FEA program opinions?
FEA program opinions?
(OP)
Hello, I'm in the market for a license of SWx, but I would also like a good FEA program to accompany SWx. I've heard about NENastran & COSMOS running with SolidWorks, but it appears everyone has a different opinion about them. I'm a mechanical designer and working in the Middle East. I'm returning to the States for good in August to go back to school and finish my BSME.
Which FEA program works best with SWx?
Which FEA program works best with SWx?





RE: FEA program opinions?
I thought you would get an onslaught of opinions, so I'll start out. NENastran is a good program and is very reasonably priced for the power and the widely accepted name of Nastran. If you are going into the aerospace industry, this would be a very wise choice. If you are new to FEA, having a single interface for SWx and COSMOS would make it easier to learn the basic steps. COSMOS is also a quality program, but I don't believe it carries the approval rating that NENastran has.
Most other FEA programs have some way of interfacing with CAD programs...either IGES file export from SW and import into your FEA program or STEP files...a variety of other export/import options.
Many will disagree with me, but I'm also a fan of Algor FEA software. I think they are coming along with their user interface, but this is the package with which I started my FEA career, so I know its quirks. It imports trimmed surface IGES files quite well as it also does STEP files.
I've run these three programs against each other with very comparable results on some very complex problems (linear and non-linear).
The greatest advantage to NENastran is the front end...FEMAP. I don't like the older versions of FEMAP, but if you are just starting out, FEMAP translates a variety of FEA models into other formats, so if you are trying to interface with someone that has an FEA package other than the one you select, FEMAP will likely pull it in and translate it for you...VERY handy in the consulting world.
There are many other mid-grade FEA packages that will do quite well...these are just three of my favorites.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
RE: FEA program opinions?
Universities running SW would run COSMOS because they get a GREAT deal on the bundled package. Since COSMOS and SW are owned by the same company, they want to put both of these packages in the hands of engineers that will be making software purchasing decisions in a few years. If you are trying to compare similarities of SW and COSMOS, COSMOS can be run inside the SW interface. SW would be the modeler and COSMOS the analytical engine.
I'm kinda' disappointed...I thought you would get an onslaught of opinions. Ansys and Abaqus are both GREAT packages, but a little pricey and probably not worth the investment for learning FEA. Pro-E with Mechanica has its place, although it is a p-element convergence code, not an h-element like most of the others I mentioned. There are numerous packages out there...take a look around and ENJOY!
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
Thanks again. I'm doing more research and checking out those other programs.
Jason
RE: FEA program opinions?
I am tempted to repeat an Ausssie saying. "Opinions are like - , everybody has one".
How many people have used recent versions of two different FEA systems enough to make a valid comparison? And given that the OP hasn't even stated what sort of analysis he wants to do, only a telepath can really help. Is price a constraint? Or does he value ease of use more highly than price? Does he need to be able to read other people's models in? etc etc etc
FWIW my employer spent a fortune (about the same as the GNP of a small country at a guess) on an integrated FEA and CAD package. I'd love to know how many FEA models are actually run on it other than during the training course. I /know/ that it is not used by the CAE engineers. ever.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: FEA program opinions?
corus
RE: FEA program opinions?
I would like to be able to read other people's models and price is of concern. I'd like the software to have linear static analysis, transient heat transfer, buckling analysis, heat transfer, nonlinear static analysis, dynamic response, modes, etc. A diverse selection of materials is a plus. I'm sure there more important features I have left out, but I'm just not familiar with them at this point in time.
I'd like to try to keep the price down since I'm planning on purchasing SWx as well. I've been told to purchase the base SWx or Pro Package and an FEA program and I'd be in great shape. Since it is my first FEA program, I suppose it would be nice if it wasn't the most difficult program to learn.
BTW, I didn't know that was an Aussie saying... I always thought it was a military expression. Again, sorry about the vagueness.
Jason
RE: FEA program opinions?
I had a little additional information from the SolidWorks forum, but I did think people would start to endorse their personal favorites...not necessarily do any comparison.
As for the integrated packages, I think they're good for small models. Get into something complicated and I prefer to run the packages separately to reduce the burden on the computer (particularly the RAM). Whole-heartedly agree that the integrated packages turn everyone into an engineer with dangerous consequences!
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
I think you will be discouraged by the cost of a full package that does everything you mentioned, because I'd say that for most popular FEA packages, "you get what you pay for". That doesn't mean that cheaper packages are not good, but the capabilities, interface, refinement, customer support etc usually improve as cost improves. Ultimately, it requires some experience and knowledge of your intended applications to know what level of these parameters are appropriate for your needs.
I'd suggest you use your time at school and while employed to learn as much as you can about FEA using whatever free resources are available to you. Then when you are in a better position to evaluate what you need, you can make a more informed decision. A considerable portion of this time should go toward how to validate and verify your model results, when you find a package that allows you to do V&V confidently and efficiently you probably have found a package that is good for you.
www.probasci.com -
Implantable FEA for medical device manufacturers
RE: FEA program opinions?
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
www.probasci.com -
Implantable FEA for medical device manufacturers
RE: FEA program opinions?
Based on the costs, I would recommend you look into the Office Premium package of SolidWorks. It includes the most basic level of COSMOSWorks - Designer. I'm not sure if that will meet your needs but I have just been quoted a price that shows that the Office Premium package is $1000 cheaper than buying SolidWorks and COSMOS Designer seperately.
RE: FEA program opinions?
"The Office Premium Package includes all of the functionality of SolidWorks, and SolidWorks Office Professional, plus Routing and CosmosWorks Designer. Cosmos is a true FEA software." I like everything this series offers. It's $8K + $2K subscription.
RE: FEA program opinions?
RE: FEA program opinions?
Standalone COSMOSWorks Designer costs $3500 + $1000 subscription.
RE: FEA program opinions?
"simplified, user-friendly FEA software"
Would you board a train, ship, aircraft .... if you knew that vital components had been analysed by "nonspecialists" using this software?
RE: FEA program opinions?
Good point!
RE: FEA program opinions?
I'm still reasonably sure that nobody is using COSMOSWorks (much less the weakest "Designer" version" in place of standard engineering practices and common sense - it does seem capable of the most basic types of FEA though. They have very clear matrix sheets on what capabilities are included with each level of package - check the website.
If all you are looking for is some linear static analysis of parts and assemblies (and are not a FEA specialist) can anybody give me a better deal than COSMOSWorks Designer?
As for johnhors - don't forget: That train, ship, aircraft was also built by the lowest bidder.
RE: FEA program opinions?
I believe COSMOSXpress covers that and it's included in the Office Professional Package... I'm in contact with NEiNastran now and I'm waiting for pricing information.
-Jason
RE: FEA program opinions?
Felipe - www.felipe.co.uk
Femdesigner - www.femdesigner.com
Roshaz - www.roshaz.com
Strand7 - www.strand7.com
RE: FEA program opinions?
I did have a sales guy walk by and say, "Wow, that's a nice picture." So I guess Xpress is good for that...
RE: FEA program opinions?
Chris Foley
Midland, TX
RE: FEA program opinions?
Thanks for the endorsement, but I've stayed out of these discussions because I believe each of these packages, in the right hands, have merit. I must admit that even I am suprised at the cost descrepancies you're quoting. I'm guessing that NEiNastran is that much more because you're still having to pay for the FEMAP license, which couldn't be discounted with the NEiNastran kernel.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
There are so many different programs. I'm going to check out Algor and see what it offers.
-Jason
RE: FEA program opinions?
Chris Foley
Midland, TX
RE: FEA program opinions?
I can certainly recommend Algor. I've been a fan for many years, but, as I've told Algor over the many years with which I have done business with them, I try to make sure that the tool fits the application.
If you are looking for an in-house tool that does linear statics and dynamics, go for the low-cost solution. If you have to interface with a variety of FEA packages, FEMAP with NENastran may be useful. If you are looking at automesh capabilities because you have complicated models and need to mesh them quickly, I like Algor. If you are looking for a CAD-integrated solution, Algor, NENastran, and COSMOS each offer their flavor of integration...depends on which one is easiest for you.
I can go on for hours about each of these packages. I'm pleased to see Chris pursuing Algor because I think it will do what he needs done with the greatest efficiency, but his application to his industry is different from everyone else's, so his solution may be different as well.
Definitely speak with Algor, it's worth your time to educate yourself.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
jcfoley, I'm in the same boat as you actually. I'm looking at the same core package and extender.
RE: FEA program opinions?
Where are you located? I'm assuming in the US?
Garland
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
There is an Algor forum. Before this becomes a sales pitch for Algor, we can discuss the details and merits of individual software packages in the specific software forum. The Algor forum is Forum810.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
Thanks for the link.
RE: FEA program opinions?
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
RE: FEA program opinions?
Just my 2 cents.
RE: FEA program opinions?
Nice shot. I used to work for "a major defense contractor" that used Algor. I've made it clear that I do like it. I've also made it clear that I like your beloved NENastran and, incidentally, COSMOS in certain applications. If you have problems with Algor, take it up with them, not with me in this forum.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
Also, please note that nowhere in this thread did I plug NENastran or even mention it. My comments have been generic in nature so to allow others to make intelligent decisions and not to react to advertising and marketing hype. We actually use a wide range of FEA products besides Nastran including ABAQUS, LS-Dyna, and BOSOR5.
I never gave my opinion of your "beloved" Algor. I just said I have a different opinion of it. I believe I am OK with saying this in this forum.
RE: FEA program opinions?
As for my employer having "used" Algor, they still do. They just aren't my employer any longer...I'm on my own now. Hence the sensitivity to being tied to a single FEA package...I like to keep my opportunities open, which requires that my opinions remain guarded and capabilities in a variety of FEA packages remain sharp.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
RE: FEA program opinions?
“My current employer is huge and has over 200,000 employees. A few years ago I was looking for a package I could do consulting with on the side. I remember talking to an Algor sales person and him saying my company used Algor. I talked to the people in the division he said used it and they said they were not using it and some IT guy only bought it because Algor basically gave it to them.
I decided not to go with them mainly because their software was not as well suited to aerospace and Nastran was. You could make a similar argument about Nastran not being well suited to civil engineering though it is used for that more and more today as I understand.
I know some other people that have used it and have other opinions but I do not want to offend anyone so I will refrain from saying anything negative. Besides, I am not sure if this forum is the place to get into this type of discussion.
RE: FEA program opinions?
The title of this thread was and still is "FEA program opinions." "Opinion" implies that no one has a wrong answer. I believe that both mechelement and I are looking for WHY your opinion is what it is. I am looking for 1) a package that will do what I need now 2) a package that will do what my company needs in the future and 3) A package that makes the most fiscal sense after #1 and #2 are satisfied. As for me, I am not in the aerospace or defense industry. So, I do not have any preconceived ideas about this subject.
I would like to add to this thread the following:
What do you feel are the features of the packages that we have discussed (even those we have not discussed) that make them more useful than any other package. I do not think that this should be a negative, just back up what you say with something substantial.
Any positive comments?
By the way, If this is not the place to have this professional discussion, then where would that place exist? I really enjoy this forum. Heck, I have enjoyed this thread more can you can imagine be we need to keep this positive moving forward.
Chris
RE: FEA program opinions?
1. Support: They more responsive for support than any other FEA company I have ever dealt with. The support staff is very knowledgeable and they can answer questions that even the experts here with 30+ years playing with Nastran can not. My applications tend to be complicated. Lots of prestressed cables and pipes and they have been very good at supporting me. If can not get the model to run, they ask me to send it over. If I can, I do and they fix it and send it back. If I can not (proprietary, classified, etc.) they ask for details, they create a similar model and show me how they did it. I call and someone answers the phone and is ready to help. I email and someone emails back that day with a response I can use to fix the problem. When I was evaluating Algor I could only get support from a sales person so I could not evaluate that. A friend of mine that used Algor before he came here said their support took days and was often staffed with interns. Just someone else’s comments. I am sure Garland has a better handle on Algor’s support and will give it. I am just saying that I have never seen a company so dedicated to supporting customers. They seem to always be there and very willing to help.
2. Enhancements: They have been very good at putting in enhancements that we have requested (and others we should have requested). Again, we do very specialized types of analysis and have unique requirements. We suggest something and 4 weeks later it is in a beta we can try out. I could not believe this because in the past when dealing with MSC either it got ignored or it took 2 years or more and was not exactly what we needed (and no opportunity to try it our before it was in production). I know we are not the only customers they do this for. Of course not everything that we have asked for they put in immediately. Some of the more complicated things we know they are working on but will take longer. Other requests they say may not be possible in the next release. Overall I am very impressed, again as compared to other companies.
3. Cost: I would never have been able to sell this to management without making a cost justification. When we looked at what MSC costs and figured in maintenance for 3 years NE was about half the price. We know good support will save us time and money so we weighed this heavily. I have been burned in the past with other FEA companies on support. Nothing is more frustrating than not being able to get a model to run when you are up against a deadline. Again see #1 above.
4. Great product: Their product (NEiNastran) is absolutely fantastic. I am able to run huge models in hours that would normally take days with MSC. I can use large parabolic tet meshes and not worry about mesh refinement and get answers fast with accuracy. I can get data quickly in the format I need it in to generate reports. The modeler supports the other CAE tools I use and the Editor is very helpful in making quick changes and performing trade studies. This product has doubled my productivity...simply put!
These are some of my “opinions”. I hope this helps someone. Others I work with share similar feelings.
Garland, I would like to apologize for being offensive in previous postings. That was not my intention. My objective for spending my lunch hour responding here is to help.
RE: FEA program opinions?
Please consider the hatchet buried...and not in one of us! I echo STRONGLY your statements comparing MSC Nastran to NENastran. MSC is expensive, and, in my opinion, less functional (plane stress)...this is based on a review about a year and a half ago.
Three years ago, I would have agreed with you about the support from Algor. They had a salesman to sell you the software, a different salesman to support the software (BAD Idea!...the support guys had to figure out what the sales guy said to get you to buy the software and the sales guys could say anything) and getting tech support took as much as 3 days!!!! A virtual killer for any company!
A reorganization about a year ago has improved things dramatically. One point of contact who has a designated tech person and a back-up. I generally get a response during my phone call and certainly by the end of the day.
Even with the relationship that I've had with Algor over the years, I recommend NENastran in aerospace applications and for new consultants who will need to interface with a variety of clients that may each need a different "flavor" of FEA package.
I think functionally, NENastran and Algor are comparable. Because of this, if the analysis is for in-house use, I recommend the "low-bidder" (my defense contrator background).
I "grew up" with Algor, which is very different from NENastran. It was difficult for me to follow the logic of FEMAP in building the models and I felt like there was a lot more bookkeeping tracking which properties went with which material which went with which element...I didn't think it was very evident without some digging. What I REALLY liked was the way FEMAP kept the geometry and the mesh separate...a HUGE boost if you anticipate several modifications to your design over time. If you are new to the FEA world, the bookkeeping will be natural.
I am now an independent consultant and work closely with NENastran, COSMOS, and Algor users. I'm less comfortable with COSMOS. NENastran has become comfortable and I agree...it is a fantastic product. Algor's engine and post-processor is fantastic...their pre-processor has improved remarkably over the past year.
There's some of my opinions...sorry to take your lunch hour, Frank. I look forward to our future technical exchanges.
Garland
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
I, for one, really appreciate the time others take to help spread their experience & knowledge. I noticed that nobody really supports COSMOS (after testing DesignStar 4.5, I can sort of understand why). Any other opinions on these packages or expecially ones that have not been brought to the table?
Chris Foley
Midland, TX
RE: FEA program opinions?
Now we feel special ;)
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
Frank
RE: FEA program opinions?
http
http://www
http://ww
http://www.feadomain.com/General.html
RE: FEA program opinions?
ht
Hope this helps
RE: FEA program opinions?
Roi eng is located in Toronto and Montreal. Me I'm closed to Montreal
Bye
RE: FEA program opinions?
RE: FEA program opinions?
OK. I will say something positive about it. It is fast but so is NEiNastran and COSMOS because they all use the same PCGLSS solvers.
RE: FEA program opinions?
Thanks for the link!
After researching all of these options, I don't think FEA falls into my budget. This will allow me to step into FEA while recuperating from my workstation & design software purchase.
RE: FEA program opinions?
RE: FEA program opinions?
Thanks,
Gurmeet
RE: FEA program opinions?
RE: FEA program opinions?
I have used ANSYS and now use ABAQUS. First of all, ABAQUS is a very powerfull program. The problem with that is, in my opinion, ABAQUS is not as user friendly as what you are use to from ANSYS. The ABAQUS people, I think tend to forget not everyone running FEA is a Phd. The user interface in ANSYS is better because it seems they have spent more money on it. ABAQUS on the other hand seems to be less marketing and more solving hard problems. In the end, it will probably be your personal preference which decides it for you.
Mark
RE: FEA program opinions?
In general, Ansys appeals to the lower end of the market. Abaqus offers much more than that, and at times you need that.
corus
RE: FEA program opinions?
"In general, Ansys appeals to the lower end of the market."
I disagree with such consideration. I was expecting to read the reasons for such conclusion, but it seems I hoped too much. In fact, it was a surprise to see 55 posts with 5 stars on a question translated like "best fea please!". Such a sublime ignorance didn't receive the right answer/question: what is your problem you want to resolve?. Because there is no "panacea" program to cope with all the problems you encounter. In the nuclear field we build our programs to deal with the highly non-linearity problems. Does this means that ANSYS or ABAQUS are not good ? Of course not, they are excellent programs for what they were build to do.
This is just an opinion, nothing more than that.
RE: FEA program opinions?
I certainly hope your "bark is worse than your bite". While I agree with your comments regarding the need to support a position as well as your position with regards to Ansys, the original question was "best fea (that works with SolidWorks) please!". This is an offshoot of a thread from another forum. I suggested MechElement send it here so that he received a broader base of opinions, rather than the opinions from the software forum in which he originally posted.
The thread evolved around post 30 or so to become a general "Which FEA program do you like best" thread. As "one of the 5 stars", I would like to defend the thread as being filled with supported opinions and suggest that you read posts from fkmeyers, GBor (me), and others. To a few people with no knowledge of FEA, the posts have been quite valuable , and, quite frankly, after more than 10 years in this business, I continue to learn from these threads.
Be careful how you speak on these forums...one day you may work for one of us.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
RE: FEA program opinions?
without frustration
the happy man of Ansys
Bye or Ciao bella
RE: FEA program opinions?
First of all, I spoke frankly, as you maybe observed, and I didn't attack anyone. If you beleive that, then you are in a wrong position.
PS About hiring, think twice, you'll never know...
RE: FEA program opinions?
As for hiring, my #1 client is my former employer...not only do I already know, I wouldn't have it any other way.
fkmeyers,
Thanks for the support.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
Incidentally, I didn't see your support for the following:
"In general, Ansys appeals to the lower end of the market."
I disagree with such consideration.
Why exactly do you disagree...I haven't used Ansys, so I'm curious.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
First. Yes, I disagree with the way corus gave the sentence without any explanation. This was a valuable help ? In my opimion, not at all. And yes, I cheched before who corus is and I saw that is a person with high activity. Therefore my expectation was clearly motivated.
Second. The "sublime ignorance" made reference to THAT TYPE OF QUESTION (the original was FEA programs opinions), and NOT to the answers of the members in the forum. Search the forums and you''ll find a lot of "these questions" in disguise. And I stated "that type of question" didn't receive the right answer. What I did was to gave a such answer. Please, read again my post GBor.
Finally, I didn't intent to prove any "superiority". Others did. Ask them.
RE: FEA program opinions?
corus
RE: FEA program opinions?
I like Ansys because it helps me a lot in a field I will define a "harder" one. But I not refuse to use another tool which will give me better results. And I have a such example with ... yes, ABAQUS. And sometimes, I found Timoshenko's books to be my best friend. But this is another discussion and I will stop here.
RE: FEA program opinions?
The FEMAP pre-processor has literally enabled us to DO FEA jobs we would not otherwise have gotten (converting to and from ANSYS, for example).
On top of that, their support is second to none. They literally hold your hand all the way through, and they almost become a part of your team...
By the way, I do not work for them...
RE: FEA program opinions?
RE: FEA program opinions?
I am given the task of evaluating and purchasing an FEA package for our company. Searching google, I came across your discussion group. I was impressed enough to join Engineering-tips. I would like to thank you all for providing so much useful information. I spent 3 hours in FEMLAB sale/educational course today. I had some questions that seemed not to have straight forward answers. We are making towing hooks, which are welded to the pulling vehicles. My objective is to find an FEA package that can handle "welds", non-homogenious material, and non-linear deformation. Of course it would be nice to look beyond my curent project and find something that can handle incompressible fluid flow.
After reading the above inputs, I am inclined to call Noran Engineering in the morning. All comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.
RE: FEA program opinions?
Another feature we have used for modeling welds in NEiNastran is their surface contact weld elements. These are not as good as continuous meshed parts for stress around the weld but are very easy to set up and modify. For example, we need to locate the fittings on the dome and did not want to build a bunch of models so all we did is build one model and used surface contact to connect the fittings to the dome. Then we could just move them around in FEMAP without re-meshing anything and run different configurations to assess the optimal location of each fitting. This was a huge time saver. Once the fittings were located we created the continuous meshed models for test support and flight loads verification.
RE: FEA program opinions?
> In general, generally speaking in a general manner, I'd think that ANSYS has greater mass market appeal, but fewer capabilities than those programs that are generally at the top end of the market which can, generally, tackle those harder probelms, if generally required to do so, generally.
> To that end, if ANSYS isn't at the top end of the market then, logically, it must generally appeal to the lower end of the market, in my opinion, generally.
I'd have to disagree with that very generalising statement regarding ANSYS' position in the market. Yes, ANSYS does have great mass market appeal, but in my view there are a couple of fundamental reasons for this: (1) its marketing strategy (2) its capability as a code/engineering tool. The marketing by ANSYS is very agressive, and they sell licences by the truck load, especially Workbench. Why does it sell so well? Because simply it is such an excellent engineering analysis tool that people enjoy and trust. Being a staunch ABAQUS man for many years (there are a few here too), I was "forced" to use ANSYS about 5 years ago, and admit I hated using it at first; it was tempramental, buggy and just didn't feel like you would ever get the hang of it. However, for me now there is no other tool I would choose to use. I've done so much linear and non-linear work with this code: seismic/shock (response spectrum/t-h), dynamic transient, modal, time-history, contact, plasticity: every time I use it, it's right on the money in terms of asking it to do what I want. It has everything: programming flexibility (APDL is amazing), functionality, high-end capabilities (user materials/elements, state of the art contact algorithms and element formulations...) the lot: just as ABAQUS does. Which brings me on to the second point. I don't believe that today's ANSYS code can be considered a low-end tool, not with the Multi-Physics/Mechanical environment. Absolutely not. A few years ago yes, I would've held my hands up to agree with you, and would've said ABAQUS beats it for high-end capability no problem. Things have changed now. ANSYS' non-linear capabilities are now up there with ABAQUS - I'm not saying they're better, because that's far too difficult to quantify, but in terms of putting them side-by-side and saying: "So what can each of these codes do?" there's not much between them nowadays. And, of course, something doesn't get mass market appeal in our industry because it's a low-end code, it becomes popular (in this context) because it works, and engineers/analysts/customers trust it. Engineers are such a critical bunch (!), in a dod-eat-dog business, and they don't use if they don't trust it.
There is a bit of disclaimer here though, and that is ANSYS Workbench. This needs some work (in fact, it needs lots of work), and probably falls into the category described by corus above. Fair comment.
I'd be interested to know whether the people who've given negative remarks about ANSYS have ever used ANSYS previously for any length of time?
Cheers,
-- drej --
btw: Congratulations to the boys at Liverpool FC: European Champions!! Well done.
------------
See FAQ569-1083 for details on how to make best use of Eng-Tips.com
RE: FEA program opinions?
One thing you did bring up is the number of bugs that you find in a program. Every program I've used has them, and will no doubt will continue to do so. It's whether or not you can get around the bugs or, if they're that bad, do you have to wait for the next version for that bug to be fixed, and then only to find new ones. Unfortunately salesmen don't show you the bug list when you buy a program.
Liverpool had lots of bugs by the way, but their customer support was excellent, generally.
corus
RE: FEA program opinions?
As for the incompressible fluid flow, make sure any package that you look at can handle the Reynolds numbers you expect to see. Most packages offer some level of Fluids analysis and they will sometimes call it "incompressible fluid flow", but they are generally very limited in their Reynolds numbers until you start talking to Fluid specialty softwares.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
RE: FEA program opinions?
ABAQUS. MSC/Nastran has some special capabilities
to deal with aerospace structures.
For metal forming, and crash-type analysis, I like
to use LS-Dyna3D.
I used COSMOS, ADINA et. al., they have very
limited analysis capabilities, and I doubt their
claims for their code. If they are good,
why do they have so few users?
RE: FEA program opinions?
- Aerodynamics
- High speed non linear structural events (like impacts)
the software needs to give reasonable results.
We have reduced our choice to ALGOR, ANSYS and MSC software. What is your opinion.
There is also the possibility of other softwares, please give me your advice.
There are also good solutions, like abaqus but they do not have fluid dynamics and buying to different packages forces to learn working in two different ambients.
Thanks
RE: FEA program opinions?
I am curious as to how you reduced your list of contenders to the 3 mentioned. Have you evaluated any of these packages? I was not aware that ALGOR or ANSYS had aerodynamics. I assume you mean CFD which is different as it pertains to Nastran.
With FEMAP (the NE/Nastran modeler) you would have a common interface for both the CFD with TMG and Nastran for nonlinear impact. Most FEA products have different codes for CFD and structural eventhough they are operated under the same interface.
I do not think high speed impact is one of Algor's strengths, neither is CFD so I would not recommend Algor here.
I would look at ANSYS and NE/Nastran if I were you.
Don
RE: FEA program opinions?
thanks for your reply. I did not understand your comment about CFD and aerodynamics. Is it important for the selection?...
Do you think NE/Nastran (from Noran Engineering) is a good software for my application?
And do you have other software in mind?
Regards
RE: FEA program opinions?
I wouldn't so quickly dismiss Algor, but I would definitely compare it to NE/Nastran to see which is the better solution for your needs. I also see you posting this in another forum and discussing MSC.Marc. I am a proponent of NE/Nastran when compared with MSC products. NE/Nastran and Algor are bitter rivals in the FEA market, so ask some very pointed, deep questions of each of them.
As for the importance of CFD vs. aerodynamics, you can package different products in different ways and still have the same capability. This is why the questions need to be deep and pointed -- ask about HOW things are calculated...figure out the physics that the software is using. What generally comes along with the repackaging is ease of use for a particular application and an increase in price. For instance, most packages these days have some form of contact, but some packages separate it into extensible elements, contractable elements, springs, etc. All of these elements are generally based on the same basic element of a truss to which you can apply a stress-strain curve, but they make it easier and generally converge better unless you know what you are doing with the curve. If your application is specifically and forever will be aerodynamics, NE/Nastran has a specific set-up to address this area and it may be worth the pricetag.
Back to Algor, I've used it for many years in impact situations. I have dropped things, thrown things, and hit things, but generally under what I would consider low-speed. I would be leary of simulating a bullet penetrating a target, but not of an automobile impacting a crash barrier at 60 mph. I've also used Algor for 2-D flow over a wing...I'm certainly no expert, but someone that is seemed satisfied with the results. I've seen the 3-D side and it looks extremely powerful.
If these software companies want your business (and in the current market, I think they do), devise a simple test in line with what you are trying to do and ask each of the packages that you are interested in to run them. If one of them refuses, you have to ask yourself what kind of support you will get. If they run them, ask what platform they ran them on (computer capability) and then ask if they could couple the analyses (could they take the fluids results and couple them with the structural analysis). Make sure the simulations are something for which you can perform a hand calculation to compare the results, and, finally, ask for a demo...see if you can get your hands on the software and figure anything out.
You're not asking for a small package. To do CFD and non-linear impact, you will have a pretty nicely priced package of $20,000 - $25,000 US or more. These software vendors should spend some time with you.
My 2 cents are probably worth about 1-1/2.
RE: FEA program opinions?
I expected integration with CAD packages to be important but all the codes I reviewed did this with ease, accepting that 2d geometry translation is easier than 3d.
Price is irrelevent if it can't solve the problem and yes, I have managers grin like a Cheshire Cat (English phrase) by cute colours and animations on cheap packages. In the end via some deft negotiation a significant cost reduction was obtained. My experience with MARC support in the UK is simply that it is excellent.
In summary, when you want a FEA package check out the software with analysts not the salesmen. Do your homework and benchmark the codes at the software vendors (they should be better than you so if they can't do it, don't bother to try yourself). Get a evaluation copy of the code and have a play; I did this with ANSYS and COSMOS to compare with my experience of other codes. Negotiate a hard price; vendors want to make a sale rather than walk away - end of quarters are good as the bonuses ae due ! But never ever take the advice of a saleman or another engineer unless you've tried it yourself.
If this has helped anyone it was worth typing it.
CHE
RE: FEA program opinions?
As for costs our package was about 1/3 the cost of MSC for a new license and we justified the switch based on the maintenance we were paying MSC which was close to the NE Nastran list price for a new seat.
I agree, evaluate each product but cost should never be the only consideration. Never buy as a results of a sales persons late minute deal. Those deals are always bad deals because you are forced into a decision without the proper time to evaluate. That sounds like it is happening here. Becareful.
RE: FEA program opinions?
Noran was very responsive, and worked with me on price, found a good solution for the CFD requirement, and also worked out a payment plan that helped me get the purchase approved. The Ansys reseller (OhioCAE) was also very responsive, and had a superior CFD package, although I felt Ansys Workbench was a little weak (no beam elements) and the Ansys price break was still not a match for NEiNastran. I've used both MSC and NE/Nastran, both with a FEMAP front end, and I didn't really notice any difference between the two, other than better customer and technical support from Noran.
If you state your industry and types of problems you want to solve, you might get more detailed advice on these packages. You should definitely request a demo copy of the software to use, and have each vendor solve one of your problems.
RE: FEA program opinions?
although there has been some flames here in, I read this thread with great interest. I was shocked by some opinions circulating about ANSYS, and I'll tell you why.
I personally did a lot of analyses with Cosmos/Works and Cosmos/M (for the non-linear sims), in the meantime trying to keep "up-to-date" with Ansys world. Now, in the company I work for, two FEA packages are treated as "reference" for all the FEA work (we also use in-house programs and a LOT of analytical spreadsheets). Both are considered to be "absolutely high-end".
These packages are ANSYS and ABAQUS. To be honest, Ansys is THE reference, and Abaqus is used by only one division mainly for "historical" reasons.
I personally do have the feeling of Ansys being a really high-end program, for a lot of reasons but mainly:
- you can not set up an analysis in Ansys without knowing exactly what you are doing: the program makes very little if not no assumptions at all, you MUST have complete control over the physicity of the problem you are trying to investigate: garbage in, garbage out... And it's not easy to give garbage to Ansys because your analysis would not run at all!!! I haven't been in these fora for a long time, but I think if you read Drej's (and others) posts in the Ansys forum you will have an idea of what I mean...
- you control every aspect of the program: an example has already been made in this thread and regards Contacts. Contact parameters in Ansys are the most complex and complete I've seen until now, Cosmos/Works is a toy in comparison...
- there is an ENORMOUS database of element types, each tuned for a particular application, and each with extremely strict and solid mathematical / theoretical basis underlying
- the calculated results have been benchmarked several times by my company against real prototypes, and the accuracy of the predictions always was extremely high: accurate at a point that the company has stated, in an internal prescription note, that for some critical components the FEA analysis made with Ansys can substitute entirely a prototype test: we know the error will be less than some 0.5% or so... Moreover, the same benchmarking made with Abaqus showed that, even Abaqus' results were in the same accuracy range, they tended to be a bit less conservative than Ansys' ones. So, being safety one of our major concerns, it's one more reason to rely on Ansys...
- although it's not "strong" in one particular field, Ansys is perhaps the most powerful general-purpose FEA I can figure out, nowadays. I'm dealing right now with a transient earthquake analysis of a complex structure (hydraulic turbine + generator assembly) full of intrinsic non-linearities (non-holonomic restraints, absorbers, etc...) and, though with a lot of difficulties (Drej knows something about it...
So, definitely, you may consider me an Ansys "fanatic", but I love this program and I claim that it absolutely must be considered one of the high-end FEA kings...
Workbench is another thing (sigh...), but Ansys has claimed that the objective is to incorporate in WB all the Ansys Classical capabilities, so let's hope for the future... And, anyway, you can interoperate between WB and Classical.
Cheers to everybody!
RE: FEA program opinions?
These codes are often collections of other programs developed by universities or internally from different disconnected groups and often slapped together with little understanding of how they will interact. Often the objective is just to have a check box in a product data sheet even though that feature may only be supported for one element type that no one uses. Having several Nastrans competing will only make it an even better product. You can say what you want about Algor and Cosmos, but there is no way you will convince me that these are superior when one considers all that went into nastran and still does every cycle. If the difference is only a few 1000 dollars then there is no reason not to get it. If the difference is 3-4x the cost then ask yourself what am I getting and is it a good investment and will it handle all the problems I may encounter in the future. Cost should be the last consideration for something so important as an FEA solver. Accuracy and robustness should be the first. I argue that these other codes lack this. Again, just my opinion if I can express this in this forum. I am not trying to offend anyone so if I did I appologize.
RE: FEA program opinions?
Many have expressed a like for Nastran and I am no different. I like the way the various Nastran codes handle different coordinate systems (something Algor recently included that Nastran has been doing for years) and the results are rarely questioned even though, as for all of these codes, they should be. But I must say that the global statements that you made regarding all Nastrans bring into question just how well you really know the Nastran market.
NENastran, as I understand it, generated their own code. They are proud of the developments that they have made and improvements over MSC Nastran (my particular favorite is 2-D plain stress). This is something that you've had to "fool" the MSC processor to do over the years. Since NENastran has emerged with this over the last decade (and I do believe you can get the right answers when this product is placed in the right hands), how could there have been 30 years of development? And some of the other codes that are named "Nastran" may not even have a true Nastran core? What exactly allows someone to call their product XXXXXXXXXX Nastran? Does it have to be based on the original NASA code? Cosmic Nastran? Or some more recent deviation such as NENastran?
If I develop a product from scratch, base it on some of the fundamental Newton-Raphson analytical methods and call it GENastran, will I immediately get the same high praise?
Admittedly Algor made some mistakes early on in their marketing...particularly in the Aerospace market, but they've been in business developing their software, including an in-house pre and post processor, for 25 years...I hope the learning curve starts to flatten out on the processors after a couple of decades, although I recognize the advancements made in computer technology, particularly in the area of graphics for pre and post processing. Incidentally, Algor has an AlgNastran product...is it Nastran? Does it get the benefit of your praise?
I would also say that NENastran and Algor are bitter competitors...NENastran, I don't think, is worried, nor should it be, about MSCNastran. In other words, it isn't competition between flavors of Nastran that are improving the product.
As for COSMOS...pretty cold blooded to shoot it down so readily. It's been used for a couple of decades in some pretty calculation intensive industries. I do think it is slowly falling behind and that the thing that will keep it alive is it's union with SolidWorks, but to suggest that a good analyst couldn't get the right answers from it for anything other than linear statics, and then that they better have another FE program result to back it up? OUCH! I've seen some pretty fancy non-linear analysis performed on COSMOS. I did duplicate it with NENastran and with Algor, not because I didn't trust it, but because the team with which I was working wanted substantial evidence to comfort our clients nerves about the project.
As for money sometimes driving decisions, not all of us have unlimited resources in our small businesses. We look for value (note: not price, but rather capability for the price). This is where, in my opinion, MSC has lost the edge. NENastran does at least as much, seemingly at least as well, and for a fraction of the price.
Don't mistake my wordiness for being offended...I REALLY like NENastran and Algor. Quite frankly, though, when it comes to "robustness" and "accuracy", you said nothing of Ansys or Abaqus. Your thoughts on these?
RE: FEA program opinions?
ALG/Nastran is a simply Algor with a Nastran translator to convert the input deck to Algor's internal format and can not seriously be considered a Nastran. Their use of the name "Nastran" is simply a marketing ploy as they are very good at advertising and promoting their products. This is a fact and not my opinion.
If you like Algor and have some Nastran bulk data files to run it could be useful but should never be used as a replacement for Nastran. MSC, NX, and NE produce very similar results for complex models with lots of rigid elements, MPC equations, complex response loading, etc. All three have evolved and changed a lot from their initial offerings both in element formulation and solver technology.
I agree with your comments that NENastran is the best of all 3. Thanks for your response.
Hans
RE: FEA program opinions?
Your comment about ALG/Nastran has to be your opinion because it is certainly NOT fact, although it is true that they created a Nastran bulk data file translator a few years ago (long before the discussions with NENastran regarding a teaming arrangement went REALLY Badly...now they are bitter rivals -- and I do mean BITTER!). The translator works pretty well, but I would want the ability to check the model in the Nastran pre-processor of choice before sending it to a client.
As for the evolution of MSC, NX, and NE: MSC has had time to evolve over the past 30 years. In my opinion, it hasn't evolved enough. NE, on the other end, has evolved rapidly, but it hasn't been in the market long enough for me to be comfortable with the rapid changes, but I don't use it everyday, so I'm not as familiar with its bugs and work-arounds.
I do agree with your comments about Ansys and Abaqus, but would suggest that ALL of these codes have their shortcomings...hence the need for a "toolbox"...not just a hammer! I actually think there is some good in being a little difficult to use...it means that not everyone will run out and design a bridge without having a clue what they are doing.
Anyway, I believe this comment closes out my thoughts on all of this...after 85 posts, any thread deserves a rest! Enjoy!
RE: FEA program opinions?
You seem to have a lot of interesting info on Algor. Do you or did you work there for a while? I was talking to a friend of mine that just dumped Algor and he says that the Nastran interface is just a simple translator to Algor. So I guess that confirms what Hans is saying. I do not blame Algor for coming up with this idea. MSC is doing it with Marc and UGS with Adina. It seems like a popular concept these days but I guess you never really know then what code is solving your problem.
RE: FEA program opinions?