Structural Engineering Software Programs 5

[Apllonia Smith]

Hey there,

I am Smith,
I have points and question to ask,

There are many Structural Engineering Software Programs available, which can easily be found by performing a google search. For buildings and other building-like structures. But, I need a software with a straightforward interface, that continually updates to include the latest theories, and possibly is the standard in the structural engineering industry.
Please anyone suggest to me ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I need a software with a straightforward interface,

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.... So, is the definition of a straightforward interface. Usually, it ends up being the interface you're most familiar with. If you're not familiar with any of the popular programs, then I suggest you contact the various software providers and ask for a demo or trial license. Test out the interface yourself to see what feels the most straight forward to you.

I need a software that continually updates to include the latest theories, and possibly is the standard in the structural engineering industry.

"the latest theories", what does that mean. Are you talking dynamics, non-linear hinging, or what. If you're talking static analysis, then "latest theories" may just mean the most recent code requirements.

If you're looking for the "standard in the structural engineering community" then you should already have a pretty good idea.... assuming that you're already a member of that community. I'll toss out a few names that are popular here in the USA.

SAP2000 / ETABS
RAM / STAAD
RISA

Caveat: I used to work for RISA and I now work for CSI (the company that makes SAP2000 and ETABS). If you're looking for more advance analysis (i.e. non-linear then you're probably talking SAP2000. If you're looking mostly for ease of use then maybe RISA (though IMO it's not as easy to use as it used to be).

 

[KootK]

I've always thought that Visual Analysis had a rational and elegant look and feel to it. Their market share is pretty small though so I'd not call them the "standard" in any sense.

 

[phamENG]

I'll give Visual Analysis another vote - my trial is expiring in the next day or two and I'll likely be purchasing a license. I used SkyCiv for a while. It meets the straightforward part and they have a really flexible payment setup if cost is a big issue for you, but it's still "young" and has a ways to go to really compete with the likes of RISA, ETABS, or SAP2000.

 

[MegaStructures]

Like JoshPlum said it depends what you want. RISA works well for linear static analysis and automatic AISC code checking and has a rather intuitive interface as I'm sure ETABS and SAP2000 do as well. If you want advanced features like, for example, power spectral density analysis, RISA won't do it for you. Also, what type of structures are you designing? I would say if I was designing a lot of RC slabs I wouldn't use RISA, but for steel I love it. I think software selection can be a very individualized choice.

 

[r13]

Why STAAD was largely ignored? It is similar to RISA, but more user friendly (at least to me).

 

[KootK]

RISA is quite limited for concrete. Their parent company recently purchased ADAPT and I'm hoping that the two packages will be merged in some fashion.

 

[Celt83]

hmm Nemetschek seems to be trying to break into the US market in a big way. They have had SCIA for a while which I'm guessing didn't really take off like they wanted or they saw a cost/benefit in buying up RISA for Analysis/Steel and Adapt for concrete rather then try and develop their own design routines in SCIA to make it more marketable to us North America folks.

From a consumer end this doesn't exactly paint a great picture for my future IT budget.

Will need to look more into Visual Analysis.

My Personal Open Source Structural Applications:

https://github.com/buddyd16/Structural-Engineering

Open Source Structural GitHub Group:

https://github.com/open-struct-engineer

 

[MegaStructures]

@retired13 I have to disagree with you on the user friendliness of STAAD(personal preference I know). Likely you've used STAAD mostly, but I tried both when I started and I thought STAAD was seriously unintuitive.

 

[Trenno]

Check out SkyCiv - cloud based software that should cater to most engineer's needs. I believe they have competitive subscriptions too.

 

[r13]

Mega,

Yes, purely personal preference, as I used both too, in the dark days that having manual input method only (STAAD had free input format).

 

[KootK]

Maturity aside, I certainly like the direction that SkyCiv is headed in with regard to a cloud based offering. Some may recall that I'd like to do something similar myself. I've also heard rumors that Bentley is flirting with similar ideas with respect to offering some or all of RAM Elements via a cloud based platform.

 

[phamENG]

KootK - agreed. And I have to say, SkyCiv's customer service is top notch. When I'd have questions about capabilities or functionality, I could usually be in a chat session with the development team same day. If they can integrate automated stiffness analysis and some tools for shear wall analysis, I'd probably stick with them.

 

[RWW0002]

While we are (somewhat) on the topic, anyone else have a problem with the constantly-updating software these days? Subscription based and constantly changing software seems like it ts the direction everything is going, and is a nightmare for a practicing engineer. How do you verify an ever changing software? I would much rather a software not update to latest and greatest code or analysis methodology yet be consistent (albeit slightly outdated) with its analysis and results. This way I can get comfortable with a software and its limitations and adjust my design accordingly.

Ohh how I long for the days where we could purchase a stand-alone software package, hand verify the output and then own it for life (for better or worse)..

 

[r13]

We only update our software package at major changes that affecting our works. Sometimes even skip updates due mainly to code changes, if the changes are cosmetic, or rare in use.

 

[KootK]

I shall spew a little uncomfortable truth, as I know it to be: I no longer feel that it's practical to be doing detailed, line by line verification of design software output. Instead, what I'm relying on for QC is effectively checking the reasonableness of the final solution:

1) Have somebody senior do a meaningful review of the answers that are output via design software.

2) Maintain a stable of design spreadsheets to check against the software output even if the spreadsheets lack a compatible level of sophistication or even code editions.

3) If something doesn't pass #1 and #2, look at it more closely.

This may not be wise, or even ethical, but that's what I'm doing presently. Given the frequency and severity of the operator errors that I see coming from the designers themselves, that's where I focus most of my attention.

 

[sticksandtriangles]

I agree completely with KootK on the topic of time spent verify software; time better spent reviewing the operators model than software output IMO.

Just recently I had conversation about truss design with a rigid diaphragm. Top chord size was about 1/4 the weight of the bottom chord size. I asked if this made sense to the person sizing the truss and they said "That's what the software spit out".



S&T

 

[IRstuff]

2) Maintain a stable of design spreadsheets to check against the software output even if the spreadsheets lack a compatible level of sophistication or even code editions.

One thing that is probably included are the FEM/FEA outputs from each software version, so that changes can be tracked

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[KootK]

With respect to my potential software development project, "KootWare" would be commercially coined "Whitebox" as suggested to me by Lomarandil. Brilliant. The idea being that Whitebox shall be the opposite of black-box. It would be non-FEM software, akin to hand calcs on steroids, and made as transparent as possible, including:

1) Extremely detailed output.

2) Users get to see the software coding.

3) Graphs of things that would facilitate the checking of reasonableness. Nobody, including nature, really believes in discontinuities for the most part.

4) Lots of verification examples.

5) Management's willingness to run your verification examples if desired. They would get added to the library.

Given that I mean for the price to be somewhere in the $5 - $20 per month range, it's occured to me that some may see value in using Whitebox to check higher end software packages. Folks will object to using one piece of software to check another but, done properly I think that it would be legit. In a reliability sense, it is altogether reasonable to believe that two pieces of software could be used to cross check, particularly if the packages are set up very differently. Additionally, Whitebox would be the one geared towards its users having a high level of comfort in its output. Check the software that's easy to check and then check that against your 3D FEM black bock stuff.

 

[RWW0002]

KootK - I agree that your approach is the best way to reasonably review work and that a meaningful and independent review is the best way to ensure quality. However, I still hate the idea that a software that I have become comfortable with can suddenly change without my knowledge. Based on the questions (and sometimes answers) on here I feel like we already have a problem with "black box" engineering, even without an ever-changing software system. Give me a good basic reliable analysis program without all the bells and whistles with a code check (if it even has one) that updates every 5 years over the software of today any day.