Research Paper - Critical Comparative Feature Analysis of Structural Software (Sap2000 and Staad - Pro)
Research Paper - Critical Comparative Feature Analysis of Structural Software (Sap2000 and Staad - Pro)
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
OF ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
JULY 2009
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost I would like to deeply thank my advisor Dr. Shifferaw Taye for giving
me a broader engineering perspective and being a role model in striving to change wrong
practices in the local engineering industry. His inspiration has given me a glimpse of
thinking outside the box. Secondly my gratitude goes to my colleagues at Afro European
Engineers for their wonderful insights and comments on my thesis work.
I am also deeply grateful to Ato Messay Zegeye, Ato Naog Duga and Ato Ewnetu Ferede
for their helpful remarks concerning software piracy. I would also like to send my deepest
appreciation to all the engineering firms that responded to my questionnaire aiming to
survey attitude towards software use in the Ethiopian consulting industry. Moreover I
would like to thank Eng. Sofonias and Eng. Gigar at GTZ International services for giving
me access to their licensed version of SAP2000 version 12.
Last but not least my deepest gratitude goes to my wonderful mother, whose love and
support have been crucial components to all my positive achievements including this
Masters thesis.
ii
TABLE
OFCONTENTS
CONTENTS
TABLE OF
Page No.
3. PIRATED SOFTWARE.....................................................................................24
3.1 General................................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Software Copy Protection ...................................................................................................... 25
iii
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Fig 2.1 1998 Structural software survey.....19
Fig 3.1 Model for G+ 12 irregular frame system with shear wall subjected
to gravity and lateral loads .34
Fig 3.2 Model for Shell barrel structure subjected to gravity and lateral loads..35
Fig 3.3 Model for Simple 2D portal frame with three members subjected to
concentrated lateral load..35
Fig 3.4 Model for Eccentrically braced 2D frame with wall system subjected to
concentrated lateral load.....36
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 Modeling feature analysis of SAP2000 and STAAD.Pro....8
Table 3.2 Analysis results for G+ 12 irregular frame system with shear wall subjected
to gravity and lateral loads ....37
Table 3.2 Model for Shell barrel structure subjected to gravity and lateral loads....38
Table 3.3 Model for Simple 2D portal frame with three members subjected to
concentrated lateral load...39
Table 3.4 Model for Eccentrically braced 2D frame with wall system subjected to
concentrated lateral load...40
vi
I. ABSTRACT
Being in the mist of the computer era, its hard even to imagine the challenges faced in the
structural world when such software did not exist. In this time is money world reducing the time
for analysis and design of a certain structure from months to seconds is a miraculous achievement.
This thesis is believed to make us even more appreciative of the technological era were in
witnessing the evolution of structural software.
Although extremely useful in tackling routine and tiresome analysis activities in engineering,
software by no means shall be taken as replacement for engineers. The basic engineering inputs of
formulating models and applying engineering concepts and judgment at every step of the whole
analysis and design process remain largely of the engineers task. In contrary to the overgrowing
software worship practice in our country, engineers are to check software result validity.
Engineers should also spend enough time in exploring features of engineering software with
proper assistance from their respective manuals. Instead of wrong software adaptation habit of one
engineering firm from another, the software features have to be thoroughly investigated so as to
prefer one software over another for a specific task.
The other important issue which needs to be addressed regarding engineering software practice is
the widespread use of pirated software products. The result reliability of pirated versions is put to
the test by running four different types of structural models on a licensed SAP2000 V-12 and a
pirated SAP2000 V-12 version. The results obtained showed small percentage differences which
might suggest good crack quality for this particular package used. But this by no means shall
justify the use of pirated products for a number of reasons to be discussed in this thesis.
The above implementations are set to narrow the gap and building trust between the seemingly
rival so called academic engineers and practicing engineers by providing tangible
functionalities and limitations of the structural software and evaluating the questionable validity of
using pirated products.
When using commercial engineering software we have to study in depth the merits and demerits of
one software over the other. Though they usually own similar character in basic principles, the
comparison processes needs a very close look at the full application and utilization of each
software with its limitations. Commercial software are becoming more and more competitive by
highly upgrading their features on every new version. So a careful examination of their features is
necessary for comparing software functionality in different aspects.
In this Masters thesis I have tried to compare two popular structural software packages namely
SAP2000 (Structural Analysis Program) and STAAD.Pro (Structural analysis and design
program). I have tried to evaluate these software packages from both analysis and design points of
view. The selected comparison parameters include modeling, analysis, design output, import
export utilities, ease of learning, cost and result reliability. Before the comparison is made a brief
description about the comparison criteria is first discussed.
Some opinion of international users and engineering software surveys are also included in the next
sections of this thesis. These sections will give a broader sight over the application of these
software packages worldwide. The next section deals with the controversial subject of software
piracy with special focus on engineering software packages. A small survey is carried out
regarding the current practice of software application in the local consultancy industry. Moreover I
have produced four different structural models using a licensed and pirated versions of SAP2000
and analyzed the results. Finally conclusions and recommendations are given at the last section of
this thesis.
Despite the fact that numerous local users apply these software packages in different engineering
practices, very few users truly understand the engineering principles behind their interfaces as well
as their full feature application.
The general objective of this Masters thesis is therefore to provide state of the art review of both
software (SAP2000 and STAAD.Pro) in order to familiarize users to various useful features
offered by the packages. Moreover further task is carried out in studying the effect of software
piracy on these packages. The exploration of a pirated version in contrast to a licensed version is
limited to SAP2000, as it was impossible to get access to a licensed STAAD.Pro package in the
local consulting industry.
SAP features user interface powered by analysis engine and design tools for engineers working on
transportation, industrial, public works, sports, and other facilities. 3D object based graphical
modeling environment to the wide variety of analysis and design options are completely integrated
across one powerful user interface. This intuitive interface allows creating complex structural
models that can be generated and meshed with templates built into the interface.
2.1.2 STAAD.Pro
STAAD.Pro is a general purpose program for performing the analysis and design of a wide variety
of types of structures. The basic three activities which are to be carried out to achieve that goal - a)
model generation b) the calculations to obtain the analytical results c) result verification - are all
facilitated by tools contained in the program's graphical environment.
STAAD.Pro was developed by practicing engineers for practicing engineers around the globe. It
has evolved over 28 years and is constantly guided by a premier industry-based steering committee
[22]. The company claims that STAAD.Pro is the choice of 47 out of 50 leading Structural
Engineering firms, 46 out of 50 state Dots and 7 out of the top 10 engineering universities [22].
STAAD.Pro features a user interface, visualization tools, analysis and design engines with
advanced finite element and dynamic analysis capabilities.
Slabs and other surface entities like walls are modeled using plate elements. Large surface entities
may have to be defined using several elements and this sometimes requires a tool called a mesh
generator. The design philosophy and procedural logistics for member selection and code checking
is based upon the principles of allowable stress design. Two major failure modes are recognized:
failure by overstressing and failure by stability considerations.
Members are proportioned to resist the design loads without exceeding the allowable stresses and
the most economical section is selected based on the least weight criteria. The code checking part
of the program also checks the slenderness requirements. STAAD revolutionized the concurrent
use of spreadsheets, an AutoCAD-like graphical modeler, and a text-based input language editor.
Its embedded with over 40 step-by-step movie tutorials and hundreds of examples and verification
problems. Along with movie tutorials, STAAD also include an online help documentation that
Currently, the program support over 70 international codes and approximately 20 US codes [22].
Unlike most structural software, STAAD.Pro can be customized by the user to exactly fit design
needs. STAAD.Pro is developed on an open architecture called OpenSTAAD. All of the functions
related to input or output are available to the user, such as Get Maximum Bending Moment or Add
Uniform Load. STAAD also include a parametric library of pre-built commonly used structures
like trusses, buildings, mats, etc. that can be customized by for modeling repetitive structures. The
user can even add a template. In addition, STAAD.Pro has an embedded VBA (Visual Basic for
Applications) editor which enables users to write their own design, loading, or post-processing
routines directly in the STAAD environment.
In SAP2000 the model template form allows for the quick generation of numerous model
types using parametric generation techniques. The model can be started using the grid
generation. When laying out the grid, it is important that the geometry defined, accurately
represents the major geometrical aspects of the structure. The model features of both
software are comparatively tabulated as follows.
Table 2.1 Modeling feature analysis of SAP2000 and STAAD.Pro
No. Features
SAP2000 STAAD.Pro
Modeling
1
placement
4
clicks
6
Define any point as the center for cylindrical and reverse cylindrical
coordinate system
10
11
Multiple and customizable views that can be saved for future sessions
12
14
Generate, copy, repeat, mirror, pivot, for quick and easy geometry
generation
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
9
9
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
9
9
2.2.2 Analysis
Before designing a given structure we have to be able to determine the stresses (external and
internal) being imposed on the structure. In order to do this, structural analysis procedure is
required. It is very important to know the engineering methods used by the software for
analysis. A deep knowledge in the analysis method being applied is very useful as to determine
the reliability of the result and the limitations of the analysis methods for a given model. The
analysis features in both software, SAP2000 and STAAD.Pro, are comparatively tabulated
below.
Table 2.2 Analysis feature comparison of SAP2000 and STAAD.Pro
No. Features
SAP2000 STAAD.Pro
Analysis
scenarios
3
P-Delta analysis
effects
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
9
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Create and run new cases while keeping results already calculated
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Master/slave capabilities
35
36
Buckling analysis
37
38
39
Fixed, pinned and spring supports with releases. Also Inclined Supports
40
41
42
spring supports
43
Determine stresses and forces along any cut line through a group of plates by
cutting with a plane
11
Elbows (curved beams with pipe sections) can be modeled with an internal
pressure
45
46
Beam, truss, tapered beam, shell/plate bending/plane stress and 8-noded solid 9
elements
47
Full and partial moment releases (excellent for steel frames where releases
defined by springs are hard to determine)
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
(optional)
56
57
58
Full buckling analysis to obtain buckling modes and factors for various
loading conditions
59
Both software use the finite element method for analysis. The computational efficiency of both
packages is more or less parallel. Implying that the computational time for carrying out simple
duties is almost similar in both cases. But for structures with very large number of members
and irregularities, the computational procedure takes more time.
12
2.2.3 Design
The main purpose of the whole procedure revolves around this step. In this step we have to be
able to suggest a suitable structural section capable of supporting the stresses expected on the
member. This can be carried out using different design codes depending on the location of the
practice and the assumptions made. The design features in both software, SAP2000 and
STAAD.Pro are critically tabulated as follows.
Table 2.3 Design feature analysis of SAP2000 and STAAD.Pro
No. Features
SAP2000 STAAD.Pro
Design
1
Steel Frame Design for AISC-ASD & LRFD, AASHTO, API, UBC,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
octagonal tubes
13
19
20
Moment and shear connection designer integrated with the steel designer
to perform several column flange-beam moment and shear connections
22
23
24
Composite beam design (including stud spacing) per AISC ASD and
LRFD
25
26
27
28
Both SAP2000 and STAAD.Pro have a list of different design codes they support. STAAD.Pro has
specific size requirements regarding defining member dimensions, whereas SAP has no boundaries
of such kind. STAAD.Pro doesnt carry out design for columns and piers where as SAP2000 does.
But the design of columns by SAP2000 especially based on the Eurocode often raises questions in
result validity. It seems that SAP2000 doesnt fully abide by the column code provisions stated in
the Eurocode. For instance when considering accidental eccentricity ea; Eurocode strictly
commands the consideration of ea at the bottom, mid axis and top of a vertical column member
section. But the design feature in SAP2000 only checks ea at the mid axis which probably leads
to different output. In case of embedding design codes to their applications, American developed
packages such as SAP2000 seem to give more attention to American design codes. It is wise to
cautiously check Eurocode based SAP2000 design results especially for column members.
14
2.2.4 Output
Both software offer a number of output features for which the user can easily obtain the output
result for a particular task he/she requires. Both are equipped with animation features which are
very useful particularly in presentations. Relatively STAAD.Pro grant a more organized and
integrated output format.
STAAD.Pro has a customizable and high quality report available. It can be a summary of pictures
exactly as seen on screen or complete, fully detailed reports. Extracting data from the model such
as the largest node displacement at a specific node becomes easy using an inbuilt Advanced Query,
SQL tool. On the other hand SAP2000 has 3D perspective graphical displays of undeformed and
deformed structural geometry with AVI file option for saving animated displays with animated
stress contours and multiple windows simultaneously displaying different output parameters. The
different output features are critically tabulated below.
Table 2.4 Output feature analysis of SAP2000 and STAAD.Pro
No. Features
SAP2000 STAAD.Pro
Output
1
Stress contours
Instantaneous graphical details for specific objects with a right button click 9
10
11
Virtual work plots of relative work in every element for any load with
9
9
9
9
SAP2000 STAAD.Pro
10
11
12
13
SAP2000, owing to its longer age in the market, provides a better import export utility service
with respect to interacting with other engineering software. SAP2000 has a better
communication capacity with common application packages in our country such as SAFE
(which is preferred for slab design) and ETABS (which is usually preferred for building
design).
16
Features
SAP2000
STAAD.Pro
Special Cases
Bridge structures
Pre-stressed members
Composite structures
Shear walls
Non-prismatic members
Cantilevers
17
The simplicity in use of softwares interface is the greatest tool to attract users to use the
software. Users prefer a user friendly environment, which would make him/her feel in control
of the operations being performed. This has been proved to be a great factor in terms of user
preferences over software usage. Although both software use similar user interface,
STAAD.Pro offers an additional editor tool which gives an upper hand in terms of ease of use.
Applying the editor tool the user can display and edit the analysis procedure and output results
at any part of the analysis and design steps.
Whenever using software packages which perform structural analysis, in order for the user to
accept the analysis results, the user has to develop a certain trust towards that software. Result
reliability is a great factor in choosing certain software over another. Based on experience and
marketing skills a software producer has to be able to develop a solid trust and confidence of
the user for the results of analysis by the software. Because of a longer experience in the
market and feed back from CSIs impressive reputation in the structure world, SAP2000 results
are more acceptable and trusted than STAAD.Pro results [20].
18
19
Each January and July, Modern Steel Construction presents a round-up of structural engineering
software. The next table shows the result of a survey mailed to 1,000 MSC readers asking about
their structural engineering software use and preferences. Respondents were encouraged to fill out
a separate form for each program they use.
20
23 May 05 9:52
Qshake (Structural)
The use of codes to design is subjective and usually those software companies have programmers deciding
the gray issues. Of course, the argument will be made that the programs are checked; and they are. But
are they checked against the problems we face day to day? I don't think so. When's the last time we were
asked to do something right out of a textbook? As a structural program, STAAD is mediocre, SAP and
GTSTRUDL are much better and, of course, more costly.
23 May 05 17:23
Mark10 (Structural)
I agree with your view about the reliability of software not created by the user. But, STAAD claims that
75% of engineering firms are using their software, which seems very impressive. Also, when looking at
structural job openings, most firms are looking for a STAAD background. As a young engineer without a lot
of FEA background, the decision becomes a little difficult.
23 May 05 18:06
Carl (Structural)
Those numbers are impressive yet consider that at a time when the cost of complex structural analysis
software was out of reach for 90% of the firms STAAD comes along and produces a mediocre product for
an astounding low price - quite a bargain. I myself am a former STAAD user and my company still has a
license for the software although we are moving toward SAP as a bread-and-butter program. We also have
licenses for GTSTRUDL, SAP, COSMOS and a number of other more specific structural analysis
programs. It's been our experience that for complex analysis we just couldn't rely on STAAD.
24 May 05 3:23
Riz (Structural)
STAAD is doing well with us here. Initially, it had an air of not being user..... But it gets okay with time. I
would still vote for it.
9 Jul 05 12:18
Arnie (Visitor)
I have used STAAD since 95 and I've had enough, way too many bugs and dodgy answers. I've turned to
Robot, the most user- friendly I've seen especially for slabs and stuff. I have just received the latest
version and it has Pushover analysis in it which is a bit of a bonus. If you like programming your own
postprocessing environments our other stuff then Robot has its own Windows Object Model so yu can
directly program into/from Robot in VBasic/C++ etc.
22
2.5 Conclusion
In this thesis it is viewed that both SAP2000 and STAAD.Pro are efficient structural software.
Both have helped revolutionize the system of analysis and design of structures. They have played a
great role in eradicating the very tedious analysis and design procedure by hand, with very high
precision as well.
The purpose of this thesis is not to draw a general conclusion of which software is better than
which, but a suggestion according to a predefined criteria as to when a user shall use either of the
software. From the criteria set to evaluate the software a clear picture can be drawn for what
purpose certain software shall be used. The main difference in the application of the software can
be noticed from the past chapters as; SAP2000 doesnt have a feature for designing continuum
structural elements such as slabs, shells, and shear wall. The exclusion of such important feature in
SAP2000 is probably a market strategy of CSI (producer of SAP2000) as to make users buy other
CSI products which specialize in those areas such as SAFE. Through long years of experience on
the market, both software packages have integrated user comments in order to polish the software
functionality to a better precision and applicability. Thus precision of results for simpler structures
is very similar in case of both software.
I want to stress on the point that the new trend of application of software in our country should be
oriented to the right direction before it is too late. The structural software should be used by users
with intense background knowledge of the basic engineering principles behind the software and
those who are familiar with the assumptions made and limitation of the software. In addition to
that a habit of reading instructions and manuals of engineering software shall also develop.
23
24
25
packages where wrong software output may directly be linked to human life loss. An example of
engineering software which uses this system is SofiStik. This German developed finite element
analysis software requires a hard ware lock called code meter to operate.
26
27
to
lose
their
own
data
than
firms
exclusively
using
licensed
software.
The Harrison Group reached those conclusions after interviewing IT professionals and
businesspeople at nearly 1,600 companies in the US, the UK, China and Brazil [24]. Of the
28
companies included in the survey, Harrison Group labeled 690, or 43.7 percent, as using fullylicensed software; 890, or 56.3 percent, ran some unlicensed software.
According to another survey [27] carried out by business software alliance, a group of software
developers which was completed by independent firm IDC, more than one-third of all software
installed on personal computers is pirated. 35 percent of installed software was pirated in 2007,
down one percent from 2006. However, the survey found that losses from software increased, from
$29 to $33 billion [28]. These losses have a profound economic impact in countries around the
world.
Software piracy waxes and wanes from country to country, according to the survey. Also high up
in piracy activity are Latin American countries, with piracy estimated at 63 percent, accounting for
losses of $1.3 billion in the region. In the Asia/Pacific region, the piracy rate was 53 percent, with
$7.5 billion in losses. In the Middle Easter and Africa, the 56 percent piracy rate was responsible
for losses of more than $1 billion. Legitimate software companies in Western Europe and North
America fared better. With a piracy rate of 36 percent in Western Europe, the region saw $9.6
billion in losses. In North America, losses totaled $7.2 billion, while the piracy rate was just 23
percent. It has to be noted here that the volume of software usage by developed nations is much
greater than developing nations.
IDC said that much of the reason why losses from software piracy increased were due to a falling
U.S. dollar and six-percent growth in the PC industry. The survey found that piracy in 37 countries
decreased, while another 34 increased. 16 countries saw the same level of piracy year over year. In
24 of the 87 countries studied, piracy rates eclipsed 75 percent. Of the top five countries, three of
them were in Asia, with Vietnam having the highest at 92 percent. Piracy is still most prevalent in
countries and regions where the software market is growing as personal computing becomes more
integral to work and daily life.
In developing countries like Ethiopia, although a proper survey on software piracy has not been
carried out, we can surely say that a very high majority of commercial software in use are pirated.
Even the so called professional world of the country has very low awareness over the whole
software piracy matter.
29
30
3.5.5 Illegality
In most countries, companies whose employees are found to be using illegal software can be liable
for damages, fines and even jail time, according to the Business Software Alliance. In the United
States, the fines can run as high as $150,000 for each illegal copy. Since Ethiopia is not yet a
member of World Trade organization (WTO), developers lack the jurisdiction to cross borders of
Ethiopia and sue illegal copy sellers and users. Although the Ethiopian government has passed a
copy right law [29], the implementation yet needs proper attention.
31
3.6 Questionnaire
In order to measure the nature of engineering software application and software piracy in Ethiopia,
a questionnaire has been distributed among several engineering firms here in Addis. From selected
20 firms only six firms responded to the questionnaire (see Annex). From this small survey I came
across practicing engineers with deep concern over the software piracy problem and those who
never even heard of the term software piracy.
The overall survey shows that very few engineering firms use licensed software products as the
majority declined to fill out the questionnaire assumabley to avoid confrontations for using pirated
engineering software products. And of those very few still a very small fraction dare to renew their
license. Many claim that the cost of licensing is overpriced relative to the terrible low fee offered
in the country for the consulting industry. Most welcomed the idea of a discount group purchase
deal while some were skeptical about it by stating that the use of uniform software packages may
affect competitive advantage. All agree that the practice of structural design is deteriorating in
contrary to the software advancement. Some argue that the rapidly evolving user friendly nature of
the new product interfaces give false confidence for those with inadequate know-how.
By principle a user of the software must be aware of the engineering principles behind the
application as well as its limitations, yet many admit that they spent little effort in training their
engineers for particular software applications. Some suggested that the government shall intervene
by introducing strict policies discouraging the use of illegal software packages. All in all the
current software application practice doesnt seem to head to the right direction any time soon
unless crucial measures are taken.
32
The responses of the six engineering firms who willingly filled out the prepared questionnaire are
summarized in the following table.
No.
Afro
MH
GTZ
Sublime
Zias
Remhai
European
Engineering
Int.
Engineering
Plc.
Int.
purchased licensed
software product
2
N.B
33
Model 1
Fig 3.1 Model for G+ 12 irregular frame system with shear wall subjected to gravity and lateral
loads
34
Model 2
Fig 3.2 Model for Shell barrel structure subjected to gravity and lateral loads
Model 3
Fig 3.3 Model for Simple 2D portal frame with three members subjected to
concentrated lateral
35
Model 4
Fig 3.4 Model for Eccentrically braced 2D frame with wall system subjected to
concentrated lateral
The output of the analysis results with percentage difference between the two versions are
36
V2
V3
M2
KN-
KN-
V2
V3
M2
KN-
KN-
M3
V2
V3
M2
M3
KN
KN
KN
KN-m
KN
KN
KN
KN-m
0.00
123.33
0.00
1.68
0.00
64.56
0.00
123.33
0.00
1.68
0.00
64.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.18
0.00
1.68
0.00
52.12
0.00
56.18
0.00
1.68
0.00
52.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.97
0.00
1.68
0.00
81.51
0.00
10.97
0.00
1.68
0.00
81.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
78.12
0.00
1.68
0.00
23.60
0.00
78.12
0.00
1.68
0.00
23.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
145.27
0.00
1.68
0.00
121.61
0.00
145.27
0.00
1.68
0.00
121.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
123.33
0.00
1.68
0.00
64.56
0.00
123.33
0.00
1.68
0.00
64.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.18
0.00
1.68
0.00
52.12
0.00
56.18
0.00
1.68
0.00
52.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.97
0.00
1.68
0.00
81.51
0.00
10.97
0.00
1.68
0.00
81.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
78.12
0.00
1.68
0.00
23.60
0.00
78.12
0.00
1.68
0.00
23.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
145.27
0.00
1.68
0.00
121.61
0.00
145.27
0.00
1.68
0.00
121.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
72.26
0.00
9.09
0.00
135.66
0.00
72.27
0.00
9.09
0.00
135.67
0.00
0.01
0.00
68.25
0.00
9.09
0.00
123.72
0.00
68.25
0.00
9.09
0.00
123.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
64.23
0.00
9.09
0.00
112.46
0.00
64.23
0.00
9.09
0.00
112.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.21
0.00
9.09
0.00
101.88
0.00
60.21
0.00
9.09
0.00
101.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.19
0.00
9.09
0.00
91.99
0.00
56.19
0.00
9.09
0.00
91.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
72.26
0.00
9.09
0.00
135.66
0.00
72.27
0.00
9.09
0.00
135.67
0.00
0.01
0.00
68.25
0.00
9.09
0.00
123.72
0.00
68.25
0.00
9.09
0.00
123.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
64.23
0.00
9.09
0.00
112.46
0.00
64.23
0.00
9.09
0.00
112.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.21
0.00
9.09
0.00
101.88
0.00
60.21
0.00
9.09
0.00
101.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.19
0.00
9.09
0.00
91.99
0.00
56.19
0.00
9.09
0.00
91.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.61
13.99
0.07
0.69
0.23
18.35
19.61
13.99
0.07
0.69
0.23
18.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.61
0.14
0.07
0.69
0.03
9.33
19.61
0.14
0.07
0.69
0.03
9.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.61
7.20
0.07
0.69
0.17
2.00
19.61
7.20
0.07
0.69
0.17
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.61
14.26
0.07
0.69
0.30
19.44
19.61
14.26
0.07
0.69
0.30
19.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.61
13.99
0.07
0.69
0.23
18.35
19.61
13.99
0.07
0.69
0.23
18.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Max
%
Diff.
Table 3.2 Analysis results for G+ 12 irregular frame system with shear wall
37
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
lateral loads
FMaxto gravity
MMax and
VMax
FMax
KN-
Text
KN/m
m/m
MMax
VMax
FMax
MMax
VMax
KN/m
KNKN/m
KN/m
m/m
Shell-Thin
743.74
16.50
54.35
743.74
16.50
54.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
707.55
55.46
54.12
707.55
55.46
54.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
301.58
34.55
4.74
301.58
34.55
4.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
368.41
30.00
6.84
368.41
30.00
6.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
482.66
8.17
141.35
482.66
8.17
141.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
443.48
127.90
141.75
443.48
127.90
141.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
293.80
79.23
44.87
293.80
79.23
44.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
336.49
35.17
43.58
336.49
35.17
43.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
269.97
1.49
209.79
269.97
1.49
209.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
289.80
185.08
211.16
289.80
185.08
211.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
179.43
115.66
72.76
179.43
115.66
72.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
151.77
37.72
68.68
151.77
37.72
68.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
156.41
38.35
70.22
156.41
38.35
70.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
186.73
116.53
73.73
186.73
116.53
73.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
292.19
182.30
204.20
292.19
182.30
204.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
322.22
38.23
48.56
322.22
38.23
48.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
280.80
80.76
46.93
280.80
80.76
46.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
458.14
134.37
154.24
458.14
134.37
154.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
496.71
7.07
154.74
496.71
7.07
154.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
1673.89
39.83
41.54
1673.89
39.83
41.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
1645.50
73.91
35.65
1645.50
73.91
35.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
611.36
55.08
2.08
611.36
55.08
2.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
649.26
56.37
21.42
649.26
56.37
21.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
745.07
87.67
95.58
745.07
87.67
95.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
697.83
183.79
93.35
697.83
183.79
93.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
77.44
147.33
23.67
77.44
147.33
23.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shell-Thin
158.43
123.71
31.33
158.43
123.71
31.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
Max %
Difference
0.00
Table 3.3 Analysis results for Shell barrel structure subjected to gravity and lateral loads
38
V2
V3
M2
M3
KN
KN
KN-
V2
V3
M2
M3
KN
KN
KN-
KN
KN
-m
-m
KN
KN
KN
-m
-m
0.57
7.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.01
0.57
7.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.01
0.20
7.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.90
0.20
7.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.90
KN
0.96
7.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.20
0.96
7.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.20
5.57
2.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.57
2.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.80
2.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.89
4.80
2.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.89
4.03
2.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.78
4.03
2.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.78
2.59
0.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.20
2.59
0.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.20
2.59
1.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.66
2.59
1.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.66
2.59
1.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.99
2.59
1.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.99
2.59
1.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.18
2.59
1.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.18
2.59
1.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.26
2.59
1.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.26
2.59
2.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.20
2.59
2.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.20
2.59
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.01
2.59
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.01
2.59
2.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
2.59
2.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
2.59
3.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.74
2.59
3.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.74
2.59
3.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.31
2.59
3.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.31
2.59
3.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.01
2.59
3.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.01
2.59
3.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.83
2.59
3.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.83
2.59
4.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.78
2.59
4.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.78
V2
V3
M2
M3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Max
%
Diff.
0.68
Table 3.4 Analysis results for simple 2D portal frame subjected to lateral load
39
KN
V2
KN
V3
KN
M2
M3
KN
KN
KN
-m
-m
-m
KN
KN
V2
V3
M2
M3
V2
V3
M2
M3
KN-
KN
KN
KN
-m
-m
7.78
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.78
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.01
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
7.01
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.24
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
6.24
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.33
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
8.33
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.56
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
7.56
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.79
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
6.79
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.32
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
2.32
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.55
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
1.56
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.79
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
2.07
0.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
2.07
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.37
2.07
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.41
2.07
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
2.07
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
2.07
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.64
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
7.64
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.64
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
7.64
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.64
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
7.64
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
1.47
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
1.47
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
1.47
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
1.47
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
1.47
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
0.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
1.47
0.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Max
%
Diff.
0.00
Table 3.5 Analysis results for eccentrically braced 2D frame with wall system subjected to lateral load
40
3.8 Conclusion
Software piracy is a deep rooted problem in all likelihood to attack especially countries with frail
economy and weak copy right laws. The advancing technology of software cracking one form of
software piracy- has been catalyzed by the boom of the internet era. No matter how much money a
software developer invests on copy protection systems, it hasnt been possible to prevent hackers
from breaking in security systems. Although an overnight solution is not viable, addressing issues
of the problem shall at least start soon.
There is a very precarious concept in our country that software results are perfect and binding. But
this is not the actual case. Let alone pirated software, software developers clearly state that they are
not liable for any damage associated with the use of even original software. The full context of
CSIs disclaimer as copied from the SAP2000 manual is as follows.
DISCLAIMER
CONSIDERABLE
TIME,
EFFORT
AND
EXPENSE
HAVE
GONE
INTO
THE
IT IS THE
41
China according to Ato Messay Zegeye, managing director of Concept Data Systems.
The
common practice is that once a certain cracked version of a program is introduced to the market, it
will immediately be multiplied in hundreds of copies and gets distributed. Other cracked product
of the same version will not have a chance to enter the market as the market will already be
saturated. For example once a software importer knows a single cracked copy of SAP2000 V14
has entered the market he will not dare to order a different cracked version as he knows by the
time his version reaches here the market will already be saturated. This can easily be demonstrated
by evaluating different SAP2000 versions. The dll files in the patch usually give hints as to
whether the cracked version is in good quality or not. For instance the maximum percentage
difference of the four tested models in this thesis is less than 1%, which is relatively small. This
might suggest that the pirated version of SAP2000 V-12 used for this example is a good cracked
product. But this by no means shall encourage the use of cracked packages.
Although some cracks might be better than others, in a case where the software developers
themselves dont give guarantee for exact result outputs, tampering with those systems by way of
cracking simply adds result unreliability.
42
Engineering software users should properly study manuals of software before use in order to
utilize full power of software application.
Engineering software packages are there to assist not to substitute the engineer. Engineers should
never fully rely on software outputs. Hand calculations to verify results and have positive
engineering feel is always mandatory.
Software users should be well aware of the basic engineering principles of the software as well as
relative to one another. This will enable the user to know which software to use for a specific task.
The use of pirated software is wrong and unethical. It also undoubtedly increases result
unreliability. Even the only advantage of using pirated product, that is its assistance in getting
accustomed to software features, doesnt make it right to use them.
Software piracy highly discourages international as well as local software developers. Hugh some
of time and money invested on copy protection could have been used in research and study in
order to enhance and refine the software package.
43
Hypothetically if situations arise where using cracked software becomes utterly unavoidable it is
vital to know about the crack quality of the pirated product in use.
Local engineering consulting firms shall be encourages to develop the habit of using legitimate
software products. At least government design approval authorities have the responsibility to
engage engineers with intense background knowledge of engineering principles who can properly
understand and work with licensed engineering software packages.
Instead of simply criticizing the practice from the other side of the bridge we have the duty to help
44
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. STAAD-PRO user manual, version 2007, Bentley Structural Inc., California, USA, 2007
2. SAP2000 users manual, version 12, Computers & Structures Inc., California, USA, 2008
3. Shifferaw Taye, Automation- How to choose a CAD system for civil engineers, EACE
bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 1, December 2000
4. Shifferaw Taye, Cracked Software Feature and dangers, EACE bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 1,
December 2003
5. Shifferaw Taye, Major criteria for choosing among alternative software systems for civil
engineering applications, EACE bulletin, Vol. 6 No. 2, September 2000
6. Laursen,H.I, Structural Analysis, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978
7. Williams, N. and Lucas, Matrix analysis for structural engineers, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1968
8. Moore, D., C. Shannon, and J. Brown Code-red: a case study on the spread and victims of
an internet worm. Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Internet
Measurement, 273{284, 2002
9. August, T. and T. I. Tunca Network software security and user incentives, Management
Science. 2006
10. J. Kothari, M. Shevertalov, E. Stehle, and S. Mancoridis A probabilistic approach to
source code authorship identification. In Proceedings of International Conference on
Information Technology New Generations.IEEE, 2007
11. Banks, D., Dashiell, W., Gallagher, L., Hagwood, C., Kakcer, R., and Rosenthal, L.
Software testing by statistical methods NISTIR-6129 National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1998
12. Beizer B, Black-Box Testing Techniques for Functional Testing of Software and
Systems Wiley, New York,1995
13. Chanakaya Arya, design of structural elements, 2nd edition, E & FN spon press, 1994
14. James G.MacGregor, Reinforced concrete, 2nd edition, Engle wood cliffs, New Jersey,
1992
15. W.H. Mosley, Reinforced Concrete design, 5th edition, Palgrave, New York, 1990
45
16. A.M. Neiville, Concrete Technology, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York,
1987
17. V.N.Vazirani, Steel Structures, Khanna Publishers, Delhi, 1976
18. RISA3D, 1999, Survey results for structural engineering software,
URL:www.risatech.com/P_compare
19. Modern steel construction, 1998, Engineering software survey,
URL:www.modernsteel.com/products
20. Engineering tips Inc., 2006, Software users feedback, URL:www.eng-tips.com/viewthreadcmf
21. Business software alliance, 2008, Sixth annual BSA and IDC global software piracy study,
URL: http://global.bsa.org/globalpiracy2008/index.html
22. Bentley Structural Inc., 2009, Structural analysis and design products, URL:
www.Bentley.com/products
23. Computers & structures Inc., 2009, CSI products, URL: www.csiberkley.com/products
24. Engineering software piracy, 2004, Software piracy exposed, URL:
http://books.google.com.et/books/engineering+software+piracy&source
25. UK software piracy,2000, Losses due to software piracy, URL: http://www.outlaw.com/page-688
26. Harrison Group Inc., 2008, Impact of unlicensed software to mid market companies,
URL: http://www.darkreading.com/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217400509
27. Survey by IPR for business software, 2003, Company software piracy, URL:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-63022435.html
28. Enterprise software Alliance, 2008, Software piracy/license study, URL:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles
29. Intellectual property management, 2006, Ethiopias copyright and related rights protection
proclamation of 2004, URL:http://www.pioneerip-eth.com
46
ANNEX
I would once again like to pass my gratitude to the six engineering firms who took their valuable
time to fill out the prepared questionnaire (attached following this page) and to broadly discuss
their experience around structural software application in relation to pirated packages. The
following points are noted from the discussions.
Some encountered different analysis outputs for the same model run on pirated SAP2000
V.8 on different machines
Some came across too many unrealistic warning messages when running analysis for
bigger models using pirated SAP2000 V.9
Some found it difficult to assign slabs as diaphragms for storeys higher than 10 using
pirated SAP2000 V.10
Some faced the problem of unwillingly running P-D analysis every time they command
analysis on SAP2000 V.9 which caused unnecessary delay in the computational process
Many claim that pirated versions get stuck and some features suddenly fail to operate
especially on Windows Vista operating system
Some came across output mix-ups while using pirated SAP2000 V.8 where shear force
diagrams were drawn for bending moment results and vise versa
47
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned declare that this thesis is my work and that all sources of material
used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged.
SIGNATURE: ________________________
48