Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Structural Analysis Software Wish List - Software Company Responding

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

When you posted your message I expected quite a long list of suggestions. As
this did not happen, let me at least say that the features you suggested are
very useful and several of them are unique.

I would like to add that STRAP has had all of these features for several
years including automatic unbraced length determination for each loading

The latest additions include composite design of simple and continuous
members to several (US, CA and other) codes and steel joist design. For more
information you can visit our web site

Garrick Goldenberg, P.E.
ATIR Engineering Software
24 Fairfax Road
Needham, MA 02492
Tel. 1.800.644.6441
(for int'l calls 781.444.9944)
Fax 781.444.3464
email: garrick(--nospam--at)
For the latest news about STRAP, check our web site

-----Original Message-----
From: MSSROLLO(--nospam--at) <MSSROLLO(--nospam--at)>
To: seaint(--nospam--at) <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Date: Thursday, July 23, 1998 9:28 AM
Subject: Structural Analysis Software Wish List

I have noticed several (possibly all) structural analysis software companies
monitor this List.  I was wondering if this group put together a wish list,
how many companies would respond.

For purposes of this posting, I would like to address large structural
analysis/FE programs only.  Assuming the programs are running properly
internally (i.e. their MC/I calcs are right), my biggest problems are the
input and output I get on a daily basis.  On FE runs, I have a mountain of
data to sift, when I only need a few critical values in most cases.  The
a member is defined as "between 2 joints" also generates a lot of data when
steel beam for example has numerous framing members.

I was wondering how many people thought the following would be a benefit if
incorporated into a software package.  Quite frankly, once their job of
creating the output is over, my work is just beginning.  I am posing these
additions to the software and am assuming the current abilities would remain
in the software.

1.  Ability to define a "Master Member".  Example....Beam1 starts at joint 5
and goes thru Joints 7,9, 23,17 and then ends at Joint 26.  We input it this
way, the program subdivides it for calcs and then puts it back together for
output.  This would consolidate the results for output.  A "smart"
consolidation routine would be great when I am dealing with a 50' beam that
has members at 5' oc framing into it.  This should also help in getting
consolidated concrete reinforcing.

2.  A similar ability in FE routines for large walls/floors.  Define a
wall/floor area and have the results of the subdivided area consolidated to
show the maximums for the wall if desired.

3.  Ability to output the data from FE elements, members etc into a text
for those of us who write routines to "further process" the information.  I
have several that do further processing for special cases, but always have
read through an output file with headers and page numbers to get what I
It would be nice if all companies used the same format (RISA, SAP, STAAD,

4.  Ability to define the brace points on a beam/column rather than an
unbraced length.  I typically have different unbraced lengths for top
vs. bottom flanges.  Allowing the input of a brace code such that directs
which flange a brace is bracing would be helpful.  Examples of  the options
could be IF (inner flange) , OF (outer flange), BF (both flanges) etc.  I
worked for one company that had their own software any this definitely was
nice and leads to more economical designs rather than giving a worst case
scenario.  This coupled with the Master member would be helpful.

And in engineering humor....I heard this saying once, but the last part of
I forgot..anyone ever hear this?
" Structural Engineering is a worthy profession, CONSIDERING, it is based on
poor assumptions and an outright lie"
The outright lie was the Modulus of Elasticity I think...
One of the poor assumptions was "plane sections remain plane"...does anyone
know the last piece?

Tired of racking my brain over the last piece for 8 years....figured someone
on here has heard it...

Ron Martin, PE
Tuscaloosa, AL