FEA (Finite Element Analysis; i.e., Stress Testing) Simulation Questions

[Cory Puuri]

Please post your FEA Questions on this thread. Be sure to include screen shots if you have them. Also, we encourage you to try doing a web search for your issue to see what is available before posting here. If you find a solution and think it is a common problem, please post your findings out here to help others.

[JoeT]

This is going to be very helpful. As I am becoming more comfortable with Flow Wim, this will be my next challenge!

I took 15 'WORKBENCHES' of CATIA V5 at the local university after I retired. These included Part Design and Sketcher, Assembly Design, Drafting, Sheet Metal Design, Electrical Design, Wireframe and Surfaces (Generative Shape Design), Surface Machining (NC Machining), Prismatic Machining, ENOVIA (What a WASTE!!!), FiberSim (not a CATIA Class, but was part of the 'CATIA' offerings),Fitting Simulation and Kinematics, Knowledgware, Composites, and Stress Analysis. You would think since Dassault owns both, there would be some similarity between the two packages. There's NOT!!!! I find SW CAD really non-intuitive. It seems it just doesn't use the same 'logic' as CATIA V5. But, I have not taken many of the SW tutorials. So, my fault.

Regards,
Joe T.

[Jeffrey Meyer]

This is going to be very helpful...

... You would think since Dassault owns both, there would be some similarity between the two packages. There's NOT!!!!

Hi Joe,
Every word cast in rock !! I find it incredible and completely fail to understand why this is so. In fact, the only way you can communicate between the packages is via the CAD interface standards - IGES, STEP, etc., and then you lose the "design intent" (part history, equations, design tables, assembly mates, motion studies, etc.), as well as the associativity between the parts, assemblies and drawings.

I know that there have been some attempts (with very limited success) by a few companies to "translate" the design intent between various CAD systems. But since Dassault owns both packages, I strongly suspect that it would be relatively easy for it (Dassault) to develop such an interface (between SW and CATIA), and thereby become THE dominant CAD manufacturer in the world - it would border on becoming a monopoly. At the moment there exists a cartel of CAD manufacturers that keeps the cost of CAD ownership high due to the non-interchangeability of design intent and reliance upon expensive service contracts for support and software updates.

I find SW CAD really non-intuitive. It seems it just doesn't use the same 'logic' as CATIA V5. But, I have not taken many of the SW tutorials. So, my fault.

No Joe, definitely not a fault - you are simply used to a slightly different approach/taste. Frankly, I like the SW GUI. I've had some experience with several other packages - AutoCAD, I-DEAS (now known as "NX"), Pro-E - and I found SW to be the most intuitive between them. Again, my personal taste. In fact, when I tried to learn AutoCAD, I quickly came to the (personal) conclusion that anybody who likes the AutoCAD GUI apparently hasn't tried any other! I stress "personal taste", and I'm certain there will be those who disagree.

Jeffrey

[Cory Puuri]

Knowing the history might shed some light on it. Catia was developed by Dassault as an in-house design platform for their aviation business in the late 70s. It has been embraced by large scale manufacturing industries ever since. SOLIDWORKS was launched in the mid-90s by an MIT grad as an affordable and easy-to-use CAD program and sold to Dassault four years after launch. Catia was mostly developed in-house by Dassault, whereas SOLIDWORKS is a combination of in-house development by a separate product team from Catia and it has a few 3rd party, white label modules added on (CAM, Electrical Schematics, etc.).