Language

AutoFEM and other CAE systems comparison
( AutoFEM vs Ansys & SolidWorks Simulation )

We are often asked, "Does AutoFEM provide an acceptable precision of calculations? Is there any comparison AutoFEM and other famous finite element software systems?"
Below you can find a comparison of our tutorial examples, solved, besides AutoFEM, in two other well known finite element systems: ANSYS Workbench and SolidWorks Simulation (CosmosWorks).

Linear Static Strength Analysis

The result "Displacements" in AutoFEM Analysis:
The result "Displacements" in AutoFEM Analysis

The result "Displacements" in SolidWorks Simulation:
The result "Displacements" in SolidWorks Simulation

The result "Displacements" in Ansys Workbench:
The result "Displacements" in Ansys Workbench

Comparison:

AutoFEM
Ansys
CosmosWorks
Max Displacements, mm 0,06497 0.06424 0.06406
Number of tetrahedra 9,924 10,797 10,601

Conclusion:
We can see, the maximal displacements are very close in spite of the difference between finite element meshes.

The result "Stresses von Mises" in AutoFEM Analysis:
The result "Stresses von Mises" in AutoFEM Analysis

The result "Stresses von Mises" in SolidWorks Simulation:
The result "Stresses von Mises" in SolidWorks Simulation:

The result "Stresses von Mises" in Ansys Workbench:
The result "Stresses von Mises" in Ansys Workbench

Comparison:


AutoFEM
Ansys
CosmosWorks
Max Stresses, MPa 67,96 81,336 99,387
Number of tetrahedra 1,281 840 1,105

Conclusion:
We can see fairly large disturbance in stress estimations between all FEA systems because of the
finite element mesh coarseness.

Frequency Analysis (determining resonance frequencies)

First mode, AutoFEM Analysis:
First mode, AutoFEM Analysis

First mode, Ansys WorkBench:
First mode, Ansys WorkBench

First mode, SolidWorks Simulation:
First mode, SolidWorks Simulation

Fifth mode, AutoFEM Analysis:
Fifth mode, AutoFEM Analysis

Fifth mode, Ansys WorkBench:
Fifth mode, Ansys WorkBench

Fifth mode, SolidWorks Simulation:
Fifth mode, SolidWorks Simulation

Comparison:


AutoFEM
Ansys
CosmosWorks
First frequency, Hz
441.92
440.13
438.84
Fifth frequency, Hz 2,853,14 2,843.6 2,840.3
Number of tetrahedra 1,281 870
1,105

Conclusion:
We can see that frequencies and shapes of modes are very close in all systems.

Buckling Analysis (critical load factor)

First buckling mode, AutoFEM Analysis:
First buckling mode, AutoFEM Analysis

First buckling mode, Ansys WorkBench:
First buckling mode, Ansys WorkBench

First buckling mode, SolidWorks Simulation:
First buckling mode, SolidWorks Simulation

Third buckling mode, AutoFEM Analysis:
Third buckling mode, AutoFEM Analysis

Third buckling mode, Ansys WorkBench:
Third buckling mode, Ansys WorkBench

Third buckling mode, SolidWorks Simulation:
Third buckling mode, SolidWorks Simulation

Comparison:


AutoFEM
Ansys
CosmosWorks
First Load Factor
8.676
8.5485
8.4937
Third Load Factor 16.002 15.931 15.861
Number of tetrahedra 3,209 2.871
3,103

Conclusion:
We can see that all critical-load factors and buckling shapes are very close in all systems.

Thermal Analysis

Temperature field, AutoFEM Analysis:
Temperature field, AutoFEM Analysis

Temperature field, Ansys WorkBench:
Temperature field, Ansys WorkBench

Temperature field, SolidWorks Simulation:
Temperature field, SolidWorks Simulation

Thermal Flux, AutoFEM Analysis:
Thermal Flux, AutoFEM Analysis

Thermal Flux, Ansys WorkBench:
Thermal Flux, Ansys WorkBench

Thermal Flux, SolidWorks Simulation
:Thermal Flux, SolidWorks Simulation

Comparison:


AutoFEM
Ansys
CosmosWorks
Maximum Temperature, C
38.9824
39.088
38.996
Maximum Heat Flux, W/m2
14,960 19,969 15,770
Number of tetrahedra 8,710 20.776
3,103

Conclusion: Temperatures and thermal (heat) fluxes are close in all systems.