ShadowWarrior
Civil/Environmental
I was looking multiscale modeling software for composites and these two caught my eye, DIGIMAT and MultiMech. Anybody have any experience using them? What is the difference between these two?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Comparison between DIGIMAT and MultiMech?
- Thread starter ShadowWarrior
- Start date
- Status
Both Digimat and MultiMech are multiscale codes to enhance standard FEA through multiscaling. The main difference is Digimat is based on analytical formula for the microstructural response (Mori-Tanaka), while MultiMech uses FE microstructures.
I use MultiMech because of their microstructural damage mechanisms, and microstructural design flexibility. It tends to be more computationally demanding, but yields more accurate and detailed results.
Digimat uses an analytical model (Mori-Tanaka) to predict the local composite behavior. Mori-Tanaka is a good micromechanical model for 2 phase particle analysis. But if you want to consider geometry of particles, spatial distributions of particles and take into account the interactions of particles with a medium, Mori-tanaka would not be accurate. The simulation will take less time as Individual mechanisms of damage and failure are blended into a single criteria but the results will be less reliable outside the assumptions of the model.
Digimat’s setup requires some coupon level testing to calibrate the model, making the modelling semi-empirical. Apart from having the capacity to handle semi-empirical modelling, MultiMech requires deeper knowledge of the individual components of the composites, basically giving you the capacity to model the constituents directly.
MultiMech is more powerful tool if you are interested in detailed analysis. As the complexity of your constitutive components go up, reliability on analytical micromechanical model would go down. Finite element analysis is advantageous in such scenarios.
I am currently using MultiMech for analysing nanocomposites (in fiber reinforced composites) and so far it is working out to be good. And apart from that people at MultiMech are really friendly and always ready to help!
I use MultiMech because of their microstructural damage mechanisms, and microstructural design flexibility. It tends to be more computationally demanding, but yields more accurate and detailed results.
Digimat uses an analytical model (Mori-Tanaka) to predict the local composite behavior. Mori-Tanaka is a good micromechanical model for 2 phase particle analysis. But if you want to consider geometry of particles, spatial distributions of particles and take into account the interactions of particles with a medium, Mori-tanaka would not be accurate. The simulation will take less time as Individual mechanisms of damage and failure are blended into a single criteria but the results will be less reliable outside the assumptions of the model.
Digimat’s setup requires some coupon level testing to calibrate the model, making the modelling semi-empirical. Apart from having the capacity to handle semi-empirical modelling, MultiMech requires deeper knowledge of the individual components of the composites, basically giving you the capacity to model the constituents directly.
MultiMech is more powerful tool if you are interested in detailed analysis. As the complexity of your constitutive components go up, reliability on analytical micromechanical model would go down. Finite element analysis is advantageous in such scenarios.
I am currently using MultiMech for analysing nanocomposites (in fiber reinforced composites) and so far it is working out to be good. And apart from that people at MultiMech are really friendly and always ready to help!
- Thread starter
- #3
ShadowWarrior
Civil/Environmental
The main difference is Digimat is based on analytical formula for the microstructural response (Mori-Tanaka), while MultiMech uses FE microstructures.
This is the main point, thank you for clarifying in detail!
It tends to be more computationally demanding
How demanding we are talking about? Say, for the same mori-tanka RVE definition for bulk macro-structure, how many times will it require to finish the job using MultiMech?
I am currently using MultiMech for analysing nanocomposites (in fiber reinforced composites)
What are the licensing options? And more importantly, what is the offer for academic research use?
And finally, does MultiMech support Explicit dynamics (LS-Dyna or ABAQUS/Explicit)?
This is the main point, thank you for clarifying in detail!
It tends to be more computationally demanding
How demanding we are talking about? Say, for the same mori-tanka RVE definition for bulk macro-structure, how many times will it require to finish the job using MultiMech?
I am currently using MultiMech for analysing nanocomposites (in fiber reinforced composites)
What are the licensing options? And more importantly, what is the offer for academic research use?
And finally, does MultiMech support Explicit dynamics (LS-Dyna or ABAQUS/Explicit)?
How demanding we are talking about?
Compared to Mori-Tanaka, it might require 30% more runtime/memory on average.
What are the licensing options for MultiMech?
Low-cost licensing options are available for Academia. They seem to be very interested in promoting micromechanical research of composites. I'm not sure about Digimat cost, but hear it's quite expensive.
Compared to Mori-Tanaka, it might require 30% more runtime/memory on average.
What are the licensing options for MultiMech?
Low-cost licensing options are available for Academia. They seem to be very interested in promoting micromechanical research of composites. I'm not sure about Digimat cost, but hear it's quite expensive.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question