UMAT Fortran Compiler issues - again!

[DrBwts]

I'm trying to link Abaqus with my Intel Fortran compiler. I've changed the 'path' variable to include the compilers location & amended the abaqus.bat file.

BUT still no luck, I still get ,


'ifort' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.

Now I'm quite a fan of Abaqus but this has been an issue for such along time. You would have thought that to one of the leading FEA solvers something like making the ability to use UMATs easy would be a pretty big deal.

First you have to buy Intel's compiler (in this day & age of free compilers) & then you have to fight with Abaqus to even recognize that you have a compiler.

This is how companies lose money in my opinion because over the years people, like myself, who use FE day in day out always warn other potential users of the pitfalls of software & in Abaqus's case that weakness is their failure over the years to make UMATs easy to incorporate.

Now I'm left with reinstalling everything again, its just so painful!!

Anyway rant over.

 

[DrBwts]

Day 2 and still no luck.

 

[adfergusson]

What version of Visual Studio, Fortan compiler and ABAQUS are you running (did you install your fortran compilers after VS?)? Abaqus is very fussy about which particular versions/combination of these you use. If you post these details then I think you'd be more likely to get a response from someone who has come across and resolved your particular set of issues.

 

[DrBwts]

I've found a work around, if I start Abaqus from the Intel Compiler command line then it picks up the compiler otherwise it cant find it.

To be fair the post was more of a rant about the state of Abaqus & how it treats UMATs. I have this issue every time I install Abaqus on a new machine.

I'm promoting LSDYNA more & more nowadays, it deals with UMATs in a much less arcane way. But currently I'm tried to Abaqus because that's what they use & that's the way its staying.

 

[IceBreakerSours]

One can't seriously blame Simulia for relying on a commercial compiler in the Windows world instead of open source alternatives. Besides, this sort of business should ideally be handled by IT administrators or the like than FE analysts; we've got bigger fish to fry, I'm sure you'd agree

Are you new to this forum? If so, please read these FAQ:

http://www.eng-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=376

http://www.eng-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=1083

 

[DrBwts]

I do agree which is why its annoying. The IT here dont really have any experience of technical computing.

Re. Simulia & commercial compilers, it the same on *nix systems. And it more about how sensitive Abaqus is the system set up.

For instance with LSDYNA (besides a MUCH better/less restrictive licensing structure) you are given some object files and just compile the thing with your UMAT linked, super simple.

 

[testing]

I've found setting up ifort on Windows to work with Abaqus much more painful than Linux. With Linux, as long as ifort is on your path, it should work fine. I do wish they'd have better support for gfortran on both systems. There's people that have gotten it to work, but it doesn't sound simple/straightforward.

 

[DrBwts]

Agreed good support for gfortran would be a great plus, I cant see it happening anytime soon though

 

[IceBreakerSours]

Yea, I wouldn't hold my breath on that front - for a while!

I couldn't agree more in regards to the licensing structure. I too am feel LS-DYNA is more worth your money. I wish their documentation, conventions, and UI were put together for lesser mortals.

Are you new to this forum? If so, please read these FAQ:

http://www.eng-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=376

http://www.eng-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=1083

 

[DrBwts]

Yeah information can be in short supply but there is a really good LSDYNA user group on Yahoo,

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LS-DYNA/info