Mastering FEA: How to Get Through Stage 2 (Developing Good Modeling Techniques)?

[EdwardNigma]

Hey everyone,

I recently picked up a book by Dominique Madier titled Practical Finite Element Analysis for Mechanical Engineers, and one key takeaway is that mastering FEA involves three stages. First, learning the theory—understanding the math, governing equations, and physics behind finite element analysis. This is usually done through college coursework. Second, developing proper modeling techniques, which is where many people struggle. And third, learning how to use an FEA software suite like Ansys, Abaqus, or Patran/Nastran.

The author argues that many engineers skip the second stage, leading to inaccurate models, errors, and overconfidence in their results. Stage two isn’t just about knowing how to use the software—it’s about understanding FEA best practices and approaching simulations with the right mindset. Before jumping into a model, it’s critical to first understand the physical behavior of the problem, anticipate what the results should look like, and structure the analysis accordingly.

Rather than immediately diving into software, a good approach is to start with simple geometries, become familiar with the library of elements, and ensure that elements bond properly. Choosing the right element types for the given problem is crucial. A structured approach should also include starting with a coarse mesh and performing a mesh convergence study before refining further. Most importantly, models should always be validated—whether through analytical solutions, experimental data, or industry benchmarks—to ensure accuracy and reliability.

This got me thinking: How do you properly work through Stage 2? What are the best ways to practice good modeling techniques and develop an intuition for building high-quality FEA models?

For some context, I’m currently in a master’s program and taking a college FEA course for the second time, so I feel confident in my theoretical knowledge. Although theoretical, there's practical element to it but on basic geometry/elements creating MATLAB codes and validating this through Abaqus. However, my workgroup doesn’t do much FEA, which limits hands-on experience. I just run FEA models once in a great while but I do validate some FEA documentation through hand calculations. Fortunately, I recently connected with an FEA mentor who used to teach Ansys and now focuses on Hypermesh, Patran, and Nastran. I also have access to MSC Patran/Nastran coursework, including topics like basics of Patran/Nastran, composites and dynamic analysis, so I have plenty of material to learn from. The challenge is figuring out how to bridge the gap between theory and real-world application.

For those who have successfully developed strong FEA modeling skills, what helped you the most? Did you work through case studies, validate models against hand calculations, analyze published benchmarks, or get mentorship and peer reviews? Did you switch companies or groups to a role that was more FEA-intensive? I’d love to hear your experiences and advice on the best ways to improve modeling accuracy, avoid common pitfalls, and build a deeper intuition for FEA modeling.

 

[SWComposites]

You learn by doing. And making mistakes. And getting advice from peers and more experienced engineers.
You learn the most by working on real problems.
And by correlating analysis predictions to test data.
And realize that FEA is just a tool in the tool box. Like any tool it has its uses. And there are things that the tool is not appropriate for. DO NOT think of yourself as a FEA engineer. Thats like someone thinking the are a hammerer or a sawer rather than a carpenter. You should aspire to be a structures engineer.

 

[rb1957]

yep, no short cuts (which is not to suggest you were looking for one). Many of the methods of modelling (like mesh refinement studies, and mesh densification near stress gradients) are well known. Less well known and more practice based would modelling beams (beam elements or "caps and webs"). A key consideration is "how are you going to use the results ?"

 

[SWComposites]

Re rb’s last comment. Exactly. You have to know how to do proper structural analysis before you start using FEA. Generating millions of element results for a thousand load cases is not helpful if you don’t know what to do with the results.

 

[GregLocock]

The way I got into it practically was by running an experimental modal analysis lab and 'helping' the FEA guys to correlate their models to the cold hard truth.

 

[EdwardNigma]

@SWComposites:
I could see how you learn by doing and making mistakes.

@rb1957:
Thanks for response. I hear that beams are some of the more complex elements.

 

[SWComposites]

Beams are not that complex.
Boundary conditions can be complex and difficult to approximate.
Stress concentration areas can be complex to model (its often best to not model these in detail, but to extract far field forces and apply classical stress concentration factors or other analytical methods).
Coordinate systems can be complicated.
Application of loads is sometimes complex.
Dynamic analysis is complicated.
Definition of non-linear material properties, if needed, can be complex.
Evaluation of results - displacements, eigenvalues/modes, stresses, etc. requires deep understanding of material and structural behavior and failure mechanisms.
and on .....

 

[rb1957]

it is a very subtle issue. particularly with the intersection of two bending elements (like frames and stringers). Which bending freedoms should be joined, which not ?

Of course fundamentally is the FEM to be used for vibrations (or dynamic loads) where stiffness is more critical, or static loads ?