Need assistance finding the right FEA/CAE package 2

[TehMightyEngineer]

I'm sure this has been asked before but I've yet to come up with a truly accurate answer to my question(s) so I'll just ask here.

The company I work for does an extremely wide variety of engineering consulting. The relevant ones are things like pressure vessel design (ASME), tank and silo design (API and similar), equipment framework (steel), complex steel structural analysis (bent/damaged beams, odd custom shapes, complex designs requiring contact elements, etc.), below-the-hook lifting devices, cranes and monorails, shafts and drives, pressure piping, steel structures, pipe supports, and on and on. The ability to do reinforced concrete design would be a big plus but is not necessary.

Currently we're scrapping by with hand calculations and basic linear elastic FEA analysis using Staad.Pro but this is clearly not efficient on our end and is limiting the work we can do. We're at the point where we can't avoid buying a true FEA package capable of non-linear analysis (both geometric and material), post-buckling analysis, fatigue analysis, residual stresses, mode shapes, contact elements, and so on. As we're a small company our current budget is around $14,000.

We started out looking at CAD based FEA software such as Solidworks combined with Solidworks Simulaton Premium. However, after I've dug into this a little more this might not be the best way to go. Solidworks still seems to be the best bet for CAD but it appears that Solidworks can act as a pre/post processor for most of the major FEA players out there. However, just from past experience it seems that using the same software developer for both the FEA package and the CAD side of the program would make the most sense. It does not appear that Solidworks Simulation is the best FEA package that is in our budget when considering our applications.

Thus, my question what is the best FEA software that meets our budget and also provides the functionality we need?

Solidworks + Abacus is too expensive and Solidworks + Algor appeared to not play as nicely together as one would like. Solidworks + Nastran seemed good but it's really hard to tell. And, yes, once we get closer were going to have all the options demoed and select the most appropriate. This is just so we can help narrow down which FEA packages we should consider demoing.

In addition, we're looking to improve our ability to create complex meshes with ease. Solidworks appears to be the best solution but is there a better one? Is a CAD program even recommended for our applications?

Any pointers in the right direction would be much appreciated.

Maine Professional and Structural Engineer.
(Just passed the 16-hour SE exam, woohoo!)

 

[GregLocock]

"We could buy this and then not use it for 6 months"

I'm not saying you can't do non linear FEA just occasionally, but I have a feeling that you'd never really get to grips with it.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

That was a poor exaggeration. We would likely use this every week if we had it, we use Staad's FEA as much and I'm sure the capabilities of a new FEA program would allow us to use it more rather than less. Projects that would justify it's purchase would probably occur once a month on average with many times per year we would be having multiple projects overlap. Extremely rare circumstances might have us not use it for a few months, but six months is not accurate at all. Also, I would not be the primary user of this software. One of our engineers is quite knowledgeable in FEA analysis and has been doing it for about 20 years using Algor, if I recall.

Maine Professional and Structural Engineer.
(Just passed the 16-hour SE exam, woohoo!)

 

[GregLocock]

Then, so far as I am aware, FEMAP as a preprocessor and postprocessor, and NEi Nastran as a solver, were usually touted as being the cheapest ( and to my mind FEMAP is equal to the best) full power suites. I don't know if they meet your budget, now that Siemens have absorbed them.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Brad805]

Be sure to investigate the file export options carefully for all the software packages if file sharing is possible with your clients. The analysis requires the model geometry and step files are usually dummy solids that are perfect for modeling, but lack the information for analysis. This could be a factor in your decision as the workflow part of the equation will improve dramatically if file sharing is an option. In cases where you are provided a model you could reduce your design time by half.

I totally agree with you on the options aspect. To be competitive we have provided fees with 2D and 3D options and we find exactly the same. What really annoyed me in one case was it was with a long standing client that has seen the advantages of 3D since we started in 2007. I was researching the marketing aspect of this one night and I found a very good Harvard article on the topic of BIM. The author asked a well known developer, since your architect is using BIM are you prepared to pay more for their services? The developer responded, why would I? When I hired them, it was to produce a set of perfect drawings, BIM has not changed that. It is difficult to convince clients of the benefits when they are not that interested in the specifics beyond, how do I achieve X? We try to gauge the clients sophistication level, but you never really know until the chips are down and the topic of money is on the table.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Greg: Good info, I am looking into Femap and nastran but haven't got a quote yet. It's good to hear they are competitively priced and it does appear to be a good fit for us. From everyone's help here I think we've nailed down three options of Solidworks sim, Nastran In-CAD with either solidworks or autodesk, and femap and nastran.

Brad: Very good point, if it's Solidworks that we go with then I just have to verify that we can export it internally to autocad. But if it's something else like femap or autodesk then we should make finding out import and export functionality as a priority.

Maine Professional and Structural Engineer.
(Just passed the 16-hour SE exam, woohoo!)

 

[IceBreakerSours]

Thinking along the price scale only there are a few nonlinear FEA open source codes available but I suspect, at the very least, licensing structure/support/interoperability/customer-side concerns will make such options less appealing as an alternative. Nevertheless, if and only if those issues are not a major concern, an open source alternative may be a good first step until you collect sufficient evidence in the next 6 months to a year on how often nonlinear FE projects come along your way. There are a few 'good' choices out there.

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

 

[IRstuff]

Here's one open source FEA package:

http://www.calculixforwin.com/?page_id=7

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Ice: I have considered it but initially ruled it out because, where we're looking for efficiency in design, problems related to licensing structure/support/interoperability/customer-side concerns as you said make it appear to be less attractive. You are right though that it's worth a look and I will add some of them to the list to look at.

IRstuff: Thanks for the link. I took a quick look and on the surface it seemed a little too... unofficial (for lack of a better term). I'll look into this more, but I don't think this is the direction my boss wants to go but it's still worth a look.

Maine Professional and Structural Engineer.
(Just passed the 16-hour SE exam, woohoo!)

 

[IceBreakerSours]

Calculix is quite good. I have heard good things about FEnICS, Code_Aster, and deal.II as well.

On the commercial front, FEAP may be an affordable alternative. It is maintained by one of the grand-dads of FEA so reliability will not be a concern. But support/flexibility... may still be a significant roadblock.

I am beginning to like LS-DYNA (pre/post processors are free) and the licenses are relatively cheaper (at least, in comparison with Abaqus).

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

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Brad805: As you asked for me to update this when we had made a decision I'm happy to report that we eventually did decide to go with Solidworks + Simulation. It appears to offer the features we need (and a million more that we don't really need). The biggest issue for many of the suggestions that people put forward (thanks everyone, big help) was the overall cost. It was just too much for our budget. This clearly means we're not buying the best product for our needs but I believe we're close enough.

Algore (now Autodesk Simulation Mechanical) was too much for our budget and structSU10's comment about their difficulty in getting it to import models from their CADD software really hurt Autodesk's image for both Algore and Nastran In-CAD. Femap with NX Nastran looked really good but cost-wise didn't have much advantage over Solidworks Simulation. Plus, Simulation's ability to use Solidworks as both the pre and post-processor made a big difference in selling this to my boss from an efficiency improvement standpoint. Nastran In-CAD looked quite good and in the end it was actually slightly cheaper if we had gone that route but where Autodesk had just bought Nastran I got the distinct impression that their support for it would be poor initially. The reseller we talked to didn't even offer training at this point, but did suggest that anyone who trained it when it was NEi Nastran would still offer it. In addition, the aforementioned dislike of having two software companies and relying on their connectivity made it hard to justify any small savings or improved features over Solidworks. Lastly, where Autodesk has their own competitor to Solidworks I would be shocked if they didn't focus a majority (or even all) of their efforts into any Nastran + Inventor features, potentially excluding Solidworks.

As for features, we were quite impressed with the time-saving features offered in Solidworks + Simulation. This is what we feel will enable us to make back the investment in the software and improve our services to our clients. Plus, the pretty pictures generated by Solidworks are always fantastic and it appears it will integrate well into our current design - drafting - submit process. I'm sure we'll also find plenty of uses for it beyond our current scope, such a motor mount vibration analysis or other stuff we sometimes get into. Overall, I believe we made the right choice and I'm sure it will pay itself back eventually, the question is just how soon.

Maine Professional and Structural Engineer.
(Just passed the 16-hour SE exam, woohoo!)