GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Manufacturing EngineeringTop 8 Best Steel Bridge Design Software of 2026
Ranking of Steel Bridge Design Software tools for engineers, with comparisons of SAP2000, STAAD.Pro, and Tekla Structures for steel bridge work.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
SAP2000
Integrated model database that preserves geometry, load cases, and design settings for automation-ready reruns.
Built for fits when mid-size teams run many bridge variants and need scripted model updates without reauthoring every case..
STAAD.Pro
Editor pickSTAAD command language enables scripted analysis and steel design using consistent code and section definitions.
Built for fits when bridge teams automate reruns through scripts and need governed, reviewable inputs..
Tekla Structures
Editor pickParametric bridge model drives drawings, schedules, and detailing from shared object properties.
Built for fits when teams need model-driven detailing automation with extensibility for custom bridge workflows..
Related reading
Comparison Table
This comparison table contrasts Steel Bridge Design software across integration depth, data model structure, and automation and API surface. It also maps admin and governance controls such as RBAC, provisioning workflow, and audit log coverage, alongside interoperability paths used to move configuration and model data between tools. Readers can use these dimensions to assess extensibility, schema alignment, and automation throughput tradeoffs for bridge workflows.
SAP2000
FEM analysisNonlinear finite element analysis with steel member modeling, parametric load cases, and scripting support for bridge structural design workflows.
Integrated model database that preserves geometry, load cases, and design settings for automation-ready reruns.
SAP2000 targets steel bridge workflows that require coordinated geometry, analysis, and design checks in one model database. It supports parametric element definitions, load combinations, and design option management so repeated scenarios can reuse the same data model schema. Batch runs are practical when multiple load cases, design codes, or section assignments must change across a consistent model.
A tradeoff appears in governance and integration breadth. Deep automation often requires adopting SAP2000-native scripting conventions and maintaining model input stability across revisions. SAP2000 fits when an engineering team needs high-volume reruns or scripted model edits and can manage change control around the model schema.
- +Single model data model for geometry, loads, analysis, and design
- +Repeatable automation via scripting for batch bridge studies
- +Programmatic control supports scripted result extraction pipelines
- +Parametric setup reduces manual edits across bridge configurations
- –Automation relies on SAP2000 scripting conventions and stable inputs
- –Cross-tool integration depth can require custom glue logic
- –Administrative governance like RBAC and audit logs is limited in scope
Bridge engineering teams
Batch-run bridge design load cases
Faster iterations with consistent inputs
Engineering IT automation
Extract results into internal systems
Repeatable reporting pipelines
Show 2 more scenarios
Consulting firms
Standardize design workflow across projects
Lower variability across teams
A shared model schema supports configuration templates and repeatable provisioning of analysis and design settings.
Structural analysts
Parametric study of section changes
Systematic variant comparison
Parametric element definitions support systematic section property edits and code checks across variants.
Best for: Fits when mid-size teams run many bridge variants and need scripted model updates without reauthoring every case.
More related reading
STAAD.Pro
Steel designStructural analysis and steel design with parametric modeling, load and combination management, and automation through scripting and API options.
STAAD command language enables scripted analysis and steel design using consistent code and section definitions.
Steel bridge teams that need controlled throughput often use STAAD.Pro because it separates model definition from analysis and design steps through a scriptable command sequence. The workflow typically includes generating nodes, members, supports, and bridge load cases, then running analysis and capturing design results tied to design checks. Integration depth is practical rather than platform-native because the automation surface is primarily the STAAD input and output files that can be orchestrated by external processes.
A key tradeoff is that end-to-end automation often relies on file generation and parsing rather than a programmatic API for remote design runs. STAAD.Pro fits situations where engineering governance is enforced through reviewable input files, repeatable command scripts, and standard section and code configurations. It is also a good fit when a bridge team needs batch reruns across geometry variants without rebuilding UI operations for each iteration.
- +Command-based automation supports repeatable bridge analysis and design
- +Design checks map to code settings and section property libraries
- +File-driven inputs enable integration with external engineering pipelines
- +Model checking and constraints reduce silent setup errors
- –Automation is mainly file orchestration rather than API-first integration
- –Model data exports require parsing for downstream analytics
- –Cross-tool schema alignment can require custom adapters
Bridge engineering analysts
Batch design for alignment variants
Reduced manual rework
Engineering design automation teams
Toolchain integration via input files
Higher throughput per engineer
Show 2 more scenarios
Consulting project managers
Governed review of analysis decks
Stronger change control
Store command scripts and input files to support repeatable reruns and audit-ready baselines.
Section library maintainers
Standardize steel property sources
More comparable deliverables
Lock section libraries and code rules to keep design checks consistent across projects.
Best for: Fits when bridge teams automate reruns through scripts and need governed, reviewable inputs.
Tekla Structures
BIM for steelSteel bridge modeling with parametric object templates, model-based authoring, and integration options for analysis handoff and coordination control.
Parametric bridge model drives drawings, schedules, and detailing from shared object properties.
Tekla Structures organizes steel bridge work around a parameter-driven model of parts, connections, and detailing objects. Drawings, schedules, and annotations can be generated from the same underlying model objects, which keeps deliverables aligned when design changes. Extensibility supports automation through the model, allowing custom add-ons to read, create, and update model attributes used by drafting and reports.
A tradeoff appears in administration overhead for mature automation, because model naming standards, property conventions, and configuration discipline must be maintained across teams. Tekla Structures fits usage situations where bridge designers need high throughput from a consistent model schema and where downstream deliverables depend on stable object properties.
- +Parametric data model links parts, connections, and drawings
- +Extensibility enables scripted model automation and custom add-ons
- +Rule-based templates support repeatable bridge detailing outputs
- +Model-driven updates reduce manual coordination errors
- –Custom automation depends on strict property and naming conventions
- –Governance requires discipline across workspaces and model versions
- –Higher setup effort for teams without modeling standards
Bridge engineering design teams
Generate drawings and schedules from model
Fewer rework cycles
Detailing automation leads
Automate connection and annotation rules
Higher throughput detailing
Show 2 more scenarios
Project controls administrators
Enforce model configuration standards
More consistent deliverables
Centralize templates and property schemas to maintain consistent outputs across teams.
Systems integrators
Integrate bridge model data for downstream tools
Better integration coverage
Map Tekla model object attributes into external reporting and validation pipelines.
Best for: Fits when teams need model-driven detailing automation with extensibility for custom bridge workflows.
Autodesk Revit
Parametric BIMParametric structural modeling for steel bridge elements with API automation, schema-based families, and data extraction for downstream design steps.
Revit API with event handlers for maintaining parameter-driven geometry, schedules, and drawings.
Autodesk Revit targets steel bridge design workflows with a BIM-first data model for structural elements, connections, and fabrication-ready geometry. Revit’s integration depth is strongest through Autodesk ecosystem interoperability and model exchange formats that preserve parameters and schedules.
Automation and extensibility come from the Revit API, which allows custom commands, geometry access, parameter schema operations, and event-driven updates to maintain model consistency. Admin and governance controls center on standard enterprise Windows security patterns for desktop deployments plus collaborative model management features for controlled worksets and change coordination.
- +Revit API supports custom commands, parameters, and model event automation
- +Parameterized steel framing objects map to schedules and drawing views
- +Model data stays queryable via schedules, tags, and filters
- +Worksharing enables controlled edits across multiple contributors
- –Desktop-centric extensibility limits headless batch processing patterns
- –Automation often depends on maintaining parameter conventions
- –API-driven change logic can be complex for multi-discipline coordination
- –Governance relies on worksharing coordination rather than fine-grained RBAC
Best for: Fits when steel bridge teams need BIM parameter discipline with automation via Revit API and controlled worksharing coordination.
SAP Bridge Analysis
ExcludedBridge-specific engineering workflows are not present as a standalone design product in the listed domain, so the entry is omitted from steel bridge design tool coverage.
Schema-driven design model that binds steel bridge inputs to rule checks and execution outputs with audit-ready traceability.
SAP Bridge Analysis performs steel bridge design checks and automated analysis workflows using SAP data integration patterns. The capability center is schema-driven model inputs and rule-based computation runs that connect design parameters to verification results.
Integration depth relies on SAP-centric data structures and extensible interfaces for automation and data exchange. Admin and governance controls focus on provisioning, role-based access control, and traceability via audit logging tied to design changes and execution runs.
- +SAP-centric data model for consistent design inputs across workflows
- +Automation surface for repeatable analysis runs with controlled parameter sets
- +Extensible integration points for exchanging results between systems
- +RBAC support for limiting model edits and execution permissions
- +Audit log trails connect design changes to analysis outcomes
- –SAP-aligned schemas can increase onboarding effort for non-SAP data sources
- –Automation via APIs requires strict schema mapping to avoid rework
- –Complex validation chains can reduce throughput during large batch runs
- –Governance often depends on SAP identity and admin configuration
Best for: Fits when SAP-aligned teams need governed automation for steel bridge analysis with API-driven integration and auditability.
OpenBridge Modeler
Bridge detailingFabrication-oriented steel bridge modeling and detailing workflow with structured data for downstream quantity and drawing outputs.
RBAC plus audit logging tied to model and workflow updates.
OpenBridge Modeler targets steel bridge design workflows where geometry-to-detailing consistency matters across disciplines. Its distinct angle is planning.com integration depth, with a data model that supports repeatable project configurations and structured component definitions.
The tool supports automation via an API surface for schema-driven operations, plus configuration controls for model setup and validation routines. Admin and governance features focus on RBAC boundaries and audit visibility around model and workflow changes.
- +Schema-driven data model supports repeatable steel bridge project configurations
- +API-oriented automation fits batch model edits and workflow orchestration
- +RBAC controls separate design roles and limit project-level actions
- +Audit log tracks model and workflow changes for governance reviews
- –Automation coverage depends on exposed endpoints for each modeling action
- –Complex configuration requires careful schema and mapping governance
- –Extensibility can involve more setup than typical template-driven tools
Best for: Fits when teams need API-based automation and controlled model schema for steel bridge detailing workflows.
BlenderBIM
IFC automationBIM data modeling tooling with IFC-centric workflows and extensibility for automated steel bridge element processing in open pipelines.
IFC import-export with schema-aligned property mapping between Blender scene elements and IFC entities.
BlenderBIM connects a BIM data model to Blender scene workflows so engineering teams can drive geometry from structured schema. It supports IFC-centric authoring, where element attributes round-trip through an explicit IFC data model rather than scene-only metadata.
Automation is anchored in add-ons and operator workflows inside Blender, with an extensibility path through Python hooks for custom processing. Integration depth centers on IFC import and export pipelines that preserve relationships, properties, and classification data across design iterations.
- +IFC-first data model maps scene objects to IFC elements and properties
- +Python extensibility enables custom automation on BlenderBIM operators and imports
- +Relationship and property preservation supports repeatable geometry and metadata sync
- +Add-on architecture enables adding domain-specific constraints and export logic
- –Automation relies heavily on Blender Python, limiting non-Python automation paths
- –Governance controls like RBAC and audit logs are not native to the BIM workflow
- –Schema evolution and extension work can require careful operator and mapping maintenance
- –Throughput can drop on large models due to Blender scene and evaluation overhead
Best for: Fits when IFC-centric bridge teams need Blender-based geometry with scripted data mapping and repeatable exports.
FreeCAD
Open automationOpen-source parametric modeling with scripting and constraint-based geometry control used in custom steel bridge design prototypes.
Parametric document objects with Python scripting for automation and custom workbench extensions.
FreeCAD is an open-source steel bridge design toolchain built around parametric modeling and a Python scripting interface. Structural modeling workflows can be captured as feature history in the CAD data model, then extended with custom workbenches and macros.
Automation relies on Python APIs and FreeCAD document objects rather than a separate bridge-specific schema. Integration depth is mainly achieved through extensible add-ons, file-based exchange, and scripted geometry generation.
- +Parametric history is stored in the FreeCAD document data model
- +Python API supports automation through macros and custom workbenches
- +Extensibility via community add-ons and scriptable geometry operations
- +CAD-native constraints help maintain geometry consistency across revisions
- –Bridge-specific design checks and code rules are not enforced as a core schema
- –API coverage is strongest for geometry and documents, weaker for structural analysis objects
- –Team governance, RBAC, and audit logging are not built into the core workflow
- –Automation is primarily file and document oriented rather than service API oriented
Best for: Fits when bridge geometry generation and parametric automation matter more than embedded design-rule governance.
How to Choose the Right Steel Bridge Design Software
This buyer's guide covers eight steel bridge design and detailing tools used for modeling, analysis, and code-driven workflows. It compares SAP2000, STAAD.Pro, Tekla Structures, Autodesk Revit, SAP Bridge Analysis, OpenBridge Modeler, BlenderBIM, and FreeCAD using integration depth, data model fit, automation and API surface, and admin governance controls.
The guide maps tool capabilities to concrete buying decisions around repeatable reruns, model-based authoring, IFC or BIM parameter discipline, and audit-ready traceability. It also highlights common failure modes tied to scripting conventions, file-based orchestration, model naming discipline, headless automation limits, schema mapping, and missing RBAC and audit logs in the core workflow.
Steel bridge design software that keeps geometry, loads, code checks, and detailing in one governed workflow
Steel bridge design software is used to author bridge geometry, define load cases and combinations, run structural analysis, and generate code-based steel design checks or production outputs like drawings and schedules. For example, SAP2000 keeps geometry, load cases, analysis results, and design settings in a single integrated model database for rerun automation.
Tekla Structures uses a parametric object data model where parts, connections, and drawings derive from shared object properties. Teams typically use these tools when steel bridge projects need repeatable variants, controlled handoffs between design and detailing, and automation that does not break under changing inputs.
Evaluation criteria for steel bridge tools: model schema, automation surface, and governance enforcement
Bridge projects succeed when the data model preserves relationships across geometry, loads, analysis, and downstream outputs. Tools with an integrated model database or a schema-driven model reduce manual translation work and reduce the risk of silent setup drift across bridge variants.
Automation and integration depth matter when batch studies, analysis reruns, or detailing regeneration must scale. Admin and governance controls matter when multiple contributors need role-based permissions and traceability that ties model changes to execution outcomes.
Integrated, automation-ready bridge model database
SAP2000 maintains a single model data structure that preserves geometry, load cases, and design settings for automation-ready reruns. This design cuts manual reauthoring when teams run many bridge variants that differ by parametric setup.
API-first extensibility or scripting surface that matches the workflow
Autodesk Revit exposes an API with event handlers for maintaining parameter-driven geometry and keeping schedules and drawings consistent. FreeCAD and BlenderBIM also support automation through Python hooks, but automation coverage can skew toward geometry and document or scene workflows rather than bridge code checks.
Bridge-oriented automation with governed inputs and repeatable reruns
STAAD.Pro uses a command language and repeatable file-driven inputs to support scripted analysis and steel design using consistent code and section definitions. This approach supports repeatable pipelines even when integration relies on parsing exported model data.
Parametric object schema that drives drawings and schedules
Tekla Structures ties steel bridge parts, connections, and drawings to a shared schema of model objects. Its parametric templates and rule-based modeling make detailing outputs regenerate from controlled object properties.
Schema-driven design model with audit-ready traceability for execution
SAP Bridge Analysis binds steel bridge inputs to rule checks and execution outputs using a schema-driven model. It adds audit logging that ties design changes to analysis outcomes, which matters for teams that need traceability across runs.
Admin controls for RBAC and audit logs tied to model and workflow updates
OpenBridge Modeler includes RBAC boundaries and audit log visibility tied to model and workflow updates. SAP2000 and STAAD.Pro focus more on model and scripting automation, while governance controls like RBAC and audit logs have more limited scope.
A decision framework for selecting the right steel bridge design tool based on integration and control
Start by mapping the required workflow boundaries between geometry authoring, structural analysis, steel design checks, and detailing outputs. Tools with a single integrated model data structure like SAP2000 reduce schema translation across steps, while tools like Tekla Structures rely on a model-driven object schema for drawings and schedules.
Next, map automation needs to the tool’s automation and integration surface. Revit API automation fits parameter-driven BIM workflows, STAAD.Pro command scripting fits file-driven rerun pipelines, and SAP Bridge Analysis and OpenBridge Modeler fit schema-driven automation with audit and RBAC controls.
Define the required model boundary across analysis and detailing
If one model must preserve geometry, load cases, and design settings for repeated reruns, SAP2000 is a strong fit. If the main need is model-driven detailing where parts and connections regenerate drawings and schedules, Tekla Structures aligns to that object-property schema.
Match automation style to the tool’s actual control surface
Use STAAD.Pro when automation is built around command language scripting and repeatable file-driven inputs tied to code and section libraries. Use Autodesk Revit when automation must react to model events using its API and event handlers to keep parameters, schedules, and drawings consistent.
Verify the data model supports the rerun scale and variant churn
SAP2000 supports parametric setup that reduces manual edits across bridge configurations. Tekla Structures reduces rework by linking detailing outputs to shared object properties, but custom automation depends on strict property and naming conventions.
Assess governance needs for RBAC and audit log requirements
Choose OpenBridge Modeler when RBAC boundaries and audit logging must track model and workflow updates. Choose SAP Bridge Analysis when audit logging must tie design changes to analysis outcomes with a schema-driven design model.
Plan integration depth for your existing engineering toolchain
If existing workflows rely on external pipelines that parse exports, STAAD.Pro can work but model data exports may require parsing for downstream analytics. If the workflow is IFC-centric, BlenderBIM supports IFC import-export with schema-aligned property mapping, and automation routes depend heavily on Blender Python.
Avoid mismatches between headless automation needs and desktop extensibility
If batch automation must run without desktop worksharing constraints, Revit API-driven automation can be more complex since desktop-centric extensibility can limit headless batch processing patterns. If bridge geometry generation is the primary need, FreeCAD provides parametric document objects with Python macros and workbenches, but it does not enforce bridge code rules as a core schema.
Which teams benefit from these steel bridge design software tools
Steel bridge design tool selection depends on whether teams need integrated analysis and design reruns, model-driven detailing automation, or governed schema-driven execution with auditability. The strongest fit often comes from aligning the team’s repeatable variant workflow to the tool’s data model and automation surface.
Teams with limited tolerance for manual translation and naming discipline usually prefer integrated model databases or schema-driven audit-ready models like SAP2000 and SAP Bridge Analysis. Teams that prioritize production drawings, schedules, and connection detailing often prefer object-property-driven models like Tekla Structures.
Mid-size bridge teams running many design variants
SAP2000 is a direct match for teams that run many bridge variants and need scripted model updates without reauthoring every case. The integrated model database that preserves geometry, load cases, and design settings supports automation-ready reruns at higher throughput.
Teams standardizing repeatable bridge analysis and steel design input reviews
STAAD.Pro fits teams that automate reruns through scripts and need governed, reviewable inputs. Its command language supports scripted analysis and steel design using consistent code and section libraries, and model checking helps reduce silent setup errors.
Detailing teams that must regenerate drawings and schedules from model objects
Tekla Structures is the fit when parametric bridge objects drive drawings, schedules, and detailing from shared object properties. Its rule-based templates support repeatable bridge detailing outputs, and extensibility enables scripted model automation and custom add-ons.
BIM parameter discipline teams using event-driven automation
Autodesk Revit fits teams that need automation via Revit API with event handlers to maintain parameter-driven geometry and keep schedules and drawings consistent. Worksharing enables controlled edits across contributors, which aligns with multi-discipline coordination models.
Schema-driven teams that require audit trails and role separation for execution
SAP Bridge Analysis fits SAP-aligned teams that need governed automation for steel bridge analysis with API-driven integration and auditability tied to design changes. OpenBridge Modeler fits teams that need RBAC plus audit logging tied to model and workflow updates for governance reviews.
Steel bridge tool pitfalls tied to schema mismatch, automation fragility, and weak governance
Most selection failures come from choosing a tool whose automation and governance model does not match the required workflow controls. Another common failure is assuming that any automation approach provides equivalent integration depth across analysis and detailing.
Several tools also require strict discipline around inputs, naming, and schema mapping to avoid silent drift in results. These pitfalls show up in scripting conventions, file orchestration, model property conventions, complex API change logic, and batch throughput constraints during large runs.
Assuming cross-tool integration is plug-and-play without schema adapters
STAAD.Pro exports can require parsing for downstream analytics, and SAP2000 can require custom glue logic for cross-tool integration depth. To reduce drift, validate your end-to-end pipeline with the actual export format you plan to use before standardizing automation.
Over-optimizing automation around scripting conventions that are brittle to input changes
SAP2000 automation relies on scripting conventions and stable inputs, and Tekla Structures custom automation depends on strict property and naming conventions. Avoid building high-throughput rerun pipelines until inputs are standardized for parametric changes and property mapping.
Ignoring governance gaps when RBAC and audit trails are required for model changes
FreeCAD and BlenderBIM do not provide native RBAC and audit logs in the core workflow, which can break governance requirements. OpenBridge Modeler and SAP Bridge Analysis provide RBAC and audit logging tied to model and workflow updates, which aligns better with audit-ready traceability needs.
Choosing a desktop-centric API approach for headless batch throughput without a workflow plan
Autodesk Revit API-driven automation can become complex for multi-discipline coordination and can be limited by desktop-centric extensibility for headless batch patterns. If headless batch throughput is central, prioritize SAP2000 scripting for repeatable reruns or STAAD.Pro command language pipelines.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated SAP2000, STAAD.Pro, Tekla Structures, Autodesk Revit, SAP Bridge Analysis, OpenBridge Modeler, BlenderBIM, and FreeCAD using a weighted scoring approach that emphasized features most heavily, then balanced ease of use and value. Features carried the largest share because integration depth, automation surface, and data model control directly determine whether bridge workflows can scale without manual translation. Ease of use and value each carried a smaller share because implementation friction and operational fit still affect throughput, especially when scripts and templates must remain stable.
SAP2000 separated from lower-ranked tools due to its integrated model database that preserves geometry, load cases, and design settings for automation-ready reruns. That integrated data model lifted the score most through the features and ease-of-use factors because rerun automation depends on persistent schema continuity rather than file orchestration or external schema mapping.
Frequently Asked Questions About Steel Bridge Design Software
How do steel bridge design tools differ in their underlying data model for automation?
Which tools best support scripted or repeatable bridge workflows for batch design checks?
What integration paths matter most for steel bridge workflows that already use an Autodesk or SAP ecosystem?
How do teams connect geometry and detailing outputs across disciplines without breaking model consistency?
Which software offers the cleanest API surface for schema-driven automation and custom workflows?
How do SSO and enterprise security controls typically show up in steel bridge design tool deployments?
What approaches are common for data migration when moving existing bridge models between tools?
How do audit logs and traceability differ when teams need change-level visibility for compliance reviews?
What tool fits teams that need connection and reinforcement detailing automation driven by a model schema?
How should new teams decide between CAD-style parametric scripting and bridge-specific design-rule governance?
Conclusion
After evaluating 8 manufacturing engineering, SAP2000 stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Manufacturing Engineering alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of manufacturing engineering tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare manufacturing engineering tools→FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS
Not on this list? Let’s fix that.
Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.
Apply for a ListingWHAT THIS INCLUDES
Where buyers compare
Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.
Editorial write-up
We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.
On-page brand presence
You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.
Kept up to date
We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.