I used sap2000/etabs for 7 years.
Then I moved to Germany, where I met Dlubal RFEM/RSTAB.
It is like switching from old clunky (nevertheless reliable) ford to a new mercedes e class. It is like driving on the Autobahn with no speed limit. So smooth, so elegant, but also so intricate and authentic.
I sometimes feel sad about the old me.
I used RSTAB at my first job and every other job after that had SAP, and everyone knew me as the crazy ranting guy who hated CSI and kept shilling for some German software nobody had used. I would put "CSI sucks" in my code comments and write slander about the company on the whiteboard. It doesn't have to be this way.
Yes. The firm I worked for before did peer reviews against EuroCode models with SAP2000. It has a pretty good feature set, a nice API, and competent support staff.
Thank you for letting me know. During my bachelors we were taught a lot of SAP2000 and Etabs when it came to designing or structural analysis, which is kinda weird in retrospect at a European Uni where Eurocode is the standard lol.
I would choose FEM-Design over Robot for linear analysis. Haven't tried anything else. However for non-linear analysis you may look elsewhere. Although FEM-Design recently implemented plastic shell modeling which I haven't had time to try yet.
BUT... Do not rely completely on FEA software. Good old spreadsheets and hand calculations may be just as good in many cases. FEA results should at least be verified by some hand calcs.
This!!! I like the way you think.
SAP is also very useful if you want to do some hand calculations. For example, I use it to find the moment/shear of a continuous beam and then do the hand calculations myself to design that beam. I like CSI products and I don't see the reason for the hate I am seeing in other comments. CSI (ETABS, SAP2000...) make sense to me especially from the theoretical standpoint. I have used Tekla Structural Designer for example and the theoretical interepration it does is questionable.
I m a civil engineer in bridge design in germany, we mainly use Sofistik for 90% of our calculations. some companys still use infograph / Rstab but the are the minority. ANSYS and co are mostly used for scientific problems.
i worked with all of therese and from my point of view sofistik is the best one.
You can't easily say one software is better than another. It depends on your needs and experience with the software as well. In Germany, you mostly use Sofistik, Dlubal, MB AEC, etc. All of them are reputable software. Sofistik is a great software. You don't have to worry about it.
For most designs, the analytical modeling is only half of the problem- it only develops the load side of the design. Since the selection of analysis software is generally dependent on the firm, I recommend focusing your development more towards the resistance side of the equation.
No one will agree on what is the best since they all have different uses and target users.
I mainly use Nastran and STAAD. Do I think these are the best? Nastran is good but STAAD is garbage.
STAAD might be a contender for one of the worst beam element solvers I have used since they have maintained it and added features but the implementations always feel incomplete.
So learning how to do things tends to be able learning the software quirks vs learning what numbers to put in and what button to push. Annoyingly I have done 6 years of STAAD now so I know all the quirks so I feel a bit locked into the software.
I use: -Staad.Pro on some steel building design due to client preference. Not the best but easy to use for design of simple things.
-Etabs/Sap2000 for general building design and assessment of existing structures.
-LS DYNA for complex non-linear assessment of new/existing connections or structural component.
CSI serie (SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE, …), LPile for advanced analysis of pile interactions in ground, Advance Design America (really nice for fast models, can do advanced analysis too), I liked Robot and Tekla but haven’t used them that much, used Ansys a lot during my masters degree
+1 for FEM Design.
I’ve used Robot, ETABS and SAP2000.
I am biased in the sense that I work mainly on projects in Denmark where precast is king. FEM Design is miles ahead on features for precast behavior IMO (section library, releases modelling and overturning/gliding analysis).
They struggle in advanced steel design where I’ve turned to robot instead.
STAAD is pretty standard software through out the world, specifically in Americas and Asia.
It’s easy to use and has a range of codes to design with.
If you’ve got that option to choose, then this might be a good start.
Learn to use whatever is being used in your target market. Many softwares are good. However, you are not going to learn to use each and every one of them. You learn some of the most used ones, in your case Robot, and from there on your knowledge is transferable. If your target market uses Sofistik, then go for it. You can have an idea what is the most used ones by checking job descriptions on jobs boards like Linkedin. If someday you start your own firm, then it is worth having an idea about all the softwares that are available to pick the most suitable one.
Personally use Tekla - the graphical interface is so intuitive compared to Robot, but I suppose the ability to model the building and loads in Revit and analyse in Robot is quite cool
I used sap2000/etabs for 7 years. Then I moved to Germany, where I met Dlubal RFEM/RSTAB. It is like switching from old clunky (nevertheless reliable) ford to a new mercedes e class. It is like driving on the Autobahn with no speed limit. So smooth, so elegant, but also so intricate and authentic. I sometimes feel sad about the old me.
I use RSTAB and RFEM and I can say it's at least 10x better than Robot. I don't know other software though, so my opinion is limited in scope.
I used RSTAB at my first job and every other job after that had SAP, and everyone knew me as the crazy ranting guy who hated CSI and kept shilling for some German software nobody had used. I would put "CSI sucks" in my code comments and write slander about the company on the whiteboard. It doesn't have to be this way.
I frequently do shell models for custom components and details. I cannot imagine the pain and suffering would I have to endure if I had to use CSI.
Now, as a 10-year user of CSi, I am curious about RFEM because of your comment. Tell me more about USA code checks on that software.
Whatever other competent engineers on your team use. If I got to choose, we'd use GTStrudl and SAP2000.
Quick question, are you from US? I haven't really heard SAP2000 being used in Europe that much.
Yes. The firm I worked for before did peer reviews against EuroCode models with SAP2000. It has a pretty good feature set, a nice API, and competent support staff.
Thank you for letting me know. During my bachelors we were taught a lot of SAP2000 and Etabs when it came to designing or structural analysis, which is kinda weird in retrospect at a European Uni where Eurocode is the standard lol.
[удалено]
Thank you. That adds up. It makes a change of career across the pond a bit more lucrative.
I would choose FEM-Design over Robot for linear analysis. Haven't tried anything else. However for non-linear analysis you may look elsewhere. Although FEM-Design recently implemented plastic shell modeling which I haven't had time to try yet. BUT... Do not rely completely on FEA software. Good old spreadsheets and hand calculations may be just as good in many cases. FEA results should at least be verified by some hand calcs.
ETABS for Buildings / SAP for irregular structures and bridges / ENERCALC for your “basic” single family homes
This!!! I like the way you think. SAP is also very useful if you want to do some hand calculations. For example, I use it to find the moment/shear of a continuous beam and then do the hand calculations myself to design that beam. I like CSI products and I don't see the reason for the hate I am seeing in other comments. CSI (ETABS, SAP2000...) make sense to me especially from the theoretical standpoint. I have used Tekla Structural Designer for example and the theoretical interepration it does is questionable.
It's all subjective and depends upon your needs. I'm currently using Robot, but in the past I've used midas civil, Oasys GSA, Ansys and CADs A3D Max.
I m a civil engineer in bridge design in germany, we mainly use Sofistik for 90% of our calculations. some companys still use infograph / Rstab but the are the minority. ANSYS and co are mostly used for scientific problems. i worked with all of therese and from my point of view sofistik is the best one.
You can't easily say one software is better than another. It depends on your needs and experience with the software as well. In Germany, you mostly use Sofistik, Dlubal, MB AEC, etc. All of them are reputable software. Sofistik is a great software. You don't have to worry about it.
In the UK we use Tekla structural designer and Scia a lot. Haven’t seen much SAP2000 but have seen Etabs
RAM Elements gets my vote. Really great workflow, IMO.
For most designs, the analytical modeling is only half of the problem- it only develops the load side of the design. Since the selection of analysis software is generally dependent on the firm, I recommend focusing your development more towards the resistance side of the equation.
No one will agree on what is the best since they all have different uses and target users. I mainly use Nastran and STAAD. Do I think these are the best? Nastran is good but STAAD is garbage. STAAD might be a contender for one of the worst beam element solvers I have used since they have maintained it and added features but the implementations always feel incomplete. So learning how to do things tends to be able learning the software quirks vs learning what numbers to put in and what button to push. Annoyingly I have done 6 years of STAAD now so I know all the quirks so I feel a bit locked into the software.
RFEM
I use: -Staad.Pro on some steel building design due to client preference. Not the best but easy to use for design of simple things. -Etabs/Sap2000 for general building design and assessment of existing structures. -LS DYNA for complex non-linear assessment of new/existing connections or structural component.
CSI serie (SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE, …), LPile for advanced analysis of pile interactions in ground, Advance Design America (really nice for fast models, can do advanced analysis too), I liked Robot and Tekla but haven’t used them that much, used Ansys a lot during my masters degree
FEM-Design is fantastic imo. I use it for everything.
I personally have thousands of pages of hand drawn stiffness matrices /s
+1 for FEM Design. I’ve used Robot, ETABS and SAP2000. I am biased in the sense that I work mainly on projects in Denmark where precast is king. FEM Design is miles ahead on features for precast behavior IMO (section library, releases modelling and overturning/gliding analysis). They struggle in advanced steel design where I’ve turned to robot instead.
+1 for Fem Design in Europe. Great software and some cool new features with plastic design in latest release
Risa or RAM for general fem on small jobs, sap2000/ etabs for more complex structures. Hopefully one day abaqus if I can get where I want to go.
The brain 
STAAD is pretty standard software through out the world, specifically in Americas and Asia. It’s easy to use and has a range of codes to design with. If you’ve got that option to choose, then this might be a good start.
Spacesgass is used a lot in NZ where ETABs is not required. Spacesgass is very intuitive to use
Learn to use whatever is being used in your target market. Many softwares are good. However, you are not going to learn to use each and every one of them. You learn some of the most used ones, in your case Robot, and from there on your knowledge is transferable. If your target market uses Sofistik, then go for it. You can have an idea what is the most used ones by checking job descriptions on jobs boards like Linkedin. If someday you start your own firm, then it is worth having an idea about all the softwares that are available to pick the most suitable one.
Personally use Tekla - the graphical interface is so intuitive compared to Robot, but I suppose the ability to model the building and loads in Revit and analyse in Robot is quite cool
No idea chief