Evaluation of Windows version STABL?

[oldestguy]

As some of you know,I am 78, been at this game for a long time and doing a little still. I am trying to advise a small engineering-testing firm about STABL. I have used the DOS versions quite a lot, but have not used the Windows version. With the DOS versions I found the main problem using the program was properly setting up the "in" file. The error messages were not very good at helping to figure out what was wrong. As you might know, missing a 0 in front of a decimal point and other small required details sure made it a job to get any production out of it.

I see at least two firms are selling a Windows version, as is Purdue U.

Can anyone comment on ease of use, mainly on getting the proper parameters, coordinates, etc. in properly so the program will run? Do you set the whole input file up and some silly requirement later stops it? Or, does it advise as you input data that something is wrong right then?

How about form of output? I would doubt that the client needs those neat looking colored cross sections and bar graphs, but let's hear some critiques for and against?

Or is there a better one out there, better than STABL?

 

[DRC1]

I like Stabl. I use the window version from Purdue (help support those starving grad students). If you were familiar with Stabl for fortran, it has not radically changed, although now you can do tiebacks and a few other things. The input is done in notepad. Sometimes it gets stuborn and for reasons I don't know refuses to read a file, but I find if I copy and paste to a working file it runs fine. Generally I just use an old file as a template and it is okay. Error messages are still the same. The program includes an online file of the manual. The print outs are very similar to what was availble under the fortran Stabl.
What I like about stabl is that it is simple, straight forward and yet flexible enough to solve complex geometry.
If you do a lot of slope stability, need colorful or detailed graphics, or have high quality data, a better program may be justified. Slobe stability calculations are influenced so much by the quality of the data, that unless you have very good data, the increased level of prescion from a high end program, such as an FE program is really not worth it. If you tell people you are running Stabl, they generally accept it as an industry standard.

Hope that helps.

 

[jdonville]

oldestguy,

My company currently uses the STEDWin pre- and post-processor for PCSTABL (PCSTABL is DOS version). It's OK.

Not wanting to start a holy war, but I have to say that I much prefer the approach and interface of Slope/W. However, seeing as that's what the company owns, STEDWin is a huge leap up from using Notepad for creating the input file.

Jeff


Jeffrey T. Donville, PE
TTL Associates, Inc.

http://www.ttlassoc.com

The views or opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer.

 

[dgillette]

I've had good experience with SLOPE/w, and with SSTAB and its DOS descendents UTEXAS2 and UTEXAS3. I have not tried UTEXAS4, which is for Windows. I liked the UTEXASn search routine a bit better, although SLOPE/w's isn't bad. UTEXAS3 allows one to put in SHANSEP-type strengths and Duncan-Wright-Wong strengths for rapid drawdown or dynamic loading directly, rather than having to monkey around faking them in (which I did recently on a project Duncan reviewed for me, without real objections from him, so it CAN be done). SLOPE/W allows for some unsaturated strength models which I haven't seen elsewhere, although I have never used them or seen anybody else use them.

For the consultant, there's a certain irony in the nice Windows graphic user interfaces: you spend your money to buy a program that gives you a reason to bill fewer hours because of greater efficiency. However, it wouldn't take a real big job for a client to see an advantage in buying you a program to save on the number of hours you would charge him for analysis. When I was in consulting 20 years ago, we sold that idea to a client, and everyone came out ahead.

 

[jdonville]

dgillette,

"For the consultant, there's a certain irony in the nice Windows graphic user interfaces: you spend your money to buy a program that gives you a reason to bill fewer hours because of greater efficiency. However, it wouldn't take a real big job for a client to see an advantage in buying you a program to save on the number of hours you would charge him for analysis."

Testify, my brother!

Although, I must add that the nice interfaces also help to reduce errors associated with the input geometry.

Significantly, I very much like that Slope/W will let you query the computed FOS and forces in all the generated slip circles, rather than just the 10 "most critical" - which are generally very similar and add little understanding to the analysis. This added ability to poke around into the computed failures also helps to justifiy, in my mind anyway, the comparatively high cost of the software, as the toolset is more extensive.

Although I haven't used the Geo-Slope software in this manner, the ability to integrate the results of seepage and deformation analyses (Seep/w and Sigma/W) within a common interface makes it additionally attractive for those instances where that extra level of analysis is warranted.

Jeff

 

[vulcanhammer]

From a purely academic standpoint, Geo-Slope has something of an advatage in that the program is distributed free to run as a "student version" with the basic kinds of analysis one expects in undergraduate soils classes. For the full version, only a license key (after the appropriate cash) is needed. It's nice for students to get their hands on something they may end up using in practice (and a reasonable marketing tool at that!)

Speaking of academic things, please note the announcement at

http://vulcanhammer.net/#fus_77