Patran vs. Hypermesh (Ansys user inquiry) 1

[Stringmaker]

I'm looking for honest, objective feedback on the two. I'm a very experienced Ansys user and have some experience with Hypermesh but wouldn't label myself as highly proficient yet. I have very little Patran experience. I'm going to be working with Nastran more frequently and need to get versed in a tool that handles it. Here are my observations:

- I can't believe Patran does not have any sort of dynamic pan or zoom. Having to click an icon first is quite annoying for someone who doesn't use a spaceball.
- Hypermesh seems to work similar to Patran the way the interface is setup and in general requires fewer clicks and has fewer popup boxes.
- Hypermesh is great for creating 2D models but lacking for 3D meshing.
- Patran seems that it's a more viable 3D mesher which is of primary importance to me.

Feedback and "your take" of one or the other...or both is welcomed. Thanks in advance!

-Brian

 

[GregLocock]

I am a very amateur user of either (and loathe Patran), but the FEA guy I work with says that Patran is one or more generations behind Hypermesh. We use HM+Nastran as our baseline combination, although we do have access to just about anything except FEMAP, which is the only usable FEA pre/post processor for normal human beings in my experience (grins).




Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[gwolf2]

I have used Patran, Hypermesh, FEMAP and Ansys. I too felt that Hypermesh was strong in 2D but weak in 3D. I also felt that FEMAP was a bit weak in 3D but (unlike PATRAN) it is improving rapidly and is worthy of frequent review.

It all boils down to the type of user that you are and the type of models that you do. My general impression is that people who are not FE experts like things like Hypermesh, Ansys Workbench, or FEMAP because they make quite good tet meshes quickly. FE experts (regardless of FE package) making complex models with contact, multiple nonlinear loadsteps, etc. like PATRAN because of the huge flexibility which it provides - it´s functionality is a bit click-rich but extremely powerful and open.

If you MUST use NASTRAN then I recommend PATRAN because it protects you to a large extent from one of the most user-hostile bits of FE software ever invented by setting up the horrible input decks via PATRAN GUI´s.

And I agree, the PATRAN graphics rotation stuff is about 8 years behind the times. MSC have IMHO just sat back for the last 10 years and taken the money rather than pushing PATRAN forward significantly.

PATRAN is still my favourite but it doesn´t deserve to be.

Gwolf2

 

[johnhors]

gwolf2,

MSC for the best part of five years have been developing a successor to Patran , "SimExpert" with up to 300 programmers in Bangalore working on it.

 

[GregLocock]

FWIW our crash guys use Hypermesh (and maybe other packages), so it certainly isn't limited to simple models.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Onda]

On my point of view HyperMesh is the best 2D mesher on market.
Patran has the best post processing capability.
Ansys Workbench the best 3D mesher and the fastest to build contact table and multi-body problems.

Each software has pro and cons, and the choice depend on kind of analysis you run most frequently.

I work with MSC Nastran as solver on middle size shell composites model and on my experience the best way to operate is to build the mesh in Hypermesh and then give property in Patran. Run the analysis and make the post processing in Patran.
You have much more possibility in Patran for material orientation and for post processing then in Hypermesh. But I’m not a good Hypermesh user, my point of view could be partial.

Using Ansys as solver you have first to check the compatibility of Patran with all Ansys elements/result. I’m not sure that Patran is compatible with all elements/results of Ansys 11. I think that Hypermesh as better compatibility with Ansys. But you should check on both user manuals.
regards

 

[feajob]

I use both of them. I also believe that it depends on your applications.

I work on 3D complex geometries (Catia CAD Models). Based on my experience HM is very good for geometry cleanup and 2D mesh. I usually 2D mesh the skin of my 3D model with HM then make 3D with HM and import it into Patran. Usually, I find few bad elements over 300,000 elements. This means that I need to improve locally 3D mesh in Patran.

Overall, I think also Patran is a very good for Load Applications (Field definition, ...) and material properties associations, post-processing results.

I hope that one-day MSC buys HM or HM buys Patran. They are just complementary. If you need to decide one of them then it depend on your applications.

 

[rstupplebeen]

I have used:
Abaqus CAE, Femap,
Patran,
Ansys Workbench, MARC Mentat and Ansys classic
The order that I have listed them is my preference. The drop off after each line break is significant in my opinion. If you need to stick with Nastran I would use Femap. Get a free trial and make the decision yourself. Hope this helps.

Rob Stupplebeen

 

[Onda]

One tip about Patran 3D pan & zoom.

middle mouse button alone = rotate
midlle mouse button + shift = Pan
midlle mouse button + control = Zoom

this is valid from version 2006 onward. (I use V2007 and it work!) and it speed up the job a lot!
But, for me, a 3D Connexion Spaceball is always a good choice.

Onda

 

[Stringmaker]

Thanks for the opinions thus far all. As awkward as Patran is at first I do like the level of control it gives the user. I'm somewhat of a control freak and like knowing the internal workings and find it beneficial to define things myself rather than depend on some macro to do what you hope it's doing.

Onda,
I appreciate the advice about pan, zoom ,etc. I've only used 2005 previously. I will make sure we have a copy of something more recent installed!

 

[gwolf2]

> MSC for the best part of five years have been developing a successor to Patran , "SimExpert" with up to 300 programmers in Bangalore working on it.

Shudder!

gwolf

 

[spongebob007]

I use NX/Nastran. Nastran is the solver and NX is the pre/post processor. Very similar to using Workbench. For geometry creation you have all the power of UG and I-DEAS plus fairly powerful deafeaturing and model cleanup tools. Most of my analysis is done on geometry imported as STEP files. I am impressed with what I can do to the STEP geometry in NX.

NX is also very good at meshing (0D,1D,2D, and 3D). Load application and load case setup is easy because you can drag and drop loads and boundary conditions.

Much like Workbench, NX is a work in progress and it does not have all the functionality of the "classic" software, but more is added with each release.

I have been using NX for one year and so far I have found very little that it can not do. I have only had a few instances where I needed to manually edit the Nastran input deck because I needed something that wasn't built into NX preprocessing.


If you are already using ANSYS, why switch to Nastran?

 

[GregLocock]

"I'm somewhat of a control freak and like knowing the internal workings and find it beneficial to define things myself"

Oh well, in that case write the decks yourself! I still do sometimes. (more accurately I run experiments in which parts of the deck are changed automagically to optimise the structure).

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[ThomasH]

Hi

I know that Femap wasn't part of the question, but just out of quriousity. What is it that you can control in Patran that you can't control in Femap?
I don't work with Patran but have collegues who do so I'm curious.

Regards

Thomas

 

[coug]

Here is my rating on the pre/post-processors I have used:

Abaqus/CAE
Patran
Marc.Marc/Mentat

Frank

 

[gwolf2]

> What is it that you can control in Patran that you can't control in Femap?

PATRAN groups are two or three orders of magnitude better than FEMAP layers. They let you break up complex models into easy chunks for model generation.

Picking in PATRAN is also MUCH better than in FEMAP - very important with complex, large models.

Important PATRAN entities like materials, loads etc are labeled alphanumerically whereas in FEMAP they are numeric only. Sure, in FEMAP there is sometimes a name associated with a material number for example, but you have to interact with the number not the name. It has a big impact with large models with hundreds of materials and properties.

PATRAN has dozens of low-level CAD functions which work in 3D without the use of a workplane. FEMAP has only a tiny fraction of the simple CAD functions and insists on the use of a workplane where none is necessary. PATRAN's functions in this respect make manipulation of imported CAD into FE models MUCH faster, and also allow. FEMAP does have a 3D CAD engine but it doesn't integrate well with the FE environment - looks like something which they licenced and nailed on.

3D mesh control in FEMAP is appalling and it has very weak 3D mapped meshing for HEX jobs. Mesh division control is also extremely poor.

I could go on, but that's enough. Again I say if what you mostly do is tet meshes of solids which you import from CAD then FEMAP is probably OK but it's not a full-fat product.

gwolf

 

[ThomasH]

gwolf2:

First of all, thanks for your comments. Now I will comment a little on your comments. But if I'm wrong, please forgive my ignorance since I don't work with Patran. I only had a look at it a few years back.

Gloups and layers:
I agree that groups in Patran are for some applications better then layers in Femap. But so are the groups in Femap. My impression was that in Patran there are only groups while in Femap there are groups AND layers. The combined capabilities of the two possibilities seemed to me stronger then Patrans groups. But the impression can be wrong.

Picking: Can't have an informed opinion.

"Names" on materials etc: I don't mind working with numeric "names". I like the associativity between the Femap object and the Nastran deck. And since I work with the "model info" dialogue I can work with the names as well.

When it comes to importing of solids etc I can't really have any opinion. I have collegues who work with Patran and do editing in other softwares that I do in Femap. Might be just a matter of likes and dislikes. But I know that the new mesher in Femap v10 has improved things significantly.

Anyway, it was interesting to get an idea regarding the differences.

Thomas

 

[gwolf2]

> But I know that the new mesher in Femap v10 has improved things significantly.

Well I was working with FEMPAP 18 months ago (v 9 maybe?). As I have said on previous posts it's one to watch and review frequently because unlike PATRAN it does actually seem to be evolving at reasonable speed.

gwolf.

 

[ThomasH]

gwolf:

18 months ago would have been v9.X, X may be 2 or 3.

In v10 meshing (and other things) has improved significantly but I haven't fully tested it yet. But there definitly are things that work better in v10 then in v9.X.

I have heard that Patran is the better choice for 3D (solid) meshes. But since I primarily work with 1D and 2D elements that is not a big issue.

I know from experience that Femap evolves. I have heard, from this thread and others, that Patran evolves at a much lower speed.

But, like I said, I'm not here to bash Patran. Just curious about differences.

So, Thanks again.

Thomas

 

[vnpenguin09]

I used HyperMesh and I love it so much. It's very confortable meshing tool !