thread727-123750
I came across this post when googling "best fea software" and was quite interested in the comments. Particularly this one:
"The complexities of doing this are enormous. You would just get a garbled mixture of results. Also, you mention "better" a lot, without clearly defining exactly what "better" or "best" means, which leaves it open to interpretation by the user of each software. What defines the "best" result? That which matches closest to someone elses model? Someone's PhD thesis? Experimental evidence/data? Of course, the latter, always. How about access to such data?"
I think what happens when you use modelling software for too long is that you lose sight of what it is that you are actually doing. The answer to the question of which software is "best" is very clear and straight forward. It is the software that is the most predicatively accurate with regard to reality. So the best FEA software is the one that will predict the outcome of a given scenario with great accuracy.
In my office we are currently looking to buy a relatively inexpensive FEA capable modelling package. We design and manufacture steel frames, piping, supports, jigs etc and want to check our designs, initially at least, for stress loads and distortion and to use the software to predict those loads and then optimize the design to a safe working factor. We are looking at Inventor Professional and also Solidworks. We are building a large mechanical, hydraulically actuated, vice and are modelling it with the two packages to compare results. We will then gradually test the frame to destruction by hydraulically loading it and measuring the bending and deformation at set loads. We know what the material and weld properties are so we regard it as a controlled test. We will then compare the results from the test with the simulations and determine the most accurate FEA software for use in that domain (the domain that we will use the software model in). If we begin using the software in a new domain then we will assess its predictive capability and its accuracy in that domain too. It is very important to verify the validity of the modelling output in my opinion.
I am new to FEA modelling but I have done a lot of hydro-code modelling of blast and explosions where the strain rates are enormous and the materials response is non-linear but what I have found is that a lot of the accuracy is in the quality of the materials models.
Just one last point, if the software leaves the result "open to interpretation" then it wouldn't be very good software in my book.
I came across this post when googling "best fea software" and was quite interested in the comments. Particularly this one:
"The complexities of doing this are enormous. You would just get a garbled mixture of results. Also, you mention "better" a lot, without clearly defining exactly what "better" or "best" means, which leaves it open to interpretation by the user of each software. What defines the "best" result? That which matches closest to someone elses model? Someone's PhD thesis? Experimental evidence/data? Of course, the latter, always. How about access to such data?"
I think what happens when you use modelling software for too long is that you lose sight of what it is that you are actually doing. The answer to the question of which software is "best" is very clear and straight forward. It is the software that is the most predicatively accurate with regard to reality. So the best FEA software is the one that will predict the outcome of a given scenario with great accuracy.
In my office we are currently looking to buy a relatively inexpensive FEA capable modelling package. We design and manufacture steel frames, piping, supports, jigs etc and want to check our designs, initially at least, for stress loads and distortion and to use the software to predict those loads and then optimize the design to a safe working factor. We are looking at Inventor Professional and also Solidworks. We are building a large mechanical, hydraulically actuated, vice and are modelling it with the two packages to compare results. We will then gradually test the frame to destruction by hydraulically loading it and measuring the bending and deformation at set loads. We know what the material and weld properties are so we regard it as a controlled test. We will then compare the results from the test with the simulations and determine the most accurate FEA software for use in that domain (the domain that we will use the software model in). If we begin using the software in a new domain then we will assess its predictive capability and its accuracy in that domain too. It is very important to verify the validity of the modelling output in my opinion.
I am new to FEA modelling but I have done a lot of hydro-code modelling of blast and explosions where the strain rates are enormous and the materials response is non-linear but what I have found is that a lot of the accuracy is in the quality of the materials models.
Just one last point, if the software leaves the result "open to interpretation" then it wouldn't be very good software in my book.