It doesn't use a mesh at all, just a rectangular grid of points. I have not personally used AMPS to know that much about it however.Īnother option may be Scan & Solve, which is a Rhino plugin. It doesn't look like AMPS currently supports composites. Of course, it costs way more than Mecway. They also seem to say it is more tolerant of poor mesh quality.

So you can solve a model with much lower node counts. It is available in IronCAD and Ke圜reator as well. AMPS Tech uses what they call strain-enriched FEA or Sefea, to allow accurate results using low order tets. There are a few other FEA technologies that may be of interest to you. All meshing and analysis performed in Mecway FEA.Īlso see the following link for more information: From this comparison, we can see that even a single layer through the thickness using quadratic tetrahedral solid elements yielded very similar results as the quadratic quadrilateral shell elements. However, if the model was created from solid model and has alot of complex geometric, it is difficult or sometime impossible to model using all shell elements or extracting the midsurface from the solid model to obtain a shell model for the analysis. The downside of using Tet10 is having alot more nodes which result in much larger model and require more time to solve. Quad4 model has 2,953 nodes, Quad8 model has 8,737 nodes, and Tet10 model has 38,603 nodes.

Quad8, respectively) and quadratic quadrilateral shell elements vs quadratic tetrahedral solid elements (Quad8 vs. quadratic quadrilateral shell elements (Quad4 vs. Solid elements have only 3 degrees of freedoms at their nodes (3 displacements) compared to shell elements that have all 6 degrees of freedoms at their nodes (3 displacements and 3 rotations) which are good for bending.įrom the attachments, comparisons of linear vs.

For solid elements subjected to primarily bending, a few layers through the thickness are usually recommended for linear solid elements.

Creating thin wall shell in gmsh