×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Analysis Programs (RISA vs Fastrac)

Analysis Programs (RISA vs Fastrac)

Analysis Programs (RISA vs Fastrac)

(OP)
We currently use RISA Programs for all of our FEA needs. We recently had a CSC rep come and give a presentaion on Fastrac which we saw some features that seemed like they could save us some time (especially on the bigger structures). The first was the ease in applying geographical loadings and second the speed in which the program runs. Does any one have any experience with the Fastrac comparing it with RISA? Any pros or cons on Fastrac? I don't beleive We would ever get rid of RISA, but on larger structures we may need a different program that can run a large model with all its Load combinations quickly.

RE: Analysis Programs (RISA vs Fastrac)

EIT -

For what it's worth, you probably will not get much of a response on this forum. This is more geared towards pure FEM guys and less towards civil / structural types of FEM.  

I'm obviously a biased observer (I work for RISA). But, I have a hard time seeing Fast Track as credible competition for RISA. They're just a relatively small bit-player in the US market. Maybe that will change in the near future.  But, currently they are still a bit player.   

RISA does tend to be a memory hog, though our solution times are quite fast for the FEM solution. I find it hard to believe that they can compete with the pure speed of our sparse solver.

That being said, some companies will sacrifice the ability to do non-linear analysis (P-Delta, tension only members, compression only springs et cetera) by doing a category solution (DL, LL, EL, WL, et cetera) and then using super position of results to quickly assemble member forces and stresses for a large number of load combinations.  That certainly is a faster way to go if you can prove that it is appropriate to ignore non-linear behavior.

RISA doesn't take this short cut, so our solution could be slower in these cases (large numbers of LC's with little or no 2nd order effects).  The theory is pretty straight forward.  So, it wouldn't be all that difficult to change if we got significant user demand for the change.  

Certainly, we've already had some user requests for modifying the way we're doing our solutions (especially related to P-Delta). From what I remember, however, those requests have NOT been based on complaints about solution speed. Rather they have been related to concerns about P-Little Delta effects. These effects usually (always?) get ignored in the category based super-position solution method. So, I'm not sure that this super position method has gotten much attention from us yet.  

Just my $0.02

RE: Analysis Programs (RISA vs Fastrac)

(OP)
JoshPlum,

Thanks for the response worth more than $0.02 :).

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources