Finite Element Analysis workflow

Below I will give you the FEA workflow with short descriptions what to do in each step.

 

FEA Workflow 1: Geometry

This is the part that is the most obvious. Whatever you will do, it is best to implement geometry “somehow” into the system. Imagine we want to design a cantilever that looks like this:

FEA Workflow - Geometry of the example

The first thing to do would be to implement geometry of this example into our software. You can do this in 2 ways:

You should know that both approaches have good and bad sides. Depending on what you do, and what type of 3D model you can get it is better to switch approach. Without a doubt importing geometry is the more popular approach. But be aware that sometimes when you get a 3D model it is simply less work to do it once more than to “clean it up”. But this is a topic for completely different post altogether!

At this stage, you should also decide whether you will model your case as a solids shells or beams (or a mix of those). This is a very broad topic, for now, let’s assume that we are making a solid model.

A small twist: you don’t need the geometry! Literally, when solver will do the calculations it won’t even “see” it. This means that you can only create mesh without geometry and it will still work (equally well). This has sense in some situations but most likely you will do geometry at the beginning anyway! This is because geometry makes it easier to make mesh most of the time.

Also sometimes creating geometry requires some additional steps. Sometimes you need to make “an assembly” out of the parts you have created (so the software knows where are things in relation to each other in space). This is however software dependent (and usually pretty easy to do as well).

FEA Workflow 2: Material / Boundary conditions / Loads

Note on geometry applied loads / BC: We haven’t meshed our model yet. This means that BC and loads are applied to geometry rather than mesh. Usually, this is a good idea, but it may not be possible in some cases. As a rule, I prefer to load and support the geometry rather than mesh (both are doable). Thanks to such approach, when I re-mesh my model (i.e. to make mesh refinement) I won’t have to check/correct the loads and supports.

Somewhere here you also define contacts and contact properties. This is, however, a bit more advanced thing.

FEA Workflow 3: Meshing

 

Most important aspects of meshing are:

 

If you are creating a model without geometry this is where you start (and then apply loads and everything else from step 2 onto the mesh).

To be fair it should be said that this step and a previous step mix together. Without a doubt, you create properties first and then you do mesh, but you can easily load the model after meshing. This means that you will often switch the order of those things depending on the task you are doing.This is a big and time-consuming process so it “deserves” a separate entry!

FEA Workflow 4: Analysis

The analysis is something that you actually do in the different software even though usually it’s hard to tell. Usually, an FEA software has 2 parts:

Remember when I wrote that solver usually doesn’t see geometry at all? This is because geometry is not translated into the input file – there is no point to do that. From solver standpoint only mesh matters when it comes to “shape”.

When solver finishes it splits out an “output file” – post processor will import it and simply display the outcomes for you. Both input and output files can be read in a simple text editor.

The analysis is the biggest thing for me in FEA, even though sometimes it’s just “one click”. You can set up so many awesome things here like geometrical nonlinearity or material nonlinearity.

FEA Workflow 5: Post-processing

Usually, you get a lot of different outcomes from an analysis. Post processing is the part where you see all the important results and do some additional checking. For the software, it is only a “display results” function (even though those can be really complex). However, as an engineer, you will do more. It’s not sufficient to simply see the outcomes and paste them into a report. You need to think if the outcomes are correct if no mistakes were made etc. Most importantly however you need to decide if you accept such an outcome or does the thing need strengthening (or is there a chance for more optimization).

 

In fact, this checking if the part is actually ok based on the outcomes is a skill in post-processing. Getting the outcomes is usually easy.