FEA which one to choose

We've been using Cosmos Designer in SWX environment for almost a year now
and I feel that we need more capable FEA program. Products for which we need
to run FEA are in the door hardware category and the 'answers' we're looking
for are like impact (slamming of the door) strength, using plastic
components (non linear materials), fatigue and standard analysis. I've
looked at CosmosWorks Professional Advanced (on Cosmos website) and although
it seems to have it all (if 'drop' equals impact) but also has a lot of
stuff which we don't need and quite steep price tag. I would appreciate your
suggestions of other FEA programs that fit the bill.
TIA
Eric
Reply to
Erico
Loading thread data ...
I work for a manufacturer of automotive interior hinges. We recently benchmarked ANSYS, MARC, and NEiNASTRAN to replace our current MSC.NASTRAN (which couldn't handle our contact and large rotation well). All performed well and are worth a look.
COSMOS didn't make the first cut.
Reply to
That70sTick
How does Algor stand up to this pack? We have the stand alone version and we're thinking about upgrading to the SW version (better interface and I think the data is stored in the SW files)
Reply to
Keith Streich
We didn't look at ALGOR. The consultant we work with didn't include it in his list of candidates, so it didn't come up.
Initially, we were looking at replacing MSC.NASTRAN with MSC.MARC, as recommended by our MSC rep (!). We wanted to benchmark at least two others, and NEiNASTRAN and ANSYS were the ones we chose with the help of a consultant we have on retainer for training and mentoring (and knows our work very well).
Reply to
That70sTick
CosmosWorks and DesignStar are still works in progress for which you will find limitations in how far you can go. The older and more difficult to use Cosmos/M can do it all, but has an older interface.
I have both DesignStar and NE/Nastran available to me. ANSYS is also a mature product.
Reply to
P.
There are a couple things about CosmosWorks that you need to strongly consider.
1. When you run a long and large analysis:
a. It ties up SW for the duration b. All the memory that SW uses is not available for the FEA program to use.
2. If documentation of your analysis is important to you then you shouldn't change geometry in SW after making the run. This is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength in that you can quickly search for the most efficient structure. It is a weakness when you have to document what you did in order to defend yourself when product X fails. Since SW files are always changing in size how can you prove the file you are looking at is the one you did the original analysis in?
A program like DesignStar can also link to actively changing geometry, but provides a standalone archivable file for documentation. And the solver can be run without the GUI for maximum memory usage. It can also run nicely along with SW by setting its priority down in task manager. I have run 60 hour analyses with DStar while using SW.
Keith Streich wrote:
Reply to
P.
I just ran across this link.
formatting link
and this one
formatting link

Reply to
P.
I recommend NEiWorks which is a Nastran pre and post processor and solver inside of SolidWorks. NEiNastran supports surface to surface contact. See their website for demos
formatting link
VERY IMPRESSIVE!
Reply to
6dof

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.