particularly since GT-STRUDL is now done by the guys at Ga. Tech., and alumnal competition aside, it's an excellent school and proving ground.
dik...thanks. The direct experience in practice helps me make my decision since I know all of you are good at what you do.
JAE uses RISA also and is pretty high on it. He offered his opinion in a subset of another thread we were discussing.
haynewp...glad to see that you've used all three and can offer a comparison opinion. Your point about the development testing is an important one, particularly since GT-STRUDL is now done by the guys at Ga. Tech., and alumnal competition aside, it's an excellent school and proving ground.
dik...thanks. The direct experience in practice helps me make my decision since I know all of you are good at what you do.
JAE uses RISA also and is pretty high on it. He offered his opinion in a subset of another thread we were discussing.
-
1
- #6
yup - I would probably agree with haynewp's order - although I've used RAM - I've not seen or used RAM Advanse as its fairly new....We already had RISA so didn't feel compelled to look into it. GT Strudl goes way back - I used to use a form of it as "McDonnell Douglas Strudl-Pro" prior to them merging. I would think it possible that GTStrudl might have a deeper array of analysis features within the program but I'm not sure.
- Thread starter
- #7
JAE...thanks. Based on your experience with RISA, I have it ranked No. 1; however, I was contacted by Bentley Systems after I request some additional info on STAAD-Pro, and they suggested I look at RAM-Advanse. I did and threw out STAAD-Pro. I've used STAAD and a variety of others over the years. RAM and RISA have similar capabilities. From both demos, it appears that RAM's reporting features are a bit more flexible while RISA's modeling features appear to be easier to use.
Some 10 years ago, we modelled a truss bridge for a multi modal analysis of a truss bridge. I modelled it in RISA and a colleague modelled it with GT STRUDL. In the end, the answers were identical, but RISA was much easier and faster to work with. Also, RISA found instabilities in the model that GTSTRUDL overlooked.
I used RISA 2D over eight years ago and really liked it at the time. What I liked about it was the fact it was so user friendly.
The firm I currently work for designs and fabricates heavy timber system. We use PPSA with a lot of custom modifications. We have been looking at updating our software but have not come across a system which can model pitched and tapered curved beams and check them against the current code.
I did look at some of the software from Eagle several years ago. The problem I had with their program was that it was cad based. Being from the late slide rule era, early calculator era, I have always worked with programs where you imput the coordinates of the structure. In the past RISA was very efficient at allowing you to entire information in a column and copy that down the column.
Since looking at the Eagle software I have learned enough about cad to work with it. So today I probably would not find a cad based program as cumberson as I did in the past.
The firm I currently work for designs and fabricates heavy timber system. We use PPSA with a lot of custom modifications. We have been looking at updating our software but have not come across a system which can model pitched and tapered curved beams and check them against the current code.
I did look at some of the software from Eagle several years ago. The problem I had with their program was that it was cad based. Being from the late slide rule era, early calculator era, I have always worked with programs where you imput the coordinates of the structure. In the past RISA was very efficient at allowing you to entire information in a column and copy that down the column.
Since looking at the Eagle software I have learned enough about cad to work with it. So today I probably would not find a cad based program as cumberson as I did in the past.
-
1
- #10
I use RISA now but I used to use RAM Advanse. I also have experience with STAAD, SAP and STRUDL. For most day to day task RISA is by far the winner. Like the above mentioned STRUDL is best for complex design. Comparing RISA and RAM Advanse, RISA is by far the winner. What I like most is that in RISA you can easily just do general analysis. With RAM you have to actually build your shape in their database before you can use it. (At least thats the way it used to be.) With RISA you can just plug in the properties, run the analysis, and it will tell you that it can't do the code check. I also feel that the support at RISA is far better than RAM. You can also check general structural dynamics much easier in RISA. JMHO
Ron,
I just noticed a new program advertised in Modern Steel Construction called "Space Gass". Weird name - but they have a demo to download.
I just noticed a new program advertised in Modern Steel Construction called "Space Gass". Weird name - but they have a demo to download.
What do you think about Robot Office
- Thread starter
- #15
Thanks to all for your input. I really appreciate it.
One question about RISA and reporting....Is the reporting flexible enough to provide your own headers/logo/etc? I know I can cut and paste most anything or develop data transfer to spreadsheets, etc., but I'm curious about its inherent reporting flexibility.
This seems to be a feature of RAM-Advanse. Is it also true of RISA?
One question about RISA and reporting....Is the reporting flexible enough to provide your own headers/logo/etc? I know I can cut and paste most anything or develop data transfer to spreadsheets, etc., but I'm curious about its inherent reporting flexibility.
This seems to be a feature of RAM-Advanse. Is it also true of RISA?
I have tried and I don't think it you can import your own logos into their standard printing format. Like you said, you can go between their spreadsheets copying and pasting, and you can write results to a text only file to manipulate. But as far as inserting your own headers with logos into their best looking printing format, I have not been able to do that. Somebody else may know how.
Here is from their help on printing, custom reports are more in terms of what results you want to see:
Printing Reports
The Report Printing Options box helps you build your reports. There are standard reports for you to choose from and you may also name and save any report format you custom build. To choose a standard report simply pick it from the Report Name drop down list box by clicking on the drop down button.
To build your own custom report you may double-click on report sections in order to move them from the list of available sections on the left, to the current report defined in the list on the right. You may use the mouse and the SHIFT or CTRL keys to pick multiple sections and then move them with the Add button. How?
You may specify the text color as black or blue. You may choose to have every other line shaded to enhance readability or turn this off so that all the lines print on a white background. You may also select the starting page number. The number shown will be the next page number in the current sequence, but you can override this for occasions where you need to insert your calculation pages into an existing report and you need the page numbering to match. All reports have a footer with version information, the file name and path, and the page number. The single line header option will include the Model Title specified in the Global Parameters dialog along with the date. The triple line header adds company, designer and job number to the header as well as a place to initial any checking.
The Item Options button takes you to the Item Printing Options sub-dialog where you can select member and plate related output options. Member output such as code checks or forces you may specify that you want the data to be listed for each section cut in the member or just for the member ends which can be useful for connection design. For plates you may indicate which surface forces you desire.
Here is from their help on printing, custom reports are more in terms of what results you want to see:
Printing Reports
The Report Printing Options box helps you build your reports. There are standard reports for you to choose from and you may also name and save any report format you custom build. To choose a standard report simply pick it from the Report Name drop down list box by clicking on the drop down button.
To build your own custom report you may double-click on report sections in order to move them from the list of available sections on the left, to the current report defined in the list on the right. You may use the mouse and the SHIFT or CTRL keys to pick multiple sections and then move them with the Add button. How?
You may specify the text color as black or blue. You may choose to have every other line shaded to enhance readability or turn this off so that all the lines print on a white background. You may also select the starting page number. The number shown will be the next page number in the current sequence, but you can override this for occasions where you need to insert your calculation pages into an existing report and you need the page numbering to match. All reports have a footer with version information, the file name and path, and the page number. The single line header option will include the Model Title specified in the Global Parameters dialog along with the date. The triple line header adds company, designer and job number to the header as well as a place to initial any checking.
The Item Options button takes you to the Item Printing Options sub-dialog where you can select member and plate related output options. Member output such as code checks or forces you may specify that you want the data to be listed for each section cut in the member or just for the member ends which can be useful for connection design. For plates you may indicate which surface forces you desire.
I have used Robot and SpaceGass to name a few. SpaceGass has all the analysis options you would expect from structural software but is a bit light on the design aspect and does not have an aluminium design module. The interface reminds me of the CADS software that used to be around. It is used mainly in Australia.
Robot offer a free trial of their software and the full version includes an aluminium design module. In my opinion the testing of Robot leaves a lot to be desired. Most software ships with verification programs demonstrating its accuracy; not so with Robot and it appears to have some major bugs in some of the design modules. It is cheaper than the other packages mentioned though, and the trial version is a good start.
Robot offer a free trial of their software and the full version includes an aluminium design module. In my opinion the testing of Robot leaves a lot to be desired. Most software ships with verification programs demonstrating its accuracy; not so with Robot and it appears to have some major bugs in some of the design modules. It is cheaper than the other packages mentioned though, and the trial version is a good start.
- Thread starter
- #18
I have been using SpaceGass and Microstran in Australia. They both have some limitations but quite brilliant for general structural analysis purposes. I have not used design module of SpaceGass and therefore can not comment. Steel Design module of Microstran is quite good and complies well with Australian standard.
NewImhotep
Structural
Does anybody have an experience with midas gen?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question