A comparative study of 2 CAD-integrated FE-programs using the linear static analysis

• Main Author: Amin, Handren
• Format: Others
• Language: English
• Published: Högskolan i Halmstad, Sektionen för ekonomi och teknik (SET) 2009
• Subjects: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA); CATIA V5 R18; ABAQUS 6.7-3; COMPARISONS
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hh:diva-2355

This Master’s thesis is summery of a comparative study of 2 commercial CAD-integrated FE-programs. These FE-programs were CATIA v5 and ABAQUS 6.3-7. The primary objective of this study is to investigate the basic FEA capabilities of CATIA and ABAQUS 6.7-3 in performing the linear static analysis and to identify whether there are any differences and similarities between results the both Finite Element FE codes give. The overall research question in the present thesis is: Do different FE programs, here CATIA and ABAQUS, give the same results for FE analysis giving the same models if subjected to the same boundary conditions? This research seeks to achieve its aims through making a comparative qualitative study. Certain pre-selections were performed in advance of conducting Finite element analysis and the comparison process to ensure that results would reflect only the most relevant and meaningful differences and similarities between the both FE-codes. Five different 3D solid models have been selected to perform linear static Finite element analysis on. All these models (case studies) are created in CATIA V5 and the linear static analysis conducted on using FE-codes CATIA v5 and ABAQUS 6.7-3. Three static responses (results) of the linear static analysis have been adopted as criteria for comparisons purposes. These criteria were: (1) displacements, (2) Von Mises stress, and (3) principal stress. The results of comparisons showed that there is a very good agreement in most cases and small gap between in a few cases. Results of this study demonstrate that the both FE-programs CATIA v5 and ABAQUS 6.7-3 have good capabilities to perform FE-analysis and they give very near results. Reason behind differences is that each of them uses a different algorithm for solving problems. The final answer for the research question is given with valuable recommendations for future work in the scope of this research.