Not to disparage anybody's quality of training in aircraft structural analysis, nevertheless I have noticed a recent trend I thought this group could help explain. Just perusing the many ads for "stress analysts" or some similar description, I have noticed that lately in addition to asking for experience with "FEA" that "hand stress analysis" experience is also requested. It might be that my training is substantially different from that of others, so I don't know--don't all FEA stress analysts know how to do hand analysis? It would seem almost obvious to me that you would need to be able to do hand stress analysis before moving on to FEA, and that hand stress analysis is still a routine part of any finite element analysis of a structure. What am I missing?
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Hand Stress Analysis 7
- Thread starter prost
- Start date
Interesting thread...I'll add a couple of comments:
First, while I got my BS in the mid-late 80's (and masters in the 90's), the bulk of my "hand analysis expertise" was learned "in the field" and by amassing my own library of methods over time. Most of what I got from the universities was more theoretical than practical.
My current gig is at a place that "worships" Patran/Nastran. However, as I come up to speed with that software, I can see that it does a pretty good job at predicting material behavior. Furthermore, with the addition of PCL scripting, one could use it to augument their hand analysis capabilities.
So, it will never replace the ability to do a "sanity check", but I don't poo-poo it as much anymore.
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein
First, while I got my BS in the mid-late 80's (and masters in the 90's), the bulk of my "hand analysis expertise" was learned "in the field" and by amassing my own library of methods over time. Most of what I got from the universities was more theoretical than practical.
My current gig is at a place that "worships" Patran/Nastran. However, as I come up to speed with that software, I can see that it does a pretty good job at predicting material behavior. Furthermore, with the addition of PCL scripting, one could use it to augument their hand analysis capabilities.
So, it will never replace the ability to do a "sanity check", but I don't poo-poo it as much anymore.
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein
midsidenode
Mining
It is indeed sometimes hard (even sometimes frustrating) to stop what your doing when a young engineer comes by with a question. Nevertheless, I totally agree with the opinion that we, as engineers, have the responsibility to pass along the knowledge learned to the following generations of younger engineers. When I came out of college 15 years ago, It was often hard to squeeze information out of those crusty old guys who seemed to know everything about everything. Some even appeared to prevent their knowledge from being passed along because of their feelings of being threatened. Their knowledge and know-how will eventually be taken along with them to their grave – what a shame.
We have recently hired some recent graduates that are very bright. I believe they’ve received a good education, but I think they’re going to get most (if not all) of their practical knowledge for performing hand calculations and verification testing here in the real world. Our company has neither a formal mentoring program nor structured classroom program, but I’ve told them that I’ll help them as much as I can, nevertheless I can only do so much. I think a decent structures course would be good to start. I’ve heard Flabel and Lake City has a decent class. Can anyone comment or recommend others?
We have recently hired some recent graduates that are very bright. I believe they’ve received a good education, but I think they’re going to get most (if not all) of their practical knowledge for performing hand calculations and verification testing here in the real world. Our company has neither a formal mentoring program nor structured classroom program, but I’ve told them that I’ll help them as much as I can, nevertheless I can only do so much. I think a decent structures course would be good to start. I’ve heard Flabel and Lake City has a decent class. Can anyone comment or recommend others?
- Thread starter
- #43
midsidenode:
To help you train new structural engineers, we've made some stress liaison engineer notes and solutions available. I've been going through these notes, mentioned in thread
thread2-153152 and they seem pretty good. You might want to consider going to that thread and obtaining the notes with the instructions there.
To help you train new structural engineers, we've made some stress liaison engineer notes and solutions available. I've been going through these notes, mentioned in thread
thread2-153152 and they seem pretty good. You might want to consider going to that thread and obtaining the notes with the instructions there.
-
1
- #44
I recieved my MSME in 2001, and I took a class at the graduate level that was 90% devoted to hand stress analysis. We even looked at analyzing a helicopter transmission housing by hand.
The problem was that at that point, I of course had no job experience and so the class didn't benefit me as much as it would if I took it again now, after having been a stress analyst for some years. Now I have a much better feel for what I should be looking at and how structures behave.
In my job I use FEA for almost every analysis, and in my company we like to do full-blown 3D models with solid elements whenever possible. Whenever I can I also do a hand calculation as a sanity check. Many people have disparaged FEA here, and there is no doubt it can be done wrong or done needlessly, but I also must point out that we often get very good agreement between our FEA predictions and strain gage readings, at least for static tests.
We often encounter (usually older) people who don't believe in FEA or in fact in the value of engineering analysis at all. I can see where they are coming from in some cases, and in others it just seems like plain ignorance on their parts. In fact, we have used FEA to design some advanced features for our product that are generating increased sales.
The problem was that at that point, I of course had no job experience and so the class didn't benefit me as much as it would if I took it again now, after having been a stress analyst for some years. Now I have a much better feel for what I should be looking at and how structures behave.
In my job I use FEA for almost every analysis, and in my company we like to do full-blown 3D models with solid elements whenever possible. Whenever I can I also do a hand calculation as a sanity check. Many people have disparaged FEA here, and there is no doubt it can be done wrong or done needlessly, but I also must point out that we often get very good agreement between our FEA predictions and strain gage readings, at least for static tests.
We often encounter (usually older) people who don't believe in FEA or in fact in the value of engineering analysis at all. I can see where they are coming from in some cases, and in others it just seems like plain ignorance on their parts. In fact, we have used FEA to design some advanced features for our product that are generating increased sales.
midsidenode
Mining
prost,
If your referring to the ABDR notes and solutions from crackman - yes, a very nice course with some good fundamentals - thank you. Nevertheless, in order to get the full effect from the course, it appears that McDonnell handbook 339 should be used in conjuction with it. Unless you work for Boeing, you'll not have access to this text.
If your referring to the ABDR notes and solutions from crackman - yes, a very nice course with some good fundamentals - thank you. Nevertheless, in order to get the full effect from the course, it appears that McDonnell handbook 339 should be used in conjuction with it. Unless you work for Boeing, you'll not have access to this text.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question