structural analysis software 1

[MillR]

I am looking to adopt new structural analysis software for a small structural team primarily doing multistory steel and concrete buildings in a variety of locations in the United States and am looking for suggestions. I am leaning toward RISA or RAM, although it has been a long time since I've personally run analysis software. I've searched and this question has certainly been answered before, but nothing recent. Thank you in advance.

 

[MrHershey]

I'm told Bentley's licensing does real well...with customers other than structural engineers. For guys who are in the same product all day every day what they're doing works well. But for the standard structural user who is jumping in and out it's fairly bad and they're hearing it from everyone.

They seem to recognize this and tell me they're working to improve it. Some changes coming in the next month to improve things. They'll still let anyone in, but the accounting will be improved. Then more later in the year to improve further and maybe actually give some control and cap usage or at least inform people that they'd be going over.

They handled the transition very poorly for their structural customers and sounds like they lost a decent amount of business because of it.

They've also done a poor job of advertising the Structural Enterprise license which gives access to all RAM, all STAAD products, and a few other.

 

[pappyirl]

RAM licensing is definitely not an attractive financial proposition. They need to change it before they alienate their users. The PT/RC capabilities of the program are impressive.

Robot is quite useful for steel and timber design. I would not be as impressed with it's RC capabilities.

 

[sandman21]

RISA typically takes more modes to get 90% mass participation than ETAB, for the same model. RISA has difficulty with concrete structures when modelling floors as plates, they regularly act in ways they should not. This appears to be the result of trying to attach plates with walls, and most likely an issue with meshing. Dynamic loads are not transferred to RISA foundation.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

An FYI / Correction to SandMan -

Maybe for pure concrete models, ETAB's may have an advantage over RISA for dynamic solution. But, it should be much more modest than what it used to be.

If you're talking about true eigen modes, then RISA cannot take more modes to get to 90% mass participation unless you have modeled your mass differently. Hence, why there may still be some different with concrete building using a semi-rigid floor slab. But, for modeling of steel building with a rigid floor diaphragm, the mass modeling should be virtually identical between the programs.

Now, ETABs used to have an advantage because of their "Ritz Vector" solver for dynamics. This type of solver allows you to use fewer "modes" because you're biasing the solution to specifically exclude modes that do not participate in the direction requested. What you get are not the true dynamic modes of the structure, though they are usually close.

However, RISA added a Ritz Vector dynamic solution option a year or so ago. So, while our Ritz Vector algorithm won't be exactly the same as CSI's / ETABs, it should be in the same ball park. Thereby eliminating most reasons why ETABs might require significantly fewer modes than RISA.

 

[ATSE]

If you had to pick one software program for a small office, that would be RISA 3D. SE Swiss Army knife.
Second in line is SAP 2000.

 

[sandman21]

I can only tell you my experience with the programs. The test model was done several years ago, so maybe they are closer now, however when we tested the two models they both had the same mass and member sizes, etc.

 

[allgoodnamestaken]

I used S-Frame/S-Steel/S-Concrete for a while and despite its peculiarities quite liked it. I understand it might be smaller and more academic in nature than many other programs, but I see jobs here that ask for S-Frame experience quite a bit.

 

[bookowski]

Re Etabs Vs. Risa: Is anyone using Risa for concrete buildings? I typically use Etabs w/Safe for concrete buildings (and larger steel bldgs) and risa for more isolated elements (small frames, trusses, non-buildings, simple beams). Risa is loads more user friendly but doesn't seem set up to do a decent sized concrete job. That said I just realize now that there is a Risa Floor ES - anyone using this? How is it handling cracked sections/creep/shrinkage etc?

 

[andriver]

I started off using SACS which is a Bentley product, specific to the offshore industry.

I now have to use RISA 3D as well being on an industrial job. RISA is very intuitive and easy to pick up. There are features I like about both programs and wish I could "mesh" the two.

JoshPlum, if RISA could have an "add joint relative" feature I would LOVE your program. I know there are other way to go about this (split member) but being able to add a joint relative to another joint (in x,y,z) I could build my models so much faster.

 

[jayrod12]

andriver. unselect your entire model except for the node you want as a reference. Then copy that node to the dimensions you want. You'll want to make sure the box is checked for skewed copy otherwise it will copy it to three different locations.

 

[andriver]

Jayrod,

thanks it looks like that is exactly what I am looking for, I knew about the feature but never thought of using it that way. Thank you very much, wish I would have asked this 10 months ago!

 

[kipfoot]

I'll add a recommendation for Visual Analysis (iesweb dot com). It's an excellent all-purpose tool with licensing levels that step up based on how you use it. Worth a download and trial period, in my opinion.

 

[mtu1972]

Agree with kipfoot! Been done working for a while but I was wondering why Visual Analysis had never gotten mentioned.

For my mind and thought process it was easier to work with than RISA, STAAD, or ETABS that were also used at my last job.

gjc

 

[transmissiontowers]

I'll through GTStrudl into the mix. I've been using it since the 1980's and it works well for the small frames I use it on. I regularly attend the User's Group meetings and it is used for buildings and bridges and really large models. Georgia Tech has sold the development to Intergraph and they have added some new AutoCAD interface to the old GTMenu interface. The same developer team went from Georgia Tech down the road to Intergraph in Georgia. I think the licensing price has gone up from the old Georgia Tech prices but there seems to be added value with the AutoCAD interface included in the price. They do assume you have a recent version of AutoCAD installed. They still use the hardware dongle for security. If you do work on Nuclear Power plant structures, GTS is certified as required by the NRC.

_____________________________________
I have been called "A storehouse of worthless information" many times.

 

[PhiBeeDeeSquared]

We have been using RAM for over 10 years and are fed up with their poor costumer service and their sneaky licensing policy. It's good to hear all of the positive comments about RISA. We are at the point where we have to evaluate a new system and move on.

 

[MrHershey]

To update since I've been in regular contact with these guys. I have in writing that Bentley is updating their calendar hour 'buckets' to calendar ten minutes instead. They've also said they'll round your entry time up to the nearest ten minutes which will in effect mean that only concurrent usage would constitute overuse. Would recommend anyone get this in writing from them as well before just doing it, though. I haven't seen it anywhere officially.

So Computer A gets in at 3:00 and gets out at 3:15. Computer B can get in at 3:16 even though they're in the same calendar ten minutes because Bentley will round the entry time up to 3:20 and place them in the next calendar ten minute period.

Still no controls for limiting people from opening software if you've already reached what you agreed to pay for, they claim that's still coming. But a step in the right-ish direction anyways.

 

[HouseBoy]

I'll add my "vote" for Visual Analysis too. REALLY like the user interface (graphic) and the customer service is fantastic.
I think the pricing is fair. I'm a single practitioner so...no problems with multiple users.
I do a lot of wood design (fancy houses with some steel) and complex residential (hillside) foundations.
Plenty of database shapes. Definitely worth trying the demo.
I used it back in the late 90's and then the company I was with moved on to RAM (I think) due to some design flexibility and software stability issues. I went straight back to it when I went out on my own as a single practitioner 7 years ago and I find it very versatile and easy to use.

 

[tdstructural]

I love RISA, plus they offer either free or incredibly inexpensive PDH that educate you as to the additional functions of their software. Every webinar I take I learn new powerful tools within the software. Also, they have great customer service. They spent 1.5 days working with me online before we figure d out it was the fact that my computer was 'messed up'. As soon as I fixed my computer their program worked just fine. Last but not least very inexpensive considering its capabilities.

The only problem we have had is with multiple moving loads. If you have more than three different moving loads in one load combination look into some other software.