STAAD vs. competitiors
STAAD vs. competitiors
(OP)
My question is about which FEA software, with concrete plate design ability, is the best for the US. It seems that STAAD is the most popular and has the majority of the market. What are your opinions of STAAD overall and would you recommend buying it compared with competitors? I have reviewed STAAD, Robot, SAP200, IES VisualAnalysis, RISA 3D(No Concrete until 2002), and STRAP, but it is very hard to get a good grasp of the programs with demo versions and limited experience. From past threads it seems that RISA is the best, with STAAD offering many problems. Thanks for your input.






RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
As a structural program, STAAD is mediocre, SAP and GTSTRUDL are much better and, of course, more costly.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Good Luck.
Also check out Modern Steel COnstruction at AISC website as they have a yearly survey on structural software.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I would agree with Qshake on the Staad viewpoint; although my experience with Staad dates back to around 1989; I didn't enjoy or trust using the product.
Also...I'd be careful about trusting the 75% claim. Marketing is really just honesty with a sly grin. How would they know the percent USING their product. When I used Staad, we also had McDonnel Douglas STRUDL (bought out by GTSTRUDL) and tried to utilize both as a check on our work. No comparison. We stopped USING Staad, yet I'm sure Research Engineers would have counted us as a Staad user.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I would still vote for it.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
In early 1992 I checked the design of some cranes and other temporary equipment to be used for construction of a major bridge between Thailand and Laos. The designer had used STAAD for the analysis of the 3D truss structures involved.
I was puzzled by output that reported the stresses in bending members, when the member properties entered had been limited to Area and I values (ie no section moduli, no member dimensions). That looked like a pretty clever trick to me, except that practically none of the reported stress values were correct.
Eventually I realized that the bending stresses had been calculated on the basis that all members were symmetrical and 10 inches deep.
However skilled the programmers at writing good code and elegant solution routines, I would have dark doubts about the engineering skills available to a software team that could build such an assumption into their published product.
I would heartily support Qshake's suggestion that software programmers are unlikely to be sufficiently skilled in structural design to leave it all to them.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Anyway, if you talk about RC Plate design I don't think either Staad or Sap is suitable, you have to combine yourself the Mxy to Mx, My yourself to get the design Mx, My before calculating reinforcement. Strap on the other hand combine and graphically show the design Mx, My, as well as the computed reinforcement grid. You can grasp a prelim.view of the reinf.density before you can make a detail design yourself if you don't trust its algo. But if you deal mainly with RC/Post-tensioned slab, ADAPT-Floor or Floor are much better. Or if you also require buckling analysis or cable element but you have to write Mx,My,As module yourself, Gt-strudl should be the choice. Therefore, which suits you depends on your need.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
But the question is as long a software package is reliable? I've used SAP90, SAP2000 and GTStrudl, the interfaces ares the the worsts I've ever seem. But you should say that the results are trustable, ok I agree, but have you guys ever stopped to think about how much time we spend creating a complex structure geometry plus loading cases, releases and etc... for what we have allready in mind? It will be very helpfull for me a good interface and automatic reliable features. What you have to say about this?
I've tryed two packages that seems to be very good, Prokon, a guess that it's Britsh, and an Australian one the Space Gass. NE1 of you have formed opinions about this two, and maybe about MultiFrame 4D.
TIA
Fred
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
If you satisfy with the design results w/o considering Mxy, membrane forces, and treatment of different elevations, SAFE is OK. Otherwise, just take a look at Floor or Adapt-Floor, you might feel different.
fkd
I don't know what kind of problems you're dealing with. I'm not sure about the stability of the Prokon modules, esp. if you've to solve large problems. If you deal with only line elements, I believe Microstran and Spacegass are among the best, esp.if you're dealing with cables. ( Both are Australian stuffs.) Microstran looks nicer and has moving load generator.
Regarding StaadPro, 2001 is much better, less bugs and capable of showing moving load graphically.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I think one should try STRAP, as i am also doing this kind of survey to pick up the best among available software and i think STRAP is impressive.
As an alternative one should also try PROKON. it is limited in abilities but very handy to use.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
In elements results, one can draw a line on the element and request the program to produce the results in the section line. ( say moment or shear or steel area in that line )
If any one is really looking for a FEM software with Fully GUI based and realiable results and offordable price , they can try for STRAP in the following address.
www.ramcadd.com
www.aritsoft.com
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
It includes detailed design capabilities for steel (per ASD and LRFD, with member check and optimization) and concrete (per ACI edition 99, with calculation of required and provided reinforcement).
ROBOT software is definitely a comprehensive FE analysis and design tool for American engineers. Its graphical interface and Windows environment are far more advanced than other US products.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I didn't say that it's not good for American. I've been testing 14.1 millen. since Dec. The modules you quote are there but many others are still not available for US codes.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Even if you took the modules that weren't to American codes out of the software you'd be left with a better product than most that are out there, particularly STAAD.
I agree with Nick35 about the graphics especially when creating slabs as it has an surface generator, you apply loads and properties to surfaces and then let the software auto mesh, brilliant! A concept STAAD have yet to realise.
The front end to ROBOT has many features you would associate with a bigger FE preprocessor like Femap which makes it great for more complex geometry.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I also think STAAD leaves alot to be desired. I am currently trying to use it to analyze a steel building. I created the original file with STAAD Pro 2000. I now have the latest STAAD Pro 2001 and it crashes when I try to open the original input file. The ROBOT software sounds good. Would someone please tell me where I can get it? Are demo versions available?
Thanks.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
http://www.robot-structures.com/us/index.html
or call 1-888-477-8491
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
i am using staad for my thesis.
i have modeled a shaft supported tank in staad.
i find difficulty in generating circular slab.also its inbuilt wind load generator is not working.
problems with seismic loading is also there.
when u applied hydrostatic load on element i get difficulty in converting it to seismic loading.also the results of hydrostatic load on element is not matched perfectly.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I am being told that ROBOT is much more user-friendly. Any comments from ROBOT users?
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
why not SAP or ETABS!!
These are the best software.
I use ETABS. I think it is the best for buildings.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I have been searching for a site that will let me download a demo version of prokon. All of them give me error 404 or similar.
Do you know of a download site that is current ?
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Thanks for trying anyway. We may be in for a lomg wait ?
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
or Microstran www.microstran.com.au
I prefer Spacegass and US modules are available. You can download a free trial version.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Big advantages over other packages include:
1) Highly intuitive graphical interface and design process translates to minimal learning time.
2) Automatic meshing!! Just draw the slab outline, supports, and openings and the FE mesh will be automatically generated with the click of a button.
3) Full application of post-tensioning forces into the system, including PT loads introduced into the system due to geometric irregularities or eccentric tendons. I have done extensive verification and found the results to be highly accurate.
4) Responsive and helpful customer support.
In my opinion, for the design of post-tensioned slab systems, FLOOR is the only choice.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
one of the better aspects of FLOOR is that the authors and support team are structural engineers who have actually designed (and constructed) PT and RC floors...not your "closet programmers" producing black box solutions etc..without understanding real design and construction aspects.
my 2 cents worth...
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
and wrote a treatise for Architectural & Engr'g mag
on my results. Here's what I discovered:
In reading between the lines of software developers' warrantees, and university peer comments, the accuracy
of any CAE software, whether it's STAAD, SAP, GTSTRUDL,
ANSYS, COSMOS, et al, is no better than ±35%, about the
margin of safety (in steel) between yield and failure!
Then using various solved models from pioneer
FEA-analysis texts, I also found wide disparity
between the CAE results, and a mathematical solution.
Believe me, it's very disconcerting to build a simple
2D truss model, load it into your favorite CAE, then
find the printouts don't match the solved problem!!
Yet contacting CAE vendors with this quandary yielded
no direct answers, only "we are the best" gibberish,
or "we have the most installed seats" baloney, and
a bunch of "well, then there outta be a certification agency" hooey. Face it, they're selling a commodity.
And from a purely practical viewpoint, how often have
engineers gone out to the site after their design is
complete, and seen the client has added another story,
or another piece of A/C equipment, or changed the rebar
configuration, that the original CAE model was based on?
There are more common errors than CAE accuracy. I've seen structural analyses which showed inconsistent stress results between load combinations, due to the engineer's simple failure to give individual loads the correct sign ±, yet the both engineer and peer plan checkers missed that.
Writing your own CAE software is even more of a liability.
They'll kill you in a CAE shootout with your own gun, and
then beat you to death with the Code check!
What about uncontrollable variables? That 100-year record windstorm you can't prove because the nearest recorder is miles away, or the 100-year snow that melted before you could make your field inspection, or a roof drain that got plugged and now is buried under 100T's of collapsed steel.
Bottom line, figure whatever CAE software you choose:
1) you get what you pay for, 2) always test it with solved problems, 3) printout, archive and peer review everything,
and 4) carry good E&O coverage.
Cause it's the little stuff that's gonna get you....
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
That must be close to the most depressing (and surprising)thing I have read for ages. Do you really mean that none of the software you looked at got closer than 35% to your mathematical solutions?
Whenever I have checked my aged DOS software (microsafe) against text book solutions (eg for plate bending) I have got pretty close correlation. In my world that means within less than 5% discrepancy.
Just what do you mean by your 35%? Does that apply to the major design forces in a truss, or just the worst percentage resulting from small errors in very small forces?
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
There is currently a relevant discussion which came out of anthae's comments going on in the Finite Element Analysis subgroup.
Regarding the 35% number given--based on my experiences in benchmarking and comparing against elasticity results, I have found consistently that codes are within single-digit accuracy, presuming reasonable user assumptions.
Many of the better codes are within 1-2% of "exact" numerical answers, subject to proper element selection and element assumptions. This is not me parroting the marketing of the FEA companies--this is me stating my own findings.
The only time I have seen errors on the order which anthae states is when there are poor meshes, or when the "closed-form" problem is not appropriate for elasticity problems (either St. Venant's does not apply, or the calculated problem does not fit the elasticity assumptions for it--i.e. euler buckling assumptions used on squat columns).
Before anybody wrings their hands over anthae's statements, I would encourage you to look at the ancillary discussion of this on the Finite Element Analysis area.
Brad
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Qshake.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Thanks. The feeling's mutual (esp. your historical bits).
Brad
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
The only place in FE that I know with significant inaccuracy is I beam torsion. Warping is simply not modeled in most FE packages. Maybe in this area you might have 35% inaccuracy for an unlucky beam under a lot of torsion.
Of course a high level of torsion is uncommon in I beams because they are designed this way, so this is normally not a problem. You need to be careful if you are designing a curved girder though.
Warping is also significant in lateral buckling. Lateral buckling analysis software normally considers warping in individual elements, but there is no continuity of warping at the joints.
Michael
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Top marks for subtletly.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Richard Beneke.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
SteamJetPE
Ejectors, LRVPs, Hybrids
Troubleshooting, startup, design
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
please reference the post by gradstoodent a few entries above. He'll help you.
:<
Brad
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
TNX
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Anthae
Austim
I just want to add another horror story about STAAD ...by the way ...I agree that the people who makes a living writing software.. should not be deprived of selling a commodity..but I think that in addition to pretend "we are the best"..I think they claim "our program does it all"...gibberish.. Because many grand-father clause engineers partners of firms believe them... I was working as a Sr Structural Engineer in bridge design, and then company was running low of work..even thought we did not use STAAD for bridges..I have used STAAD off and on since 1989. Contrary to Anthae's findings in the past ( in previous versions) I have been able to double check statics and accuracy withn 5%...by hand.. in my practice I just don't accept any output unless I can check it.. ( by the way in this firm I was working I was shocked seeing binders of calculations for bridges ( done before me) .. containing only printouts .. without absolutely no checking or elaboration on results.) Well. they asked me to check a 150' tower for new antennaes with ICE formation using STAAD suite , first time for me..I asked a junior engr to draw it in Microstation and we transferred the dxf file into STAAD..thinking that using this advantage would save time..the results were disastrous...because STAAD did not create hundreds of joints tying at mid point of other members.. and connectivity issues..it took me two days to renumber joints and coordinates to make it run ..finally it did .. but I was two days late.... I also was doing a QA/QC on a bridge design by another younger engineer at the H/Q office I found similar issues like Austim (above)...I was puzzled that STAAD gave member flexural stresses on H-Piles, and nowhere in the input specifies the orientation of the Major and minor axis...STAAD assumed one...and similar issues...( STAAD "thinking" for the Engineer)... After a MEMBER displacement command an FZ was input , and STAAD did not produce an error message, (FZ is a force not a displacement)...and variety of issues.. I included those comments in my review...Well, the young engineer said he was right and that I was wrong , and that STAAD was perfect...cannot make mistake.. I was laid off.... the firm concluded that I must have lied saying I had experience using STAAD.. becasue the software vendor told them the program can make an engineer out of a high schooler... I guess STAAD works fine for the partners of the firm, who only want to see the results, and don't care if the results are correct....
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
"You can teach computers to a designer,
but you can not teach designing to a computer".
Rentapen
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
IMO You should not be let near a computer until you at least have a feel of what the results should be. Computer analysis is a tool for speeding up the design process and justifying the engineers 'assumptions and conclusions'.
I once worked with a junior engineer who made a very slight error of input into an analysis package. He was perplexed when a joint deflection was stated as 4km and he asked me if I thought this was correct for the type of structure!
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
If your lay-off was recent, then please accept our sympathies.
Whenever it occurred, I would suggest that, in the long term, you must be better off having escaped from a firm with such a mindset at the top.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
It seems brutal to be laid off for something like that...that is very bad.
The issue you mention of not knowing the member orientation is common to many packages. In fact, I have not seen a good solution to the problem. The best solution I have found is to use a member "rendering" function where you can actually see the real shape of the member rather than just its centerline.
Debugging a model for that kind of small thing is a whole skill in itself. For example, when I am debugging I like to look at the mode shapes (even if I am doing a static or time history analysis). You might think of it as a step up from the old technique of looking at deflected shapes. If the mode shapes look about right, you know you have gotten your stiffnesses and geometry approximately correct.
Software developers need to make more user friendly interfaces so that you make less mistakes in the first place, and also to provide more debugging tools. Often you spend more time debugging a model than you spend building it.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I am sorry to hear of your experience.
My view of paying for software relates to well written software.
For engineering purposes (and other uses) where the results of using the software can impact on the health safety and well-being of people, it is better to avoid poor software altogether unless one has the time to manually check every significant aspect of the calculation.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I am deeply sorry to hear of your experience. I hope you find work soon as you seem to be a discerning engineer and a valuable assest in terms of experience.
As for staad, this is all to familiar and the response of making an engineer out of a high-schooler leaves me disgusted.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I suggest you to forward all these comments to your ex-boss.
I would be a good lesson for them.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
If you want a simple, bread-and-butter kind software don't think twice it is Multiframe 4D.
Cheers.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
Codes: DIN, EC,ACI,BS, Indian, Chinese
www.sofistik.com
P.S: CADS sells an OEM-Version of it in the UK.
www.cads.co.uk
Cheers
Christof
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I have had the unfortunate pleasure of using cads Slabdesigner software and was not impressed with the stability of the software or the support provided by the company.
Anyway good luck with your sales, I take it youwork for either cads or sofistik and are bludging some free advertising from this forum - never mind you won't be the last!!
a
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I have used CADS Analyse 3D which is an excellent frame analysis tool but I was not impressed with their other products. In particular, I have used a product called SmartEngineer (general design of structures) which was, quite frankly, rubbish!
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
The day someone has sufficient experience as an engineer to write a good program before they are behind in programming trends will be a miracle. Quite often the programmers young and are led by the genius who created the original program. Even more often the genius forgets how to keep it simple and the programmers loose their way as they are not engineers of experience and do not realise that they are creating "bugs" by trying to get the programm more complex.
Ah bloody hell I'm raving on again!
To me a good program does the simple number crunching of the monotonous tasks without error and the extremely complex maths (FE) with a risk of error (remember rubbish in rubbish out). Good engineering comes from recognising bad results from good and fixing them.
Anyway regards to all.
sc
sc
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I work closely with a company in Europe and they have proven beyond doubt that the finite elements in STAAD are useless and more to the point dangerous!!.
Simple/complicated tests were created and tested against hand calculations and Robot Millennium.
Results of thefindings were that STAAD produced errors of up to 57% error whereas Robot produced a maximum deviation of between 2 & 3%. Results considered were displacements, stresses (principal, von mises etc). It is worrying when you see these type of errors occurring especially when one of the simulations is just a beam created from varying densities and combinations of element types.
Other findings were that STAAD is clumsy when inputting data and one of the more complicated models took 3 days to run because of the modelling assumptions that you have to make (Robot took 5 minutes)
I have big concerns about the ability of this company as a software developer and engineering firm - they seem to employ muppets and are only interested in making a fast buck.
Be aware!! STAAD can seriously effect your health or worse still someone elses!!
a
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
artnkman, my view of IES Visual design is that it is very conventional in terms of concrete modeling. If you have a straightforward application that follows their examples, the program works somewhat effectively. If you do not expect too much from it, you will not be let down. This is typical with most of analysis packages I have investigated.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
And what's up with their attitude?? It's as if your question isn't worthy of their time. Bunch of A-holes.
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
I have never personally used STAAD, but I was involved with a project several years where the engineer used STAAD to model a POST-TENSIONED floor system. I am not exactly sure what they did to model the post-tensioning (probably just equivalent loads due to prestress) but the resulting rebar and P-T was total crap.
We end up re-designing with a 2D P-T program and a few manual checks, and resulted with 50% of the rebar and 50% of the P-T compared to conforming.
The confoming design with 2x the P-T would have been disasterous if it was ever built!
With the number of responses to this thread, it does seem that the program IS indeed technically flawed, and they have NO customer service....how does that work? Maybe the program is very inexpensive, and so you do indeed get what you pay for!
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
if that is STAADs sole selling point then there are a lot of engineers out there who need to question themselves. Engineers require software to speed up their work - if you buy crap and pay peanuts for it then you will spend more time checking than you would designing by hand - which defeats the whole point. The purchase of software also should extend to the service that you are offered after you have bought - RE don't believe in that concept.
They now seem to have adopted a slogan on their website that STAAD is developed by 'practising engineers for practising engineers' - what a good game that would make at the RE offices (Spot the Engineer)!
a
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
The rentapen
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
If you are using the software for a company, then tell the management how bad it is. After all in these times it is pretty hard to get the sack over a difference of opinion.
sc
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors
So you have an entrenched attitude resisting change and a cash flow every year for REI. Hence, they continue in business.
Imagineer
RE: STAAD vs. competitiors