Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

There’s been quite a bit of discussion recently regarding what analysis software is being used in various design offices. There are a wide range of options and the practice I am with have developed some loose guidance on which structural analysis software should be used for different design problems as outlined in the figure below.

So far I have used SCIA, TEDDS and bespoke excel spreadsheets. It has been a steep learning curve to get to understand some of this software, during which time I’ve been very grateful for YouTube. There are some really great examples to follow. Expedition have also published a useful table on their internal website listing which members of staff you should speak to for advice on different packages – this has proven extremely useful.

I was initially frustrated that we use STAAD at PEW as it now seems very simplistic and doesn’t cover the complexity or design options of some of the other software. However, I think it is useful to demonstrate the process of modelling and analysis, and I suppose no matter which software you choose you can’t cover all the options. I think it may be worth looking at TEDDS if a replacement is ever sought. TEDDS for Word is very powerful and would prove useful during design exercises.

One thing that has really surprised me is the use of simpler software to check software output rather than hand calcs. It seems that there is so much familiarity and confidence in simple software like TEDDS that people are confident they won’t make the input errors. However, I don’t have that intuitive understanding of TEDDS yet so I don’t feel comfortable doing that. CIRIA technical note 133 is a useful guide to checking computer analysis.

My level of confidence with the software remains low, but this is improving as I build up an understanding of the design options that can be applied and how these change the model.