Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Structural Software 4
- Thread starter Einsteim
- Start date
Gumpmaster
Structural
I second that request. I currently use RAM and STAAD, but would like to see a review of RISA (Risa 3D and Risa Floor) and SAP (SAP and ETABS. I think we all have our opinions, but we probably don't get the opportunity to use several packages concurrently. It would be nice to hear someones thorough reviews. There are several opinions on programs on this site, but it appears that most of them are several years old.
The most recent issue (Jan 2008) of Modern Steel Construction has an interveiw with the major structural program players. I was least impressed with the answers from the Bentley rep.
einstein, if you'd like, I can give you my personal opinions on RAM & STAAD.
The most recent issue (Jan 2008) of Modern Steel Construction has an interveiw with the major structural program players. I was least impressed with the answers from the Bentley rep.
einstein, if you'd like, I can give you my personal opinions on RAM & STAAD.
- Thread starter
- #4
Yes Gumpmaster. I would be interested in comments on RAM, which applications you use, ease of use, etc. I currently use RAMBeam, RAMColumn and RamBaseplate. I understand they will interact nicely with RAM Structural. I have demo'd RISA and it is also good it seems, but I like the integration of the RAM tools mentioned above.
It just seems there must be a unbiased review of the major players somewhere??
It just seems there must be a unbiased review of the major players somewhere??
I have used RAM Structural(modeler, beam, column, and Ramframe) and RISA(2D, 3D, RisaFloor, Base, Foot, Section).
Both are good companies with good tech support.
First, here are some past threads on the topic:
thread726-147556
thread507-203413
thread507-132180
Ram started out mainly as a non-matrix solution floor program and then added design modules (steel beams, columns, concrete, etc).
RISA started out as a 2D matrix solver, adding beam checking, then 3D, the the supplemental programs like RISA Foot.
Both firms had their own arena but then they began to compete with similar products. At about the same time, RAM added Advance - a matrix frame analysis program and RISA added RISA Floor - a program similar to RAM's floor framing software.
In my opinion, the RAM Floor program is currently easier to use and is a bit more "mature" than RISA Floor. However, I've used RISA's 3D program for some time and the quality of it is outstanding in terms of reliability of the solution and avoiding black-box treatment of the model. RamFrame, to me, was a bit mysterious and black box in that I never could fully "see" what the lateral loading on my building was.
I've not used RAM Advanse. RAM tended to have lots of updates and bug fixes - sometimes monthly it seemed. RISA tends to update at a slower pace with larger, more significant updates.
RISA3D and Floor (I think) is linked in well with Revit and just came out with a new version with an improved link. RAM supposedly can also link to Revit but not as well?..not sure.
But both are good.
Both are good companies with good tech support.
First, here are some past threads on the topic:
thread726-147556
thread507-203413
thread507-132180
Ram started out mainly as a non-matrix solution floor program and then added design modules (steel beams, columns, concrete, etc).
RISA started out as a 2D matrix solver, adding beam checking, then 3D, the the supplemental programs like RISA Foot.
Both firms had their own arena but then they began to compete with similar products. At about the same time, RAM added Advance - a matrix frame analysis program and RISA added RISA Floor - a program similar to RAM's floor framing software.
In my opinion, the RAM Floor program is currently easier to use and is a bit more "mature" than RISA Floor. However, I've used RISA's 3D program for some time and the quality of it is outstanding in terms of reliability of the solution and avoiding black-box treatment of the model. RamFrame, to me, was a bit mysterious and black box in that I never could fully "see" what the lateral loading on my building was.
I've not used RAM Advanse. RAM tended to have lots of updates and bug fixes - sometimes monthly it seemed. RISA tends to update at a slower pace with larger, more significant updates.
RISA3D and Floor (I think) is linked in well with Revit and just came out with a new version with an improved link. RAM supposedly can also link to Revit but not as well?..not sure.
But both are good.
- Thread starter
- #6
Thanks JAE.
The info you provided are helpful and the threads helpful as well. I did a search for software threads previously with no success, not sure if I had wrong keywords or what, I tried many different combinations and didn't come up with any of the ones you provided.
The info you provided are helpful and the threads helpful as well. I did a search for software threads previously with no success, not sure if I had wrong keywords or what, I tried many different combinations and didn't come up with any of the ones you provided.
-
3
- #7
You didn't say what you want to use it for. RISA, like JAE typed, is a fantastic 3D matrix analysis program, although it mostly sticks with the basics: small displacements, no time history analysis, etc.
If you're interested in handling large displacements, cables, time history, predicting frequency response functions, power spectral density, eigenvalue buckling, virtual work optimization, staged construction, etc., then SAP is a great choice for the money. I view it as an "in betweener" because it does far more than the basic packages, but the next level up is ansys, abaqus, etc., which are FAR outside the need (and budget) of most engineering offices. SAP does most of the useful stuff that those do and costs 3-6x less. ETABS does a lot of this stuff also and is more specialized and friendly for bldgs.
Now excuse me while I step on my soapbox (stop reading here if ya don't wanna hear it, LOL). I'm personally a bigger fan of the "non-black-box" programs. In my old office (worked for 10 years and came back to school for my PhD) we used RISA and everybody still knew how calc wind loads, design lots of things by hand, etc.
We hired one 12 year SE guy who had been using an un-named automated system for years and he literally couldn't manually calc wind loads.
We also tried to use an automated composite beam design system (also un-named, LOL) for one job. One of our decent 20 year guys used it to design a floor and it's like his brain turned off and the design was totally illogical. Very deep beams framing into shallow ones, no consolidation of sizes, every beam with a different # of studs and a different reaction, etc. This plan was fairly regular.
One of my pals own a large steel detailing company, so he design connections and sees what folks come up with for members. He said that he's lost track of the braced frames which had HSS12x12 with hundreds of kips axial, but a W10x12 beam. That's because the engineer didn't know his black box didn't let the beams have any axial load (rigid diaphragm).
I personally worked on a botched job involving mis-use of automated system, resulting in failure. The engineer accidentally had the program set to use shored construction, so had W12x14 beams, 34' long, 7-8' trib. Girders were W18x35, 34' long. The first bay literally started to collapse when they put concrete on it. He obviously pressed the "Run" button and then never looked at it again. This was from a reputable firm and was supposedly one of their experienced folks. Obviously, the owner wanted to know what somebody besides him had to say about how to fix it, LOL.
Long story short: If you (or anybody else) implements a black box system, intensive quality control procedures need to be in place. If I were to allow use of one of these, I would mandate that every floor plan be plotted to 1/8"=1'-0" scale and EVERY beam be highlighted by the responsible engineer. In other words A HUMAN will *mentally register* what sizes are used everywhere.
Sorry for the soapbox. I believe there is are serious problems from mis-use of these programs.
If you're interested in handling large displacements, cables, time history, predicting frequency response functions, power spectral density, eigenvalue buckling, virtual work optimization, staged construction, etc., then SAP is a great choice for the money. I view it as an "in betweener" because it does far more than the basic packages, but the next level up is ansys, abaqus, etc., which are FAR outside the need (and budget) of most engineering offices. SAP does most of the useful stuff that those do and costs 3-6x less. ETABS does a lot of this stuff also and is more specialized and friendly for bldgs.
Now excuse me while I step on my soapbox (stop reading here if ya don't wanna hear it, LOL). I'm personally a bigger fan of the "non-black-box" programs. In my old office (worked for 10 years and came back to school for my PhD) we used RISA and everybody still knew how calc wind loads, design lots of things by hand, etc.
We hired one 12 year SE guy who had been using an un-named automated system for years and he literally couldn't manually calc wind loads.
We also tried to use an automated composite beam design system (also un-named, LOL) for one job. One of our decent 20 year guys used it to design a floor and it's like his brain turned off and the design was totally illogical. Very deep beams framing into shallow ones, no consolidation of sizes, every beam with a different # of studs and a different reaction, etc. This plan was fairly regular.
One of my pals own a large steel detailing company, so he design connections and sees what folks come up with for members. He said that he's lost track of the braced frames which had HSS12x12 with hundreds of kips axial, but a W10x12 beam. That's because the engineer didn't know his black box didn't let the beams have any axial load (rigid diaphragm).
I personally worked on a botched job involving mis-use of automated system, resulting in failure. The engineer accidentally had the program set to use shored construction, so had W12x14 beams, 34' long, 7-8' trib. Girders were W18x35, 34' long. The first bay literally started to collapse when they put concrete on it. He obviously pressed the "Run" button and then never looked at it again. This was from a reputable firm and was supposedly one of their experienced folks. Obviously, the owner wanted to know what somebody besides him had to say about how to fix it, LOL.
Long story short: If you (or anybody else) implements a black box system, intensive quality control procedures need to be in place. If I were to allow use of one of these, I would mandate that every floor plan be plotted to 1/8"=1'-0" scale and EVERY beam be highlighted by the responsible engineer. In other words A HUMAN will *mentally register* what sizes are used everywhere.
Sorry for the soapbox. I believe there is are serious problems from mis-use of these programs.
I recently asked a senior guy in my office what % composite he used on the beams in his large recently-designed office building. He said "I don't know, let's ask the computer." The jr. engineer (with a master's degree) who did all the computer work didn't even know what partial composite action WAS much less to what degree the beams and studs were specified.
Sad, in a way. They had 120 load combinations but little "feel" for their own building.
Be wary of the black box.
Sad, in a way. They had 120 load combinations but little "feel" for their own building.
Be wary of the black box.
JLNJ, that doesn't surprise me a bit.
I think the following should be mandated by any office that uses an automated system:
1. Engineers must design 3 bldgs of that type the old fashioned way before using an automated system. "Old fashioned way" being at least going back to individual beam design programs like Ramsbeam so they get used to mentally registering the sizes.
2. Engineers must demonstrate that they can *exactly* reproduce the automated system's output for an easy case (say typical beam) and a hard case (girder with unsymm point loads for example) before actually using it. Actually, I think this should be the case for almost all programs. Exceptions are FE programs, etc., for which it would be next-to-impossible to crank through the calcs manually. In those cases, the engineer should be able to get very close with a manual approximation or comparison to a problem with known answer. (For example, say one's checking the eigenvalue solution for shell buckling -- create a little plate element and see if the answer matches the classical buckling solution as given in Salmon & Johnson and elsewhere.) If a guy can't do this, he has no business using that feature because he has no clue if the answer is garbage.
3. The responsible engineer must highlight each and every beam size, stud count, and reaction on each and every plan. This is to make darn sure that a HUMAN mentally registered each size. The plan must be a normal size plan, say 1/8"=1'-0", and must be kept in the project file as proof that somebody actually mentally registered each size.
I think if folks did these three, mis-use of the programs would be very unusual.
I think the following should be mandated by any office that uses an automated system:
1. Engineers must design 3 bldgs of that type the old fashioned way before using an automated system. "Old fashioned way" being at least going back to individual beam design programs like Ramsbeam so they get used to mentally registering the sizes.
2. Engineers must demonstrate that they can *exactly* reproduce the automated system's output for an easy case (say typical beam) and a hard case (girder with unsymm point loads for example) before actually using it. Actually, I think this should be the case for almost all programs. Exceptions are FE programs, etc., for which it would be next-to-impossible to crank through the calcs manually. In those cases, the engineer should be able to get very close with a manual approximation or comparison to a problem with known answer. (For example, say one's checking the eigenvalue solution for shell buckling -- create a little plate element and see if the answer matches the classical buckling solution as given in Salmon & Johnson and elsewhere.) If a guy can't do this, he has no business using that feature because he has no clue if the answer is garbage.
3. The responsible engineer must highlight each and every beam size, stud count, and reaction on each and every plan. This is to make darn sure that a HUMAN mentally registered each size. The plan must be a normal size plan, say 1/8"=1'-0", and must be kept in the project file as proof that somebody actually mentally registered each size.
I think if folks did these three, mis-use of the programs would be very unusual.
StructuralEIT if your office is making you check work on your own time without pay, start looking for a new job! The market is tight for structurals and you will be able to name your salary any more. Within the last year in my city the going rate for structural engineers has jumped significantly. I got a 7% raise this year and I am underpaid. I've gotten offers for much more without sending a resume. I am going to ask my office for more money and if they say no... I hope they pay because I like the company. Maybe we are finally seeing our profession follow the law of supply and demand. But checking work on my own time... Life if too short.
Now back to the subject.
I was fortunate when I started to work using RAM Steel it was new. My project manager taught me to check every beam and look for the things mentioned above. I just thought everyone was wise enough to do that. A program like RAMSteel is indispensible if you are doing commercial building design using steel on a large scale. Calculating composite steel beams just takes too long by hand. Most of the old timers with the composite beam tables are long gone. You have to be even more careful using the complete RAM package I hear. In AISC's seminar "Steel Design After College" they cover many pitfalls of using programs like RAM. I recommend viewing the seminar which is free on AISC's website. JLNJ, I haven't used RAM since I moved from Washington DC in 2001 when I was designing larger commercial buildings. I can't remember but I thought RAM Steel optimized % composite for each beam and all the engineer did was specify a minimum percentage. Maybe my memory is failing me.
As for RISA, it is the greatest program ever invented. It is simple. It is reliable. It is stable. It is almost the perfect structural analysis program for 95% of the buildings or structures built. RISA 2D is great for small commercial buildings where you are just designing a few lines of bracing or frames for a small structure. It is fast, accurate and proven. I love it. I haven't used RISA 3D as much but I hear the same things about it as RISA 3D. I have never used RISA design software. I mainly use RISA as an analysis tool and frame and bracing design, which it performs well. Good support also.
ETABS is a great software package for analysis if you are only doing buildings. It is easy to use, reliable, stable and proven. I used it to analyze several steel and concrete buildings in DC. It is powerful also. It can do many complex things like 271828 was talking about. I only got into a little bit of seismic and it was very simple to use. I didn't do the complex seismic analyses like 271828 talked about because the one building I did in a seismic zone was only 2 stories but it was easy to see how and why it calculated the seismic loads. Good support too.
We use STAAD for our 3D modeling now. I hate it! It is powerful but it is so complicated to do a simple analysis. My God, it is like someone sat down at committee table and said, "let's see if we can make an engineer do in 10 steps what RISA will do in 2 steps." STAAD is very unstable. It crashes a lot. STAAD also has errors in the program with every release and engineers have to discover them. I worked with an older guy who found several errors. STAAD gave him an award. With all that said, STAAD is very powerful and can be adapted to use on many different types of structures, not just buildings. The support for STAAD is very good also.
I know I'm repeating myself but... For everybody, I recommend the AISC seminar that is free "Steel design after college." It's free on AISC's website along with several other seminars. It is good, well-done, and helpfull especially for those who did not have the benefit of having a mentor teach the pitfalls of blackbox programs from the get go.
Now back to the subject.
I was fortunate when I started to work using RAM Steel it was new. My project manager taught me to check every beam and look for the things mentioned above. I just thought everyone was wise enough to do that. A program like RAMSteel is indispensible if you are doing commercial building design using steel on a large scale. Calculating composite steel beams just takes too long by hand. Most of the old timers with the composite beam tables are long gone. You have to be even more careful using the complete RAM package I hear. In AISC's seminar "Steel Design After College" they cover many pitfalls of using programs like RAM. I recommend viewing the seminar which is free on AISC's website. JLNJ, I haven't used RAM since I moved from Washington DC in 2001 when I was designing larger commercial buildings. I can't remember but I thought RAM Steel optimized % composite for each beam and all the engineer did was specify a minimum percentage. Maybe my memory is failing me.
As for RISA, it is the greatest program ever invented. It is simple. It is reliable. It is stable. It is almost the perfect structural analysis program for 95% of the buildings or structures built. RISA 2D is great for small commercial buildings where you are just designing a few lines of bracing or frames for a small structure. It is fast, accurate and proven. I love it. I haven't used RISA 3D as much but I hear the same things about it as RISA 3D. I have never used RISA design software. I mainly use RISA as an analysis tool and frame and bracing design, which it performs well. Good support also.
ETABS is a great software package for analysis if you are only doing buildings. It is easy to use, reliable, stable and proven. I used it to analyze several steel and concrete buildings in DC. It is powerful also. It can do many complex things like 271828 was talking about. I only got into a little bit of seismic and it was very simple to use. I didn't do the complex seismic analyses like 271828 talked about because the one building I did in a seismic zone was only 2 stories but it was easy to see how and why it calculated the seismic loads. Good support too.
We use STAAD for our 3D modeling now. I hate it! It is powerful but it is so complicated to do a simple analysis. My God, it is like someone sat down at committee table and said, "let's see if we can make an engineer do in 10 steps what RISA will do in 2 steps." STAAD is very unstable. It crashes a lot. STAAD also has errors in the program with every release and engineers have to discover them. I worked with an older guy who found several errors. STAAD gave him an award. With all that said, STAAD is very powerful and can be adapted to use on many different types of structures, not just buildings. The support for STAAD is very good also.
I know I'm repeating myself but... For everybody, I recommend the AISC seminar that is free "Steel design after college." It's free on AISC's website along with several other seminars. It is good, well-done, and helpfull especially for those who did not have the benefit of having a mentor teach the pitfalls of blackbox programs from the get go.
StructuralEIT,
That sucks you have to check your work like that. In fact, someone else should be checking your work. We always tell our clients that our quality control procedures require us to check our work and we have to put money in the budget for it. It really is a good thing. Everyone makes mistakes and sometimes it is difficult to catch your own.
I've never used MIDAS. What is it? I am looking for a general masonry design program and just a general program like ENERCALC. I've tried the TEDDS calc pad. It is ok. The wind program is not very versatile. Dimensional Solutions has good foundations and anchor rods programs but they are not cheap for single design programs +1500 but they do a good job. The foundations program handles uplift of spread footings properly. Very good if you are doing PEMB's. I am also evaluating Digital Canal for wind and masonry. They have a good foundations program that does uplift properly also.
That sucks you have to check your work like that. In fact, someone else should be checking your work. We always tell our clients that our quality control procedures require us to check our work and we have to put money in the budget for it. It really is a good thing. Everyone makes mistakes and sometimes it is difficult to catch your own.
I've never used MIDAS. What is it? I am looking for a general masonry design program and just a general program like ENERCALC. I've tried the TEDDS calc pad. It is ok. The wind program is not very versatile. Dimensional Solutions has good foundations and anchor rods programs but they are not cheap for single design programs +1500 but they do a good job. The foundations program handles uplift of spread footings properly. Very good if you are doing PEMB's. I am also evaluating Digital Canal for wind and masonry. They have a good foundations program that does uplift properly also.
-
1
- #18
For stand-alone calcs of masonry walls, lintels, etc. the Structural Masonry Design program distributed by NCMA is excellent:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Question