How to use STAAD more efficiently

During my last project I kept track of time lost as a result of deficiencies, bugs, outdated technology, and lack of proper tools in STAAD Pro. I estimated that approximately 32% of the total hours were wasted. This time could be saved if I were using high quality software like Scia Engineer, Dlubal RFEM, SAP/ETABS, or Midas. As I don’t have choice to use other software, I would appreciate comments, guides, links to add-on(s), etc.  that can help me to resolve some of the issues listed below and use software more effectively:

Geometry/Modeling/GUI

  1. Lack of physical members accounts for a significant time waste. Any hints on how to overcome this would be much appreciated.
  2. There is no facility to directly assign design properties to the members. Users have to go to the design tab, select the members, add the design commands, and then assign the properties. Another significant time waste.
  3. There are no tools to create grid or construction lines. For complex floors it is very hard to see where the columns are and properly frame the floor. I usually end up printing the floor plans, sketch the members by hand and then draw them back in STAAD. Any other suggestions?
  4. Lack of geometry objects like lines, circles, etc. that can be converted to the actual members
  5. Lack of proper CAD like tools for geometry definition, apart from the very basic ones
  6. “Stretch members” tool has bug that causes program to crash and in some cases create corrupted input file. It is essential to maintain numerous back-up files to recover the model.
  7. In case when joints are merged, member releases are lost, floor groups have to be re-assigned, the design parameters have to re-assigned, temperature loads have to be re-assigned, etc. Another huge time waste.  
  8. Input file limitations that cause braking the lines is very annoying and creates mess with large models. 
  9. The grouping of automatically selected members has to be done manually. No tools to automatically group the members as far as I know. Things are even more difficult because of the lack of physical members, so basically all of the members with intermediate nodes have to be manually grouped.
  10. No facility to select members of the same cross section apart from using property name which is time consuming
  11. No beam cutback to visually distinguish between simple and moment connections
  12. If the members are deleted - some of the floor groups may become obsolete, causing program to delete the portion of the input file without warning – so the loads, load combinations, analysis and design parameters may be deleted without warning!!!
  13. Working with plate elements is limited to the simplest square/rectangular geometries and loads. "Automatic meshing" algorithm is crude.
  14. Section builder is outdated and difficult to use. I use autocad to calculate section properties.

 Loads

  1. Floor loads distribution rarely works properly, users have to experiment with node tolerances, there is no ability to create openings, etc.
  2. In some cases floor loads distribution in GUI appears correct but it’s actually wrong
  3. No wind load generator for the Canadian Code. Using floor groups for the wind loads is time consuming and cumbersome as requires re-assignment every time when members/joints are modified
  4. No snow load generator for the Canadian Code.
  5. Load combination generator is crude and lacking some of the basic features. In practice load combinations are usually done manually, which is time consuming for modern codes. This is a significant issue.
  6. Difficult and time consuming to apply and manipulate hydrostatic loads (why we need a “wizard” for this?)
  7. “Select region” command does not work as intended - members are missing from selection, etc.

Results

  1. Output file is limited to text only and it is not readable.
  2. Output file is not consistent and varies between codes as well as different versions of the same code.
  3. Discrepancies between GUI and output file. Users have to check both. Significant time waste.

Note: Format and structure of the output file is arguably the worst I have seen among not only commercial, but also free structural software. I hope developers will do something about this.

Design (all the items relate to Canadian Steel Code):

  1. Members cannot be selected based on strength and serviceability criteria. This is a very basic requirement and, in my opinion, software that does not have the capability so select the members base on these requirements should be discarded as not functional for a professional use.
  2. Definition of deflection criteria for members is crude and limited to very small models. For large models its very time consuming to assign deflection limits.
  3. Bug in selecting WT members – this is a known issue
  4. There is no functionally to automatically maintain the top of the beams at the same elevation.
  5. Latest Canadian Steel Code is not implemented, appx. 3 years after the code was published.
  6. Latest Canadian National Building Code is not implemented, appx. 3 years after the code was published
  7. Latest Ontario Building Code is not implemented, appx. 4 years after the code was published
  8. No facility to design members based on certain threshold - say if moment is  less than 1 kNm design member only for Axial Loads.
  9. Batch mode is not efficient way of reviewing results in 2013, but users are constantly referred to batch mode as the only reliable way to verify results.
  10. Basic design parameters (like Radius of gyration, or the actual length of the members) and results cannot be checked in GUI, again it is necessary to check the output file.

Thanks

Parents Reply Children
  • Thanks Kris for taking time to reply to my lengthy post. Here are the comments re: Answers 1-3:

    A.1 - Lack of physical members relates not only to the modeling, but also to modifying a model, reviewing the results, assigning design properties, automatic member selections, etc. Will the proposed solution address all of these issues?

    Indeed, physical  members were introduced in staad in the past, but only for certain codes. Not sure why implementation has never been completed

    A.2 - "There is no facility to directly assign design properties to the members" -  I am referring to design properties like FYLD, LZ, etc... Currently it is possible to directly draw members with defined section properties, end releases and beta angle, however design properties  have to be assigned separately.

    A3. "There are no tools to create grid or construction lines" - just to clarify this - what I need is a permanent grid system as a visual aid in all stages of model development and post-processing.  Proposed answer relates to grid lines that will disappear as soon as tab other than geometry is selected. Or I am missing something?

    Cheers,

  • Just an extension of Sasa3k's comment on loads.

    REI team really has to look at ways of inserting loads as flexible entities rather than inflexible attributes.

    Really frustrated by (the lack of) this. The present system is fine so long as the system is relatively simple and typical. As the model gets more crowded out, it's a real pain to modify loads. Surely, it's about time you made this modification. (Please see the attached PDF Doc)

    As far I have seen it, the support team in here has been real top notch.  Do the guys upstairs in development even listen to what you have to say?

    In line with Sassa3k, I have no issues with the Package as a whole. Having been exposed to other options, it seems to me as if the REI hare took a quick nap and the tortoise has simply moved ahead.

  • Kris,

    Thanks for your reply.  I anticipate your responses to Sasa3k's other questions.  

    As Sasa3k mentioned above, most of your replies are workarounds, not native functionality.  It would behove you to make them native to the programe rather than require workarounds.  I know that STAAD X may have some of the functionality.

    1. Physical members are common in most other structural FEA programs.  It greatly increases productivity not only in modeling, but also design.  It's great to be able to see moment and shear diagrams for a whole continuous beam at once (I know there are workarounds for this in STAAD, but it's a pain).    

    On the other hand, your work around for modeling continous members is quite clever.  Thanks for providing it.  

    2. I think what Sasa3k is asking for is making design properties inherent to the size of beam or thickness of plate.  For instance, all W8x10 steel beams would have Fy=50ksi and Fu=65ksi for a particular model.  This is how SAP and ETABS handle assigning materials.  You can override them for a particular beam, but it is VERY unlikely that you would have 2 different strength W8x10 beams on a particular job. 

    3. Many structural FEA programs use grid lines as an integral part of their modeling and results viewing.  Ram Structural System has a very nice implementation of this.  Yes, it's primarily for building applications, but many people also use STAAD for building applications.  SAP2000 is another structural FEA program which has a nice implementation of this.  Associating nodes with gridlines and having those nodes move with the grid lines is a great feature. 

    I'm not sure if you have any experience with SAP, ETABS, RISA, Visual Analysis, etc..., but it would be great for you to get a copy of these and learn their strengths and weaknesses.  It's hard to beat an opponent if you've never seen them in action. 

    So, Kris, your answers are well thought out and much appreciated, but we would also appreciate acknowledging some of Sasa3k's suggestions as valid change requests for future versions of STAAD. 

    Thanks for listening and replying! 

     

  • Hi Kris,

    Your answers are useful and informative - can you please address other outstanding issues?

    In line with other users I completely agree that Bentley has top notch user support - please keep the good work. On the other hand - product itself needs significant improvements or complete re-design. Look at Dlubal RFEM or Scia. These are excellent examples of a modern software for analysis and design.

    One more opportunity for improvement in STAAD. It takes about 7.5 min to open 25 MB file in Staad Output Viewer (I am using track 2 command). If I do this 6-7 times a day than appx. 1 hour is gone just waiting on staad to read the results. To open the same file in Notepad++, which is free, takes about 0.5s. So -   free software is 800 times faster that staad viewer. Please pass to development team.

  • An issue I have encountered with STAAD is that if you add or change a load combination, you have to delete the results and re alalyse the model.

    If you are doing an linear analysis, can't the combination results just be recalculated (using superposition)  using the load case results, rather than recalculating everything?