Which one is better Autodesk Simulation Multiphysics or Ansys?

Ansys is a very big and complex package whereas Simulation multiphysics is easy and reliable. So which one i should go for and why?

Answer
 
Comments 0

13 Answers

Do you want to spend a lot of money (ANSYS) or a lot less (Autodesk Simulation)? Most users do not need everything ANSYS has. Autodesk has really lowered the price on the Simulation software since they aquired ALGOR, and in my opinion the Fusion interface is better then the direct modeling in ANSYS for quick changes.

 
Comments 0

Good morning,

This question is little bit ambiguous. The option depends very much to the scope of acquisition: if you prefer only to check some parts from assembly, or an assembly without claim of results, than the better option is an software add-on to your CAD software (in your case Autodesk Simulation Multiphysics). In opposite corner is the level of precision and complexities which you expect from results and models (where ANSYS is leader in your comparison). In this moment softwares with can be made simulations are very numerous on Internet (both for Linux and Windows) for free. So, you only must establish some details referring on what you want to obtain and your expectation from results (precision).

Keep in touch.

Best regards.

 
Comments 0

Hi Gill,

For most engineering problems there is no difference in accuracy between Autodesk Simulation and other codes. Having said that, all FEA codes have pro's, con's and limits.

In terms of the accuracy of FEA, nearly all of the error is related to factors apart from the code itself. i.e. far more relevant sources of error include
* Geometry errors - how well does my CAD/FEM model match the real-world component/s

* Load errors - how well are the loads (magnitude, distribution) really understood?

* Boundary conditions - It takes a good analyst to get realistic results near constraints and to achieve realistic deformations (and hence, stresses)

* Mesh errors - Is the mesh fine enough that convergence is achieved, element quality checks are acceptable?

* Element and solver selection - Can the element and solver chosen capture the mechanics of materials present in the real world? I.e. a linear-static solver will not assess the tendency to buckle: therefore a 10m long, Ø5mm rod will record exactly the same von Misses stress whether in compression or tension and give no indication that the rod would buckle at a fraction of the tensile load when loaded in compression. This often trips people up when analyzing sheetmetal parts.

I would temper my comments with saying that we never trust any FEA result - we take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach and use hand calculations, testing and other methods to verify the FEA.

While I have some limited experience with multiphysics we use the most advanced Solidworks Simulation package (premium?) for consulting work on multimillion dollar projects and have been using the software since the 80's when it used to be called GeoSTAR. We also use "FEMAP with NX NASTRAN" which has a strong reputation as being a high-end FEA package but for 90% of projects the choice between FEMAP and Solidworks is one of convenience. The most important factor for accurate FEA analysis is the person using it.

 
Comments 0

Good afternoon,

I think that here we have 2 types of engineer: one type which used CAD software with some modules dedicated to analysis which use finite element, and second type which I prefer to denominate specialist and which use dedicated software (which used on their job dedicated software to study using finite element).
In fact is not very important software used, if your company or client or professor is agree with your precision of calculus and results. Basically, all differences betweens this softwares (even if is modules for CAD or dedicated software) contain in the precision of calculus and easiest of use by engineer. Other details such as how many constraints, loads, load steps, types of study, etc. don´t have very much importance. Most of all softwares have possibility to add basic constraints, basic loads, etc.
I think all specialist engineer which use dedicated software and have minimum 5 years of works, will be agree with me.

From my point of view, the answer of your question is already in your post.

For other question I am to yours dispositions.

Best regards.

 
Comments 0

Ansys has always been better. And It continue being better. :)

 
Comments 1

if you are a student and you want this for the school then choose whatever you like and willing to pay for. in this case Autodesk products are free for students.

if you are an employee then your company will decide which one unless you are the evaluation guy.

 
Comments 0

I guess the question is: what would you like to accomplish with it? If all you're trying to do is doable with AS, why look further?

It's no doubt that ANSYS is far more capable, but with great power comes great complexity :-)

 
Comments 0

If u prefer for accuracy.......go with ansys.you can get almost 94% accuracy in ansys if i'm not wrong!

 
Comments 0

ok not to change the subject to much
but I work where they use Algor, (now autodesk) we use Solidworks as our main cad software.
what is better and why? Algor or Solidworks Simulation (full verson)

thanks

 
Comments 0

Autodesk Multiphysics is the best ! Trust me i have been using past 2 years. I am student and i know what it takes to learn FEA software. Ansys may be good but no proper tutorial is available as that of Autodesk Multiphysics

 
Comments 2

There were some comments about accuracy, so I wanted to share this link with all of you.

http://knowledge.autodesk.com/search-result/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/ENU/123112/files/simulation-mechanical-accuracy-verification-html.html

Here at Autodesk Simulation, we check the accuracy of our software against text book examples and NAFEMS benchmarks and post our finding publicly release after release.

Sualp Ozel, PE
Autodesk Simulation Mechanical (formerly Algor) Product Manager

 
Comments 0

Hi,

General observations: FEA accuracy related to FEA ecuations are almost identical.
But, FEA accuracy today should related to experimental results.

Most FEA codes today should improve into intercations between parts:
contact and non-linearities, fasteners, linkes, etc

1.) Ansys vs Autodesk Simulation:
- Advantages: both codes for all types of simulations needed (static, NVH vibration, non-linear, etc)
- Advantages Ansys:
- better contact behavior;
- more posibilities to interpret results in vary ways for different type of tasking, not only common.
- better technique for improve meshing (on corners, on delicated and short changes in geometry)

- Advantages Autodesk:
- more FEA element types and better for 3D solids accuracy (Hexa and pyramid),
- better meshing techniques for complicated geometry
(not using special techique for 3d domain splitting, not only with tetrahedral elements)

- Disavantages Ansys: complex interface which make slower interaction with user
(if you are a user which prefer fast choosing tasking and shotcuts,
Ansys interface action very slow, so...you have to be more patient)

- Disavantages Autodesk:
- worst contact behavior but more rapid calculations
- limited posibilities to show/view, process and interpret results.

- Disavantages both:
- complicated scripting tools to improve user/analysis and results processing
- difficult/impossible to add new user FEA elements

Recommendations:
- For a more rapid geometry/CAD/design evaluation and cheaper solution, recommended =Solidworks
- For better accuracy in difficult analysis simulations with many parts in contact, recommended = Abaqus

Best regards,
Ciprian Dragne

 
Comments 0