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


RAM Concept vs ADAPT-floor(ADAPT_PT) software

RAM Concept vs ADAPT-floor(ADAPT_PT) software

RAM Concept vs ADAPT-floor(ADAPT_PT) software

Hello folks,

Has anyone ever used RAM Concept software or ADAPT-floor(ADAPT_PT) for PT and/or RC floor design ?

I was comparing the productivity, efficiency, issues and limitations of these two softwares or other PT/RC slab design software(if any). I surfed their respective websites but i just want to have 'first hand' information from people of experience.

Your response is really appreciated!

RE: RAM Concept vs ADAPT-floor(ADAPT_PT) software

I used ADAPT extensively and designed several multistory PT buildings. ADAPT has two softwares: ADAPT PT and ADAPT Floor Pro. ADAPT PT is a 2-D program which will use equivalent frame method (EFM) for two-way slab design, which follows ACI318 codes. ADAPT Floor Pro is a 3-D program based on FEM analysis. Typically you design each design strip in 2-D and then tranfer the 2-D results to 3-D (by just one click) to confirm your results or obtain more accurate deflection results. The 2-D and 3-D softwares work as a pair. Detailed information can be found from ADAPT websit at www. ADAPTSOFT.com.

Ram Concept basically does the same thing. The program designs each strip using a internal design witch, but doesnot use EFM for two-way slab as recommended by ACI318. I've seen many people who use ADAPT PT 2-D to estimate the design and then transfer the 2-D results to Ram Concept. Which takes a longer time than ADAPT softwares. At the same time, I heard that people complain about the deflection check in Ram Concept.

RE: RAM Concept vs ADAPT-floor(ADAPT_PT) software


If you are talking about older versions of Adapt Floor how were their deflection calculations any good/better? They did not even allow for cracking as I understand it and used a kcs multiplied for long term, completely meaningless.

If you want real deflection calculations, allowing for cracking, and long term effects properly (not using a meaningles kcs factor which does not apply to PT members at all and is very inaccurate for RC members) use RAPT 2D. Then you will get realistic estimates of long term deflection

RE: RAM Concept vs ADAPT-floor(ADAPT_PT) software


The current version of ADAPT Floor Pro has the ability to calculate deflections considering concrete cracking. However, I believe that this calculation is strictly based on FEM results, instead of on ACI318 code.

Does RAPT 2D use EFM method as specified in ACI318? Does RAPT 2D calculate deflection (cracking and long term) based on ACI318?

RE: RAM Concept vs ADAPT-floor(ADAPT_PT) software


I realise that the latest version of Floor allows for cracking in its deflection calculations (I bet they forgot to reduce the torsional and column stiffnesses to allow for this cracking and only modified the flexural stiffness of the slab elements) but you mentioned that you had designed several multistorey PT buildings so most of them would have been done with older versions of Floor that did not allow for cracking. If the designs are banded/distributed tendon systems, then the deflection/cracking results will be interesting as moment redistribution will be occuring at service if the slabs are cracked and the effects of this on deflection would not be predicted correctly.

Also, they are not complying with clause of ACI318 for long term deflections. They bare using a multiplier which does not comply. All US PT design software uses multipliers for long term deflections. These are meaningless. I checked the design of a PT beam with very high compressive stresses a couple of weeks ago and the equivalent kcs factor was 4.5. The number 2 is even more meaningless for PT design than it is for RC slab design.

RAPT uses the EFM as defined in ACI318. Its deflection calculations comply with 9.5.2 for RC construction under the phrase "Unless values are obtained by a more comprehensive analysis". It does the more copmprehensive analysis allowing for cracking and tension stiffening at minimum 16 points in each span plus allows for long term effects by carrying out a creep/shrinkage analysis under the permanent load condition. This long term check is the only way to satisfy for PT members.

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!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close