JohnyGluebag
Marine/Ocean
Good day,
The new company I am working at just had some Ansys reps. stop by and give us a preview of Ansys11. I am a beginner to Ansys, been using Femap/Nastran for about a year now.
So far my impression is that most people in my company prefer to work in classic and are not very impressed with Workbench.
(By the way, when the Ansys reps. came to talk about Ansys11, 95% of the topics were of Workbench features.)
Anyway, my question is, if you had to model offshore structure with mostly stiffened plate with beam elements, 500k to 1million+ DOF, is it faster to model in classic or use a cad package like Rhinoceros or other to get the geometry, then import into Workbench and go from there. Overall shell elements are used most of the time.
I realize this is a subjective question, but some other opinions might get me straight on this. My impression from the Ansys people is that they do not want to have a great modeler of there own, because this would compete with the CAD vendors.
I have only been working in FEA for a year. By far most of my time is spent getting the model built. So any way to decrease modeling is a bonus. With Ansys pushing Workbench, does this mean Workbench has a better modeler than classic, or is the plan to use CAD to model and Workbench for the analysis?
Sorry for the vague post, there was little time to talk to the reps. and the higher ups in the company used the time.
Thanks for any comments.
____________
JohnyGluebag
The new company I am working at just had some Ansys reps. stop by and give us a preview of Ansys11. I am a beginner to Ansys, been using Femap/Nastran for about a year now.
So far my impression is that most people in my company prefer to work in classic and are not very impressed with Workbench.
(By the way, when the Ansys reps. came to talk about Ansys11, 95% of the topics were of Workbench features.)
Anyway, my question is, if you had to model offshore structure with mostly stiffened plate with beam elements, 500k to 1million+ DOF, is it faster to model in classic or use a cad package like Rhinoceros or other to get the geometry, then import into Workbench and go from there. Overall shell elements are used most of the time.
I realize this is a subjective question, but some other opinions might get me straight on this. My impression from the Ansys people is that they do not want to have a great modeler of there own, because this would compete with the CAD vendors.
I have only been working in FEA for a year. By far most of my time is spent getting the model built. So any way to decrease modeling is a bonus. With Ansys pushing Workbench, does this mean Workbench has a better modeler than classic, or is the plan to use CAD to model and Workbench for the analysis?
Sorry for the vague post, there was little time to talk to the reps. and the higher ups in the company used the time.
Thanks for any comments.
____________
JohnyGluebag
