Traditional FEM Method(ANSYS- ABAQUS) or New Approach (Boundary value Method) in ASME SEC VIII Div2 2

[hamid reza FEM]

Can we use New FEM Software(Boundary value Problem Method ) instead of Traditional FEM Method(ANSYS- ABAQUS) for ASME SEC VIII Div II?

 

[TGS4]

The methodology in ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 is software and methodology agnostic.

 

[hamid reza FEM]

Thanks, Yes I know and use Part 5.
But I want to understand that Can I use New FEM Approach(Boundary Value) or Not?
Only I should Use Ansys or Abaqus Methods?

 

[hamid reza FEM]

Is it Important for ASME the Approach of FEM or Not?
Can I use Meshless Methods?
Or I should Use Lagrange Method By Ansys or ABAQUS?

 

[TGS4]

Thanks, Yes I know and use Part 5.
But I want to understand that Can I use New FEM Approach(Boundary Value) or Not?

You've basically answered your own question. I don't understand what you are still asking. Please clarify.

 

[hamid reza FEM]

I talk about 2 approaches in FEM. 1-Traditional FEM(Mesh(Node & element) 2- Meshless method (Boundary Value)

According to ASME Sec VIII Div II can I use Any FEM approach to solve problem?
Is It important to Solve by Traditional FEM Format(ANSYS -ABAQUS) or Not and I can Use meshless FEM for solve PV Problems?

That's Clear ??

 

[hamid reza FEM]

CAN I SOLVE PV Problems by Meshless Method? ASME SEC VIII Div II is OK with Meshless Method???

 

[TGS4]

The methodology in ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 is software and methodology agnostic.

Provided that your method will result in a stress distribution, then Part 5 has no requirement about the use of meshed or meshless methods.

Clear?

 

[hamid reza FEM]

Yes I see.
Thanks a lot .

 

[jmec87]

TGS4, regardless of the Part 5 requirements, do you think that any meshless methods / software are currently good / trustworthy enough to rely on for ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 analysis?

 

[TGS4]

jmec87 - I am not familiar with these methods, and therefore consider myself unqualified to make a judgement on them. That is an engineering judgement call that each individual engineer needs to make for each analysis and software.

Software is akin to any tool, such as a hammer. In the hands of a skilled tradesperson, even a moderate tool is useful. But in the hands of an unskilled individual, even the best tool can be dangerous.

 

[hamid reza FEM]

For Mesh less methods you can use 2 Softwares:1- Ls-DYNA 2-SimSolid(Altair Co)
Both of them are very Excellent

 

[DriveMeNuts]

LS-DYNA uses a mesh.
It is an energy method where the instantaneous static load propagates through the structure at the speed of sound. After each analysis step, the velocity/momentum of the material each integration point is reset to zero.
I recently got an LS-DYNA analysis of external pressure on an ellipsoidal head to match very accurately with a conventional elastic-plastic analysis. It was very tricky and sensitive. I wouldn't recommend it.
If the non-mesh method is an energy method then I would say why are you choosing that method? A conventional elastic-plastic analysis is the most appropriate method.

 

[SPDL310]

If you are already using other FEM methods with regularity and success what is driving your desire to use different approach? Have you validated the accuracy of the method/software by reproducing the results of past analyses or example problems from the ASME PTB example problems manual? Can you quantify the limitations of the method and explain and explain why it is an appropriate tool for the specific application?

 

[hamid reza FEM]

Dear DriveMeNuts
Ls-dyna Software Can use Meshless Method.
You can study EFG Method in LS-dyna.