Autodesk Inventor

[#1]

Hi

Anyone know if inventor Simulation can do stress calculations based on standards / rules ?

Thanks.

[#2]

What standards? 
What rules?

[#3]

FEA standards.

[#4]

What FEA standards?
Cite url of the standards.

I can tell you that in my class we do all of our analysis in Algor (now Autodesk Simulation), Pro/E (now Creo), SolidWorks and Inventor and get equivalent results in all 4 programs (for the types of problems we do - Inventor has limitations on types of FEA analysis it can do that aren't in say, Algor).

[#5]

We have whitepapers published comparing AIP Stress Analysis to NAFEMS cases.  Is this what you're looking for?

   http://usa.autodesk.com/autodesk-inventor/white-papers/

   Direct link: http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/autodesk_simulation_2011_nafems_benchmarks.pdf

Thanks, -Hugh

[#6]

Hugh (or anyone else),

I have an audit coming up and I was wondering if you have any white papers for Inventor's frame analysis tools. Does anything similar to what you posted here exist for that function of IV (preferably 2011)?

Thanks for the help and your incredible expertise in this area!

[#7]

Hi Jean,

  I can say that we've done substantial internal numerical validation of the Frame Analysis results.  However, these are not included in the 2012 NAFEMS whitepaper or the upcoming R2013 whitepaper that should include a Frame Analysis modal result comparison.  I'm looking into the possibility of including FA numerical results in the upcoming R2014 NAFEMS comparison.

  The Beam element solver used in Inventor's Frame Analysis is the same one we use for our Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis product.  I've looked for Robot result benchmarks, and so far the closest I can find is a (non-Autodesk published) verification with respect to US codes here.

  I hope this helps, and we appreciate you bringing this to our attention!  As always, please let us know if you have any additional questions, comments or concerns.

Best regards, -Hugh

[#8]

Thank you Hugh. They haven't asked me specifically for the frame analysis documentation but I suspect they might. If they do I will get them the information you posted here. Becuase of our auditing requirements it would be awesome to have one document that satisfied all of these "verified software results" requirements that are being added to our list each time. For some reason these auditors don't trust software companies !

Your analysis knowledge is a valuable asset to this forum and I thank you for your participation! Have a good day.

[#9]

---

jeanchile wrote:

For some reason these auditors don't trust software companies !

---

Neither should you, if your design fails because the software is in error then the responsibility is with you, not the software manufacturer. Part of quality assurance standards requires that all your in-house and proprietary software has been verified to be accurate. Part of our compliance with ISO 9001 requires us to perform this for all our engineering software.

Although I agree, you would like to think that the software companies have fixed all the errors but this is often not the case. At least with FEA these errors don't usually influence the benchmarks. With some of the proprietary PV software though this hasn't been the case.