FEMAP vs PATRAN 1

[drk186]

O.K. First of all, I know this thread already exists, but I want to know what people these days prefer? I have 2.5 solid years of MSC.Patran experience and I thought it was the best pre/post processor that existed. I just recently started using FEMAP (4 months ago) at my new job and I was very impressed.

Some of the reasons why I prefer FEMAP over MSC.Patran are:

1) FEMAP interfaces well with Microsoft Excel. For example, you can copy over lists of elements/nodes as columns into Excel, do some data processing, then copy an updated list back into FEMAP. I find this a lot more difficult to deal with in Patran. FEMAP also seems to have a miniature spreadsheet capability (i.e. the Data Table) that is very helpful for post-processing.

2) Post-processing is incredibly easier with FEMAP (highly biased opinion). It is so easy to envelope all load cases in FEMAP.

3) The coloring scheme in FEMAP for the elements makes it a hell of a lot easier to visualize your model. Patran's coloring scheme sucks. I like how you could modify the coloring scheme by property which is very useful. Since I deal with a lot of composite materials, element orientation is something I need to constantly check and fix, and FEMAP does an amazing job at this, especially with defining bar element orientation vectors, element offsets, and releases.

These are just a few of my thoughts. Of course, NASTRAN or some other solver is the reason why we use PATRAN or FEMAP (or other pre.post processors such as Hypermesh & IDEAS). One weakness I find with FEMAP is that it's difficult to setup Frequency response analysis (large mass method) and I end up writing the NASTRAN deck manually.

Any thoughts, anyone? It is interesting to know what people think (particularly of the newer FEMAP and PATRAN versions) Your thoughts on other pre and post processors are welcome as well.

Thanks in advance.

 

[gwolf2]

Groan, please don't drag this one up again - it's been discussed to death.

 

[ThomasH]

This has, as already stated, been discussed before. But I don't agree that the subject is "dead".

I have been working with Femap for many years. When it was sold by MSC.Software as MSC.Nastran for Windows (bundled with MSC.Nastran) if was often treated as a "little brother" to the mighty Patran. I'm not sure that description as accurate any more.

For one thing, the development of Patran seems to be very slow. In my opinion Femap evolves significantly between versions. But I can't have any opinion regarding Patran.

Another thing, when N4W "crashed" we were offered MSC.FEA instead. Obviously MSC.FEA was better because it was Patran etc etc. Believe me, I'm not here to bash Patran. I really don't have any informed opinion about it at all. But the situation at the time was strange.
However, I've noticed that Femap v10.1 seem to have some of the capabilities that made Patran "superiour" when I checked it out. I'm not sure because I don't have v10.1 yet, I've only seen the "videos" on SIEMENS site.

There are a lot of thing I like in Femap. Like the new meshing toolbox. The capabilities in communication between different solvers. Possibilities when it comes to change the interface and API-programming. And the fact that it is a "real" Windows software.

drk186: When it comes to setting up frequency responce, I'm pretty sure you can do it in Femap. When I worked with N4W I couldn't edit the bulk data directly. Everything had to go trough Femap and it usually could/can be done. Sometimes it is much easier to edit the Nastrn deck directly but Femap can usually do it as well.

Regards

Thomas

 

[kellnerp]

There are FEMAP and PATRAN fora on Eng-Tips. See what kinds of things users run into.

"The best tool is the tool you know best."
My manager 20 years ago.

TOP
CSWP, BSSE

http://www.engtran.com

http://www.niswug.org

"Node news is good news."

 

[AndyFEMAP]

drk186,

In order to create a frequency response through the FEMAP GUI using the Large Mass Method, the whole key in version 10.0.2 and below is to use the "Model, Load, Dynamic Analysis" command in FEMAP to set up the parameters for the analysis.

You can choose to do a Direct Frequency or Modal Frequency and FEMAP will enable fields in the dialog box which are approriate for these types of analysis.

An especially useful button in this dialog box is the Enforced Motion... button, which allows you to:
1. Enter a location for the base mass
2. Choose nodes for the base mass to be connected via rigid element
3. Specify an acceleration or rotational acceleration value, which will create the appropriate force/moment at the base node
4. Specify the Mass and Accelration Scale Factors.

In version 10.1, this process is somewhat similar, except that you would want to use the new "Model, Load, Enforce Motion" command, which takes you through all the same steps as described above, then set the appropriate analysis options for frequency response using the "Dynamic Control Options" dialog box in the Analysis Set Manager with the Analysis Type set to "4..Frequency/Harmonic Response".