pro/mechanica vs ansys 2

[brbeck777]

I have been researching Solids and FEA software and have narrowed it down to PRO E for solids and Mechanica and Ansys for fea. I only need analysis software to handle static forces, motor vibration and possibly fatigue. I would appreciate any comments on FEA and Pro-E for solids.

 

[Stringmaker]

I'm not very well versed in Mechanica but I can tell you that Ansys integrates very well with Pro/E and will handle all of your requirements with ease. Does Mechanica have fatigue capabilities? Another thing you may want to consider is how much contact your analyses will have. Ansys handles contact as well as any of the implicit packages will. I'm not sure how Mechanica performs in this type of analysis. If I were you I would highly recommend that you give the dealer/reseller a stereotypical problem that you would be using the software for and ask for a demo. After that the decision should be pretty evident as to which one you think is right for you.

Good luck,
-Brian

 

[dmacx]

I was a big Mechanica fan when it was owned by RASNA and they were continuously improving and developing it. The interface was great and the pre and post processor was one of the best for ease of use. That was 8 years ago. Having said that...I would not recommend it because PTC has done little with it and the results are suspect at best (contact especially). P-element method just is more trouble than it is worth. It is OK for thick solid parts but not for anything with detail or thin sections. I personally use NEiNastran which has a Pro/E interface but I would recommend between Mechanica and ANSYS you buy ANSYS.

 

[GBor]

I haven't priced Ansys or Mechanica in quite some time, but the last time I did, these were not inexpensive options. NENastran and Algor for linear static, vibration and fatigue seem much more cost-effective and at least as user friendly for the FEA work. If you are performing the FEA on large solid parts, then I understand the desire for the p-element convergence and Ansys may be the way to go.

For the CAD, Pro-E and SolidWorks are bitter rivals. To compete with either of these in AutoDesk, you have to go to the Inventor series, which I don't think is worth it.

 

[prost]

In reference to dmacx's statement "P-element method is just more trouble than it is worth". Is the problem PTC's lack of money put into development of Mechanica, or is the problem "P-element method"? You can do anything with P-element method that you can do with "H-element method"--FEA codes based on the P-element method already have significant contact mechanics capability, as well as other nonlinear geometric and material capabilities. The point is that there already exist "P-element method" software codes that handle almost every analysis type you can handle with H element method codes such as ANSYS; because of the cost and programming effort needed to add significant, new capabilities to any FE code, naturally some FE codes have more analysis capabilities than others.

But if you care about such things as error analysis, and reliability of the FE solution, P-element methods are superior to H-element methods in every single problem I have studied.

 

[mloew]

Prost makes an excellent post here. Please see the FAQ P-Elements (faq828-810) as well for a better understanding of P-Elements.

Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew


Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[brbeck777]

I appreciate all of the comments and am looking forward to more. Fatigue will probably not be an issue but I am still uncertain on my decision for FEA. Did Pro/M improve along with the new version of Wildfire Pro/E?
Thanks,
Brian

 

[mloew]

Brian,

Pro/MECHANICA continues to develop. The new features are detailed in this link:
Product What's New Pro/ENGINEER Mechanica

Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew


Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[UCengno1]

dmacx is on the mark. RASNA was an innovative, ahead of its time option and has been wasted on Pro-E. Recent experience by myself and former co-workers is that the code has trouble meshing and the analysis options limit you as compared to other options on the market.

I am a huge Ansys fan. Especially its Workbench product. It is priced competitively and carries the trademark of many years of accurate solutions from Ansys. I run a near seamless interface to SolidWorks and couldn't be happier.

 

[brbeck777]

You mentioned that RASNA was wasted on Pro-E, Does this mean that you feel Pro-E is not the Solid modeling program that one should consider?

Thanks for your comment.