Ansys mechanical (static structural) vs mechanical ADPL
Ansys mechanical (static structural) vs mechanical ADPL
(OP)
Dear members,
I am a bit confused as I am trying to learn structural modelling by my own. I have a static structural problem. I want to model using ansys mechanical "static structural", as I thought this is more user friendly. But most of Ansys tutorials are using Ansys ADPL. It appears the standard solver for beam / structural anslysis is ADPL. I think both these solver are based on FEM modelling, so what is the difference between the two.
If the former is perfectly capable I want to stay with it, as for instance I can easily import pre existing cad files easily; whereas I think this is not possible in ADPL.
Thanks
I am a bit confused as I am trying to learn structural modelling by my own. I have a static structural problem. I want to model using ansys mechanical "static structural", as I thought this is more user friendly. But most of Ansys tutorials are using Ansys ADPL. It appears the standard solver for beam / structural anslysis is ADPL. I think both these solver are based on FEM modelling, so what is the difference between the two.
If the former is perfectly capable I want to stay with it, as for instance I can easily import pre existing cad files easily; whereas I think this is not possible in ADPL.
Thanks





RE: Ansys mechanical (static structural) vs mechanical ADPL
Workbench Mechanical is perfectly capable of doing complex beam analsysis.
RE: Ansys mechanical (static structural) vs mechanical ADPL
As was mentioned earlier, Ansys Workbench Mechanical is most likely completely capable of solving your beam problem. However, some time in the future, you'll probably be faced with a bigger, uglier problem, which uses features that aren't available in the Ansys Workbench GUI, requires you to manipulate the model on the fly, or requires post-processing that is extremely difficult in Workbench. Ansys APDL may be a more difficult interface to learn, but it is also a more powerful way of accessing advanced features in ANSYS and manipulating FE models. Also, once you know APDL, you can take full advantage of the Workbench interface using APDL command snippets, etc.
As far as importing goes, it may be easier (and a good exercise) to build your model with keypoints using APDL if it isn't too big. But, you can certainly bring your CAD files into DesignModeler, manipulate it as necessary, and then bring them into Ansys APDL from there.
Good luck.
RE: Ansys mechanical (static structural) vs mechanical ADPL
RE: Ansys mechanical (static structural) vs mechanical ADPL
RE: Ansys mechanical (static structural) vs mechanical ADPL
http://www.narmafzar24.ir
Engineering Softwares Company
RE: Ansys mechanical (static structural) vs mechanical ADPL
I completely agree Workbench is a good platform (esp. v13). Though, I think to realize the full potential of Workbench, users must learn APDL, and the best way to do that is by spending some time in the Classical Ansys environment.
As you mentioned, there are plenty of capabilities that are available in Workbench which are not available in Classic (a slick CAD interface, linked CFD and structural models, etc.). That said, there is quite a lot of finite element capability that is simply not (easily) accessible in Workbench (nodal or element selection, element table results, controlling element real constants and keyopts, methods of applying complex boundary conditions, sub-modelling, processing results using APDL programming, etc). For an occasional user, Workbench is great. However, serious FEA analysts tend to use the great features that have been added to Ansys over the years, yet haven't made their way into Workbench yet... some of those features will probably never have a GUI interface (I'm REALLY hoping for an eventual command line interface in Workbench).
That's the reason that I recommend that people start with the Classical Ansys interface and then move to the new GUI once they have a feel for APDL. Under the hood, they're both the same FE solver, but knowing APDL gives the user much more freedom in steering the solver to do what they want it to do.
//signed//
Christopher K. Hubley
Mechanical Engineer
Sunpower Incorporated
Athens, Ohio