#ABAQUS VS ANSYS SERIES#
I (and a series of colleagues of both industry and academia) prefer that ABAQUS (implicit and explicit) over MSC Marc, and the reason is very specific. I actually some experience in contact modelling (mainly with with large deformations). Contact issues always need careful experimental validation.
#ABAQUS VS ANSYS SOFTWARE#
Simulate is very good and getting bettering better and it's CAD integration is brilliant (PTC, please don't quote me out of context), but it will never really begin to deal with software snobbery unless we know more. Perhaps this is in part a consequence of there being no effective user group any more. None of us are encouraged to be involved. Where Roland Jakel's and other PTC presentations can be found. But I cannot work out if it a premeditated move to maintain the 'positioning of the software' where designers' don't need to know' or a consequence of running a lean ship, There are (were? Is Tad Doxee still around for example?) clearly very clever developers who understand the theory and have tested models etc. They should be part of the help installation.Ī cynic may say it is to keep the users ignorant so as to be able to sell services. It is not possible to locate these documents via the PTC support pages (unless that has recently changed) and I point this out whenever possible. Some earlier documents such as the one you attach were marked as PTC internal only and of course, none of us got copies. These PTC Global Services documents are not released to the general public and only found by chance or by knowing someone after which they gradually become known by the wider community. Bits of a complete story but never the whole story. My knowledge is partly reverse engineered and part remembered occasional notes from PTC when specific questions are answered. I would like more background on contact as mentioned above. Poor background info is a criticism I have made on many occasions. And obviously, a company like Ansys or Abaqus has a different focus to develop working solutions for the analysis specialist, so probably it's also a matter of how much development resources you have available, and how you prioritize those resources. Instead of SPA convergence method, I refine the mesh and run a "quick check" (basically h-method) analysis, then that might converge. This is in fact something I have used when I have had difficulties reaching convergence with nonlinear models in Creo. With, for example ANSYS h-method, the finer, but better shaped, elements can capture abrupt changes that can occur in nonlinear models, as the deformation increases. I can imagine that a large P-element, with poor element geometry (by h-mesh standards), can more easliy become too distorted for convergence to be possible. One reason why I suspect it is more difficult to implement nonlinear functionality with the P-method, is simply that it seems difficult for PTC to move forward in this area.Īnother reason is that in nonlinear problems (I think of plasticity/contact/large deformation) is that the stress/displacement-field may vary in a model (and change as displacement increases) in a way so that it becomes more difficult for Creo's large P-elements to capture what's going on. Long story short: you can't compare Creo Simulate Mesh with ANSYS mesh.
My guess is that very few Ansys users utilize the P-functionality in Ansys. And I'm not sure of what nonlinear functionality is supported with the P-method in ANSYS. I think ANSYS has the P-method, but the mesher is not adapted for it, and the P-level is limited to 5 if I remember correctly. I guess the P-method makes it more difficult to implement nonlinear functionality, which is undoubtedly much better in ANSYS than in Creo Simulate. So the meshing algorithm in Creo is adapted for the P-method, while the meshing functionality in ANSYS is adapted for the H-method. This allows a much coarser mesh than is required if the P-level is fixed to 2, as is the case for Ansys. In creo, the P-level can be raised to 9 and this is done adaptively in areas with higher stress gradient, the P-level is raised so that a more complex displacement field can be described with a single element.
This means that with the H-method and quadratic elements, stresses and strains can only vary linearly within an element. ANSYS uses the H-method where the polynomial degree is fixed,for all elements, and is normally 2, i.e. Creo uses "P-method" which raises the degree of the polynomials that describe the displacement field.
0 kommentar(er)
