Talk:Finite element analysis

Misc unorganized

I would like to point out that there is an error on your page.Accuracy of the FEA method cannot -practically- be improved indifinitevely. There is an upper limit.This limit is determined by convergence check performed by all FEA analysts. After a number of elements accuracy stays practically the same, while computing time increase

And what about FEA freeware?

1.Does FEA include FEM and FDM? 2.The current article seems to explain info already contained in FEM page.Why not try to explain when does FEM becomes FEA,and explain some practical applications and uses of FEA?--Sahodaran 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too many external links

This page has more external links to commercial finite element vendors than actual content. Any ideas of what to be done about it? I would think we should just keep a paragraph listing all commercial software but with no direct links to the companies publishing them (and same for free software links). Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With your experience in shape optimization, I'm confident you'll find the optimal shape in the infinite-dimensional space of possible articles. ;)

Seriously, I'd support removing all the external links to software. A paragraph listing all the software does not seem very useful (unless you want to compare the various packages). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which, to my mind seems like a good reason to keep them.Greglocock 11:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number of links is just too big. Any google search would find them. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What efficient search terms would bring this list up?Greglocock 03:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

finite element software Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that search hides Nastran 3 pages down. Not really as good as a proper list is it?Greglocock 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But this article is now one screenful big, with the external links taking up almost three screenfuls. Not a healthy state of affairs.

Also, certainly that collection of external links is indiscriminate, people just use this page to boost their google ratings. I will cut off the whole thing when I have time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, so please let me know if this does not fit into the overall scheme. What about making a new page for "finite element software"? It could have a matrix with types of solvers and basic capabilities. For the open source software, it could also include licensing. This would allow the "finite element analysis" page to be dedicated to the method and give people interested in the software a resource. --Jbaylor 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to work on that? It would be a lot of work.

I agree that such an article may provide value. An arbitrary list of external links the way it is now does not provide value however. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Comparison of computer algebra systems for how this could be done. I'm not very fond of it, but I wouldn't oppose it either. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do this. The research will require some effort, but I am familiar with many of the applications.

I have not created a new page before, so I will need to go through the tutorial and play in the sandbox for a bit. Looking at the CAS page will be useful, thanks for the reference.

I will let you know when I have something to show or have questions. --Jbaylor 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started writing the "finite element analysis software" article, but I am not sure about whether the headings that I have chosen for the tables of applications are appropriate. I thought focusing on functionality would be the most useful.

For the solvers I am using: "Name"; "Creator"; "Latest stable version"; "Computing platforms"; "Software license"; "Implicit/Explicit"; "Linear/Nonlinear"; "Element types" (general, not specific formulations); "Notes".

For the pre and post processing applications: "Name"; "Creator"; "Latest stable version"; "Computing platforms"; "Software license"; "Pre or post processor"; "Import formats"; "Export formats"; "Notes".

Would anyone like to discuss this before I submit it, or should I add the article and we can discuss it and modify there? --Jbaylor 19:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can just write the article, and then we will discuss/edit it after we see it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merging of finite element method and analysis was innappropriate because the two are distinct. Method deals with numerical techniques of interest to academia, while analysis deals with the practical work of interest to industry. The merging was not neutral, favoring inclusion of all of the math and the exclusion of the application information even though both are of equal encyclopedia value. I don't know how to undo the merger. It is not appropriate to add the software industry information into a FEM article, so the creation of a finite element software page is an appropriate alternative. ccchambers (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free vs Commercial

I changed the line that said "some free and some commercial", which seems to imply that free software cannot be commercial, to "both free and proprietary". I hope this doesn't become an issue. (I'm a bit new to the Wikipedia community.) Swap 01:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References for FEA history

Should we have some references for these historical statements?--Jbaylor 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah since the History section is taken pretty much verbatim from the first paragraph of http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/num/widas/history.html :

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was first developed in 1943 by R. Courant, who utilized the Ritz method of numerical analysis and minimization of variational calculus to obtain approximate solutions to vibration systems. Shortly thereafter, a paper published in 1956 by M. J. Turner, R. W. Clough, H. C. Martin, and L. J. Topp established a broader definition of numerical analysis. The paper centered on the "stiffness and deflection of complex structures".

Links

One of the sentences is:

Equations of equilibrium, in conjunction with applicable physical considerations such as compatibility and constitutive relations, are applied to each element, and a system of simultaneous equations is constructed.

It seems like

the concept of equilibrium should be linked
links that do exist should be put through to more specific pages.

I am not sure where compatibility should go; does this refer to compatibility of deformations? (I know I have encountered this as the sense compatibility is enforced in the structural FEA derivations I've worked with, but I have a feeling it might be more general. I don't see anything on the disamb that would work. Also, constitutive should probably be linked better. I think Constitutive equation is our man, right? Notthe9 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify/Copyvio

The bottom part of this article seems to be very... not Wikipedia. Notthe9 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text could also be copyright material that has been dumped in here. John Vandenberg 21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be surprised this is just copy&paste from somewhere. Look for example at the section headings (which I just changed). Nobody would bother writing those 2.1.2.1 numbers by hand I would think. But I could not find any matched on google for this text. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also had suspicions of that, but I didn't find a match. It certainly seems fishy. I really don't think it was originally written for this page. Notthe9 03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about cutting it out? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for some indication of the origin of the text from the author on User talk:Lesliej. We should assume good faith and wait for a response as the contributor is new to Wikipedia. John Vandenberg 12:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read up a bit on WP:CV, and even cases where the copyright owner submits the work (i.e. a thesis) are not as clear as I thought -- unless the work has been published with a clear free licence. At the same time, I found this: meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. What do you guys think? John Vandenberg 07:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the stuff about trucks?

How come there's a bunch of content about the truck industry in this article? What makes them special? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.199.251 (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody with a small area of expertise wrote all they knew.Greglocock 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of links

I've removed several redlinks and external links from the software list, because there is nothing to indicate the notability of those items, and they could easily be interpreted as spam. The bluelinks are at least notable enough to have surviving Wiki articles, so I've left them intact.

Before re-adding those links, please think carefully about whether they warrant inclusion, specifically whether they are notable enough (see WP:Notability). The best bet would be to try creating Wiki articles for these items; if the articles are deleted, it'll be a sure sign they aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion here.

Regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation-needed tags in opening

I removed two 'citation needed' tags from the opening paragraph. One was that finite element is used in engineering analysis - since we have an entire (referenced) section on its application in mechanical engineering, I don't see this as needed. The other was that there are many FE packages 'both free and proprietary'; since the article has external links to public domain and commercial packages, this seems redundant. Jovial Air (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion with Finite element method

This page contains large portions of the same material as Finite element method. I would suggest a page (name Finite Element Methods) that grabbed all the history and general discussion together, then another page including a more technical discussion. As it is both pages seem to be competing for the same content -Art187 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a week of no response I have performed proposed merge. Unfortunately most of what was written on the Finite element analysis page belonged on something more like Computer-aided engineering, but I have tried to keep the central themes of the the article in tacked. -Art187 (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Finite element method in structural mechanics

Currently, there are three main articles on the FEM. The article Finite element method presents an introduction to the theory of FEM as a technique for numerical solution of PDE--This mathematically oriented approach is particularly useful for non-structural applications. The article Finite element method in structural mechanics, on the other hand, presents FEM from the stress analyst's point of view as the FEM was initially developed--An approach that is intuitive, natural and easily comprehensible to structural engineers. Finally, the article Finite element analysis gives a survey of current practice and applications of FEM in stress analysis.

The three articles have different emphases and cater to very different interests. Merging all or any two of them will lengthen, complicate the article and burden the readers with unnecessary baggage and requisite background.

I tried to look for but did not see any written rationale for merging the articles. I suggest that whoever makes the suggestion should first make the case and put forward a merged version for public critique. TVBZ28 16:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has largely the same content as the Finite Element Method and who are we kidding they should have the same content. What is worse is that there are links to software on both pages that had differences. I went ahead and took care of that though. --Art187 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at Talk:Finite_element_method#The_merge. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]