apdl vs mechanical

[enrico1979]

hello to all ragazzzi

spent a good summer? ? ?

I've got one of my stupid curiosity.
for static structural analysis is it better to use ansys apdl or the static structural of wb??? ?
Of course generalization is difficult, but clarification examples would be appreciated.

thanks in advance and thank you very much

bye

 

[Vmax]

of course the answer is: "dependence"
in general the wb and the classic (a.k.a. ansys apdl) share the same solutors.
the difference is in the pre-post approach: more modern, easy, intuitive but also limited the wb; more classic, difficult to learn and not always intuitive but also much more controllable, customizable and scriptable the classic (apdl).
Let's put it like this: for simple models, i.e. with low abstraction level (so complex geometry) and with mathematical models "standard", better the wb; for a little particular things and/or script better the apdl.
there is the possibility of "hybridizing" the two approaches in various ways, one of them is inserting on the wb side of the snippets apdl code, which allows for a certain greater flexibility. personally I never did, I always preferred another: do preprocessing via wb and then switch to classic for everything that follows.

 

[eih64]

the limits between the classic and the wb are linked to the knowledge of ansys by the user. wb allows you to stay very + close to geometric modeling (cad to mean us) .. and in this sense are then facilitated the operations of geometric optimization and other ...
advice... use wb and "valida" with extreme criticality as you see on your screen ... good work

 

[enrico1979]

Thanks guys for the help.

more or less my way of acting follows how much vmax recommended me, as as soon as I see forced to shape a contact from the apdl step immediately to the wb, which translated could also be seen as follows:
for individual components, and for a set of schematizable travure, apdl usage, while for complex geometries, with a number of components greater than the wb step unit.

Hello and thank you

 

[stefano.garbin]

correct what vmax says.
I would say it depends on many factors, and only experience will tell you what approach to choose.
personally if I had to share my time spent on ansys as a percentage, I would say:
40% pencil accounts on cheese paper (i.e. thinking about how to set the model and what I want to get as output - stage needed to understand then what tool to use)
20% workbench
30% workbench + command snippet in apdl
10% classic ansys (mapdl)

 

[enrico1979]

hello stefano and vmax.

I'm lucky because my question answered experts in this software.
both speak of command snippet in apdl and a combined use of wb and classical ansys.
you could address me on some tutorials that allow me to understand what you are talking about, as I intend to learn adpl and then the integrated use of the two software

 

[stefano.garbin]

to learn the apdl you can start working a little bit with classic ansys and then analyze the log file that contains all the corresponding commands.
each line coincides with an apdl command that you can "study" in the online guide.
then for the snippet command speech I suggest you enter the "customer portal" of ansys in the tutorials section.
downloaded "using command objects" or something similar. all the tutorials uploaded in the customer portal are very well done!

 

[enrico1979]

thank you stefano

I will certainly follow your advice. at the moment I am beginning with the tutorials of the University of Tree, which you have in the past already recommended (with the only flaw I have to return to version v12 that prescribes elements such as links 1 or beam4, not pre-dressed by v14, which come in such tutorials used).

bye and good day.

Oh, by the way, the day I won't ask, what? ? ....., reading one of your advice, then it will mean that I have reached a good level.