differences between nastran solutors

[alexmac]

Bye to all,
I have a basic problem, I am starting the argument and the rapporteur would like to use nastran.
thesis consists in the study of a composite structure, and having nastran the possibility to analyze in detail the composite materials, opted for nastran. the fact is that I don't know what versions there are of this software (neinastran, fx nastran...) and I can't understand what difference there is between them and more then why it is always Patran along with nastran?! Thank you.

 

[Matteo]

Bye to all,
I have a basic problem, I am starting the argument and the rapporteur would like to use nastran.
thesis consists in the study of a composite structure, and having nastran the possibility to analyze in detail the composite materials, opted for nastran. the fact is that I don't know what versions there are of this software (neinastran, fx nastran...) and I can't understand what difference there is between them and more then why it is always Patran along with nastran?! Thank you.

then, "nastran" more indicates an "input format" and some common characteristics of solutors rather than a product by itself.

in the state of art, mscnastran is the direct descendant of the original code. normally the pre/post processor is mscpatran.

two other families (I don't think they're the only ones) are those of nx nastran (not to be confused with fx nastran, see below) and nastran. the first originates (with very few modifications) from the solutore nastran msc a few years ago (I do not remember if 2001 or 2004) and is sold by siemens (together with the pre/post processor femap). innastran instead is a completely independent solutor that reads the cards in the classic nastran format, follows the logic of the ogriginal solutor, but is a new code rewritten in the 1990s starting from zero to light of the new programming codes.

some of the criticisms that are made to neinastran is not to be a direct descendant of the code implemented in the 60s by the nose: In reality this is not a limit because, due to the compatibility with the nastran monedo, the fem models can be validated with other nastran solvers without difficulty.

I personally know the world better than the other 2 so I limit myself to an overview of the products connected to neinastran, for the rest I leave the word to more experienced users.

products that support the solutor innastran are:

innastran: solutor win32bit/win64bit/linux
infusion: integrated cad/fem (kernel solidworks + solutore neinastran)
inworks: integrated cad/fem (kernel solidworks + solutore neinastran) version "plugin" for swx users
fx nastran: pre/post processor (to understand us: a bit like workench for ansys, patran for msc, or hypermesh etc.)

note: femap and neinastran support each other (before the acquisition by siemens, femap was a multi solutor software and was sold along with neinastran under the name of nastran modeler).

for any information about neinastran I recommend you contact smartcae (www.smartcae.com).

if you have to work with composites, neinastran has many functions dedicated to this world (especially for the study of the breaking mechanism and for the criteria of resistance and evaluation of damage).

 

[Onda]

I add a comment to the perfect post of matteo.
Patran is a very powerful pre/post, but ostico, I would define it almost for adepti. Moreover the commitment that msc has dedicated to the development of the software in the past years is low and the cost of the high license.
femaps and hypermesh are two very good pre/posts and lower costs, their mothers have demonstrated a greater commitment to development and are very advanced in recent years.
if you are not obliged to use patran (in fact the standard in aircraft) I would recommend you femap or hypermesh.
As for the solutor, both msc and nx or in are excellent with composites.
once again the cost of the license is decreasing in the order I gave you.
msc is the standard in aeronautics, nx is in fact equivalent and in it is made very appreciate in the industry for the excellent value for money.
Among other things, ade example seems to me that in the cost of the basic license includes multi-processor use, which msc is charged separately.
a model created for in can actually be turned on msc for a validation.
also presents crisis criteria for additional composites (it seems to be called a puck criterion) to the classic ones present in msc, such as hill, tsai-wu, max strain, max stress.
the choice then depends on what you look for exactly and what are your postgraduate goals.
Keep in mind that once you learn to use any nastran you can without any problem switch to another, since the impt files are practically equivalent.
instead regarding the pre/post, switching from one to another takes more time as the way to manage the models and to make the mesh can be profoundly different.
if your goal is to work with composites and then with shell models, leave the pre/post integrated in cad. you need software to make you work on the surfaces so you can simplify them, extract the midsurface or delete the inside/outside and so on.
I find hypermesh the best regarding mesh, but a little more ostic to apply constraints, loads and review results. femap is easier to use in general and very complete, but keep in mind that for years I do not use it and I know that it has changed (better) lately.
wave

 

[alexmac]

Thank you so much to both now I think I understand.. So basically nastran is "only" a solutor. .no nastran interface. is the code-program that starting from a file built with a pre-processor (patran, femap etc.) gives me the results (which will be displayed in the post-processor that is always patran, femap.ecc...) ..but for example with femap it is possible to work fairly precisely with composites? in the sense to apply multiple layers of lamine, choose the orientation of the fibers..etc.? ?

 

[Onda]

it is absolutely possible to work with the laminates with all three programs mentioned.
I use patran practically exclusively with laminates. the same can be done with femap and hypermesh. with the first two versatility is enormous, in the sense that you can orientate the material, with reference systems, with carriers or with the edge of the element. you can field " vector fields or scalers in space" and orientate the material with the field.
Patran then has the laminate modeller that allows you to reason in terms of ply instead of ownership. For example, if you apply on a roll of reinforcements, you should normally define a property for each different area.
With laminate modeller you can apply the layers to the defined areas and think about it to automatically create all properties due to the intersections, moreover, if the layer takes a different direction the laminate modeller adapts the property to the direction.
of converse is complex to use and it is Moroccan to make changes.
I personally do not love it, but I realize that if used on curved surfaces it allows to obtain always oriented skins in a perfect way.
with hypermesh it seems to me missing a method of definition of the direction, but I have remained a couple of versions back, so you should inform yourself if you are inclined to this software.

 

[alexmac]

I should be able to have Patran 2005, to what version have they arrived?

 

[Onda]

Patran 2009 just released: http://www.mscsoftware.com/

 

[MacGG]

Bye to all,

I add some notes, which we had also discussed elsewhere.

msc.software, level of nastran solutor, extensions/modifications to constituent equations of elements (or new elements), are required/certified by nasa (still today) and they are put in open source by nasa itself.
msc.software works by nasa going to develop these formulations, from which then, the solutor msc.nastran (and md nastran) is born, in which besides equations there is all that part of software necessary to build the model of equation, solve, extract results etc.

nx nastran (of siemens), was born from msc.nastran 2001, because msc.software lost an antitrust cause in the United States, as it held 95% of the fea market. for this reason msc.software had to select ugs (before siemens), as a competitor to which pass the code rises and teach to develop it (for 3 years). then siemens imagined it (actually it seems to me quite little) and could not be completely aligned as the constitutive equations of nasa.

innastran, has only the input/output format as msc.nastran, but the solutor does not start from the nasa equations.

As for the pre/post, you don't need to have paran, but other things can be fine too. of course patran, being of msc.nastran has the most aligned with the new releases of msc.nastran or md nastran (like the other pre/posts of msc, such as simxpert, soft and simdesigner).

for the price, there are versions where msc.nastran is connected to the pre/post and then take a product that already has everything, also the price is very competitive.

for composites, today msc has perhaps the most advanced technology (not for nothing is the standard in aviation companies), as also with patran (but not only), I can treat laminates at level 2d, turn them into 3d or go to the level of fiber-matrix iteration (via genoa). all integrated both at pre/post level, and at solutor level (in this case better md nastran).

personally, if you have problems with composites, I suggest you go with patran (in the end you will see that it is not as ostic as it is described, indeed you will love him), and also with msc.software solutions, you will not find limits in the degree of detail of the model you want to have.

Hi.

♪

 

[f.pelizza]

Bye to all,
I strongly recommend starting with femap.
I used patran for several years in aerospace environment, and when I needed to buy myself a license I went looking for where to spend less. the two integrated solutions (pre-post and solutor), which however allow an excellent manual processing of the launch files, are fea (patran and msc nastran) and femap (femap and nx nastran). with extreme sadness (after years of satisfied user of patran) I bought femap that, taking advantage of a good offer, I paid about half fea. I opened a world! not only does all the same things as patran (until today I have not managed to recreate only one of all the utilities of patran), but it program with extreme ease in visual basic, and you can also record macros. to finish femap is developed a lot and today's femap has (just talking about composites that are my main field of application) double the functionality of the femap two years ago. as solutors I did not appreciate differences, so that all fortran applications I had written in the past to interact with the output files of msc nastran work perfectly with the output files of nx nastran.
Last but not least, femap is not also used in aeronautical or aerospace. alenia roma space has been using femap for many years.

I hope you've been helped

france

 

[bio]

Patran 2009 just released: http://www.mscsoftware.com/

a stinking at pr msc...

do videos on the new Patran interface in 2009 and show that they added rotation commands like solidworks (central key, ctrl and alt) and that they implemented the right key as main feature of the interface makes me laugh enough. . .

not the fact of having implemented it (amen, we are in 2009) but to spread it as a great feature...the competitors must have been really pioneers that have been there for several years (to speak of abaqus/ansys)...

the program could be the most optimal in the world, but presented so effectively by the impression of being back 10 years.. .

I do not see very well the idea of those videos (they are 2 out of 3 total)...the external viewer is to wonder whether the software besides having a decent graphic interface is also improved in other aspects or not...

bio

 

[Matteo]

personally, if you have problems with composites, I suggest you go with patran (in the end you will see that it is not as ostic as it is described, indeed you will love him), and also with msc.software solutions, you will not find limits in the degree of detail of the model you want to have.

on composites I believe that between msc and in it is a beautiful struggle:

 

[MacGG]

Frankish,

It is clear that the things you had done in the past for msc.nastran, also work on nx nastran, in fact it is the version of msc.nastran 2005 then that it is different from nx.
When I used femap, after using nastran for windows, I made good fe models, but then I had to go by hand to complete the .bdf (I didn't know patran).
space alenia, does not make planes.

bio,

It is true, maybe marketing answers the questions that customers ask, then that to rotate the model to see it, it is beautiful, but not fundamental to make calculations.

Matteo,

For what I have seen, I do not believe that we can fight, as if we have to do so, we can do it on an extra breaking criterion, which finds a relative applicability when then the accuracy of the data/models starting (fundamental for such types of analysis) is completely lower.

Hi.

♪

 

[alexmac]

reading the post the two possibilities that are there to work well with composites are:

1) pre/post patran with mscnastran solutor
2)pre/post femap with nxnastran solutor

between these two types of work it seems to me to have understood that the first is a little more osticated (remember I am a neophyte regarding fem program) but also the most precise at the level of results, while the second is more friendly but perhaps lower regarding the potential of possible analysis. Do I get it right? ? ?

 

[Onda]

Not really.
both with femap and patran you can use both msc nastran and nx nastran as solver, as the input format is identical
the accuracy of the results depends on the solver and both nx and msc are equivalent.
in my opinion patran is more ostic than femap, but as you see they are personal opinions.
I believe that the choice depends more on the world you want to address, there are companies that historically work with patran and others with femap.
for your needs both software are absolutely capable of doing everything you need and definitely much more!

 

[MacGG]

Sorry, wave,

but femap is developed on nx nastran that has features that are a subset of the features of msc.nastran, so it is obvious that femap supports msc.nastran, but you do not exploit all msc.nastran.

on opinions, fortunately that they are personal, otherwise we would all be made with the mold! ! !

Hi.

♪

 

[Onda]

I totally agree with what you say.
However, for the core of the application, developed until 2005, the two software are common. for which to do analysis on composites with sol 101,103,105,106
the potential is the same. If you want to go to the 400 or 700 sols, the two solutors have differentiated and things change.
Given the needs of alexmac are to do analysis on compositions (I imagine but I can be wrong) static linear or non-linear static or buckling or modal ones that are, I do not see much difference between the two solutors and both pre/posts can interact with both solutors indifferently.

 

[MacGG]

Okay wave,

I did not know that alexmac, it was enough to do only sol101, etc., and not to study more in depth the composite, passing also to 3d models, to evaluate the mechanisms of delamination, propagation of the fracture until reaching the microcrystalline analytics of fiber-matrix interface analysis.

as regards the results, it is to be seen if the functions adopted in nx nastran after msc.nastran 2001, lead to the results of msc.nastran, for example is actually identical the glue contact of nx compared to that of msc?

Hi.

♪

 

[alexmac]

What do you mean by 101 103 105...400 etc.? ?

 

[Onda]

sol101 static linear
sol103 modal
Sol105 buckling
sol106 nonlinear static
sol400 nonlinear implicit nastran native (contacts, high deformations) developed sucessively to the detachment of nx from msc
sol600 do notline implicit (translation towards msc marc solutor) (contacts, high deformations) marc is only msc
sol700 nonlinear explicit (ls dyna) is used for crashes, very high deformations etc.