NE1 of you have formed opinions about this two, and maybe about MultiFrame 4D.įred RE: STAAD vs. 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. for what we have allready in mind? It will be very helpfull for me a good interface and automatic reliable features.
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.
I nice question is being discussed here and I'm a luck guy for this, cause I'm a Staad Pro user and since long time I've been tricked by this software, not speaking about automatic load and structures generation, design issues and analogue things that I don't trust even in my father only I'm my own judgment, spreadsheets and little Pascal progs I've created.īut 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. Therefore, which suits you depends on your need. 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. But if you deal mainly with RC/Post-tensioned slab, ADAPT-Floor or Floor are much better. You can grasp a prelim.view of the nsity before you can make a detail design yourself if you don't trust its algo. Strap on the other hand combine and graphically show the design Mx, My, as well as the computed reinforcement grid. I really recommend small model test before using it even though in the present 2001 version, I found it's much better.Īnyway, 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. I also faced with so many strange bugs, including the one raised by austim. inclined supports, master-slave:RIGID, nonlinear analy, etc. I've found it's very useful but you've to be very careful, esp.
competitiors msajjadh (Structural) 24 May 01 20:57 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.
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. That looked like a pretty clever trick to me, except that practically none of the reported stress values were correct.Įventually I realized that the bending stresses had been calculated on the basis that all members were symmetrical and 10 inches deep. 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). The designer had used STAAD for the analysis of the 3D truss structures involved. 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. This minor comment is almost certainly hugely outdated, but may be so am I, so I will persist.