FEA Software Reviews

are you currently using any software, that already contains FEA/CFD as an added feature.

such as Soildworks or Inventor?

We have Inventor so we have the modeling and meshing capability. I have quotes from ANSYS and Autodesk and am willing to get others.

I know there's a lot out there but I don't want just any FEA program. I'm not sure how much I can say here to describe what we need without violating CR4 rules

If you already have Inventor you can upgrade to the version with integrated Algor. We have it at my company and I've been playing with it. Unfortunately, the general aviation industry is mostly hooked on Nastran for FAA related approvals so we've only made limited use of it.

The biggest benefit of integrated modeling and meshing is that it is easy in Inventor to turn off all the extraneous geometry (fillets, rounds, etc) in the integrated package that can create havoc when transferring model data to external systems.

Hooker

Inventor Professional has these components, I believe it has CFD, but never got that far as of yet.

I just installed it and bought a training video, I did not get that far yet.

Yep, it's Inventor Pro. It does have CFD, including a thermal component. I haven't had much time to play with it, though, beyond rudimentary mechanical analysis. I seem to spend too much of my time in that arena getting data out to our stress guy who uses an incredibly clunky version of Nastran. Just creating a line in that modeler takes 6 or 7 mouse clicks.

Hooker

Thanks for the input Hooker! That's the kind of feedback I was looking for (and will probably never find through Google).

I only have experience with ANSYS and a couple other programs that I used in college (and I'm pretty sure the others aren't around any more). ANSYS was great but those others were terrible. If I convince my company to buy some software other than ANSYS, I want to make sure it's worth buying.

Back in the '80's I ran around the countryside teaching ComputerVision Cadds4 FEM. We didn't have an integrated analysis program so we had postprocessors to a variety of them. Seems to me that Ansys, Nastran and Algor were the most used packages around so I don't think you could go wrong with Inventor's Algor, depending on your specific needs. It has a well established track record, with plenty of empirical testing to validate its results.

Of course, that doesn't mean you should take my word for it. I'm just a user with no other interest in Autodesk or Algor.

Hooker

Back in the mid '80's, I purchased a copy of Algor- it came on something like 30 floppy disks, with something like eight printed volumes of manuals. I had to purchase a new computer to get sufficient speed and hard disk size to run it. The results came out pretty much identical to the results I was getting with whatever program was running on the Texas A&M super computer of the day, which was my previous option (remember key punch and 300 baud telephone modems? We only sent our decks at night, because telephone rates were lower...).

If I remember correctly, the program cost almost exactly what I paid for the new PC. Nowadays, these same programs cost at least an order of magnitude more than what one pays for the hardware to run it. Unless, of course, one goes the Open Source route (for FEA, the Salome platform with Code_Aster would be my choice- Salome includes a geometry, meshing and post processing modules, all properly integrated with the Code_Aster analysis module- and the price is right).

When evaluating commercial packages, one area that seems to set certain packages apart from the pack is the quality of the technical support one can access (usually at additional significant cost). One also needs to consider what the organization has been traditionally using for CAD- your engineers will be much happier with something they are familiar with, rather than having to struggle with an entirely new user interface. Also, how much work is required to go from the design geometry to the mesh geometry suitable for analysis?

My company purchased a number of seats of Inventor Pro, Over kill, but I am anxious to use it.

Which bring me to the OP

As stated, you try to look for something that is relatively seamless, though my experience is, nothing never is. I'm not trying to sell you on Inventor pro, But what I am saying, is that you may have to decide what compromises your willing to make.

And I do not have the experience but hopefully some CR4 member may help.

I understand phoenix. It's very hard to find honest reviews for any big software like this online. That's why I turned to CR4.

I appreciate any input on any program you've used or heard about from others.

Yes, I'm looking forward to it also, I wasn't aware of the syntax that Hooker pointed out.

Hi cingold, thre's a new kid in town in the FEA neighbourhood called Cradle CFD. Didn't have an opportunity to try out for myself, but maybe you will dwell into it more deeply. The salome stuff also seems good. Good luck!

There are a number of groups on LinkedIn that provide discussion between users of various FEA and CFD packages. Somewhat more objective than what one receives from the provider, perhaps, but the intensity of the advocacy for particular packages seems to be in direct proportion to price paid- those who buy more expensive packages tend to shout loudest about how good the software is, most likely in an attempt to justify the investment.

those who buy more expensive packages tend to shout loudest about how good the software is, most likely in an attempt to justify the investment.

Getting actually good/bad feedback from the trenches, and this always comes from the user.

Yes LinkedIN is also a good professional site that has its attributes.

I know this is a bit old, but for anyone else who comes here, feacompare.com has a lot of detail on the differences between FEA packages. It's a just a big table of data rather than subjective reviews.