Final Report

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/352059057
Abaqus vs. SolidWorks: Dawn of FEA
Thesis · June 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22984.03846
CITATIONS READS
0 2,598
1 author:
Bastian Shi
Imperial College London
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Abaqus vs. SolidWorks: Dawn of FEA View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Bastian Shi on 02 June 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Abaqus vs. SolidWorks:
Dawn of FEA
Department of Mechanical Engineering
ME4 Final Year Project
Final Report
03/06/2021
Author: Yuxin Shi

CID: 01328607
Supervisor: Dr Idris Mohammed
Word Count: 11463
Word Limit: 12000
Abstract
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is becoming a more critical aspect of mechanical engineering and its
ability to computationally replicate multiple different phenomena to remove the need for expensive
physical prototyping provides many upsides, whilst also opening a window to allow for parts to be
optimised for a better overall design. Two common packages currently available: One is Abaqus,
which is dedicated purely to FEA. The other is SolidWorks, which although is designated for
Computer-Aided Design (CAD), also comes with its own FEA package, hence how they perform
simulations and how straightforward they are to operate differ in numerous ways.
The aim of this project is to perform a high-level comparison of both software, by conducting side-
by-side simulations of structural models seen in ME1 and ME2 Stress Analysis, along with more
complicated examples seen in ME3. A design optimisation and dynamic study are both done to
observe how each package behaves when carrying out more sophisticated tasks. The results of
analyses done are compared, mainly looking at the accuracy of results compared to theoretical
calculations and run times. The effects of changing mesh parameters are substantially investigated,
where tests are done with different mesh element sizes, shapes and types. The user interfaces are
also compared to see whether or not one is easier to use, and any limitations are addressed for
potentials users.
Results have seen both perform to a comparably high level, which is to be expected with highly
sophisticated FEA software. Notable discoveries include SolidWorks being the much more user-
friendly package, whereas Abaqus has shorter run times and is capable of performing multiphysics
studies. Regarding accuracies, SolidWorks FEA achieves better results for simpler components and
loads, whereas Abaqus excels in the more advanced problems involving more complex models. A
recommendation for students new to FEA would be to learn and develop their skills on SolidWorks
FEA, before making the transition to Abaqus once they are confident and possess more knowledge
of stress analysis.
i
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to express my utmost gratitude to Dr Idris Mohammed for his mentorship and
expertise in Finite Element Analysis, and for providing support during a very difficult year.
My appreciation also goes to numerous online content creators for sharing their knowledge in
performing computational simulations, which have undoubtedly brought another dimension to
such an interesting project.
I would like to thank all of the staff in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Imperial College
London for providing me with invaluable skills for my future career and giving me the most
memorable years of my life.
Finally, I would like to dedicate my work to my friends and family, for being there to see me through
some very challenging periods in the last four years, and without them, I would not be in the position
I am in today.
ii
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Aims & Objectives ................................................................................................................. 2
2. Fundamentals of FEA .................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Types of FEA Simulations ...................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Key Parameters ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 FEA Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Materials................................................................................................................................ 4
2.5 Software Capabilities............................................................................................................. 5
2.6 Mesh Convergence ................................................................................................................ 7
2.7 Element Type ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.8 Element Shape ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.9 2D/3D Elements .................................................................................................................... 9
3. Modelling Methodology & Results ............................................................................................. 10
3.1 ME1 Models......................................................................................................................... 10

3.1.1 Model 1: Thin, pressurised open-ended cylinder ............................................................ 10
3.1.2 Model 2: Bolt under tensile load ..................................................................................... 13
3.1.3 Model 3: Cantilever beam – elastic bending ................................................................... 16
3.1.4 Model 4: I-beam elastic bending ..................................................................................... 18
3.1.5 Model 5: Beam torsion .................................................................................................... 19
3.1.6 Model 6: Strain block ....................................................................................................... 21
3.2 ME2 Models......................................................................................................................... 22

3.2.1 Model 7: Beam with cut-outs .......................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Model 8: Thick-walled, pressurised close-ended cylinder .............................................. 25
3.2.3 Model 9: Cantilever beam – plastic bending ................................................................... 27
3.2.4 Model 10: Strut buckling ................................................................................................. 29
iii
3.3 ME3 Models......................................................................................................................... 30
3.3.1 Model 11: Shrink fit ......................................................................................................... 30
3.3.2 Model 12: Plate bending ................................................................................................. 33
3.3.3 Model 13: Membrane ...................................................................................................... 35
3.4 Advanced Models ................................................................................................................ 38

3.4.1 Model 14: DMT component optimisation study ............................................................. 38
3.4.2 Model 15: Mobile phone drop test ................................................................................. 41
3.5 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 44
4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 47
4.1 Usability Comparison .......................................................................................................... 47
4.2 Key Findings ......................................................................................................................... 48

4.2.1 Mesh Related Findings..................................................................................................... 48
4.2.2 Analysis Related Findings................................................................................................. 53
4.2.3 Performance Related Findings......................................................................................... 56
4.3 Result Verification ............................................................................................................... 57
4.4 Future Work ........................................................................................................................ 57
5. Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 58
6. References .................................................................................................................................. 59
7. Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 61
iv
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The use of Finite Element Analysis (FEA), which is the process of applying the finite element method,
has become more frequent since the turn of the century. The most common use of FEA is to simulate
how a physical component, such as the piston of an internal combustion engine seen in Figure 1,
behaves under a set of specified conditions. These conditions can include any external loads and
temperature, and the process aims to determine weak spots within the structure, examples being
areas of high tension or stress concentration in their designs. In FEA, parts are modelled using very
fine elements to create a mesh. The software will then apply any boundary conditions and forces to
the mesh to compute what would happen to that component, and generate numerical results which
can be post-processed, and formatted in a certain way to create the most effective outputs.
Figure 1 – FEA simulation of a piston rod [1]
FEA possesses many benefits, the main one is that computational simulations remove the
requirement to conduct physical experiments which reduces manufacturing and operating costs and
eliminates potential risks which may arise during the testing of certain parts. Results produced by
FEA simulations of validated models can also be extrapolated via parametric analysis, cutting down
the time required to conduct all the necessary tests. That being said, FEA is not perfect. Some of its
disadvantages include the inability to take into consideration the operating environment, the
automatic assumption of a perfect material without defects, and requiring high-performance
computers which can heavily drain resources.
1
In FEA, it is necessary to use mathematics to comprehensively understand and quantify any physical
phenomena such as structural or fluid behaviour, thermal transport, wave propagation, the growth
of biological cells, etc. Most of these processes are described using Partial Differential Equations
(PDEs) [1]. A lot of different FEA software packages are currently available, but the two that this
project will focus on are Abaqus and SolidWorks FEA. Abaqus specialises in FEA, whereas SolidWorks
has a built-in FEA package that can be used to analyse components that are designed within
SolidWorks CAD. Therefore, there will be a difference in the frameworks of the FEA packages offered
by both software, especially in how partial differential equations are solved, the types of simulations
available, accuracy of results and run time.
(Background extracted from [2].)
1.2 Aims & Objectives

The main goal of this project is to use both Abaqus and SolidWorks FEA to perform simulations on
components and compare their retrospective numerical results to determine the differences in how
each software package computes the results of each simulation. The majority of models that will be
used in this project will come from Stress Analysis examples and questions seen on the ME1 and
ME2 syllabus, to visualise common questions students may come across in the module. Other
models that can be used in this project include potential components which may be designed during
ME3 Design, Make and Test (DMT), where it may be required to perform FEA on certain aspects of
the design to ensure that it will not fail under excessive loads. A dynamic study is also carried out to
observe the difference in software performance when a more demanding task is performed.
The specific aims of this project are listed below.
• To determine which software is more accurate.

• To determine the minimum mesh quality for different simulation types on both software.
• To determine the improvements made via the use of quadratic elements over linear
elements, without hugely compromising run-times.
• To compare analyses done with each element shape on Abaqus and determine the benefits
of each shape for a given scenario.
• To compare usability and determine which software is easier to use.
• To compare the limitations of each software.
2
2. Fundamentals of FEA
The majority of the literature review conducted in this project consists of reviewing the basic
properties of FEA and features that could impact the analyses. The most important independent
variables of FEA are listed to show how users can affect the outcomes of a simulation.
2.1 Types of FEA Simulations

Table 1 below lists the types of FEA analyses.
Table 1 – Types of FEA Simulations
Type Description
Static The most common type of analysis, the model which is being tested upon remains
stationary. The key parameters which are investigated are the stress and strain
components and their variation. An example of a static analysis is load variation on
a bridge, where FEA can be used to determine the maximum load it can withstand
before collapsing.
Dynamic In dynamic analyses, the part undergoes either a change in geometry or a full-body
displacement due to external loads, which can have impacts such as body forces.
Common examples include the bending of a cantilever beam and the effects of
dropping a mobile phone.
Nodal The least common type of FEA, a nodal analysis is used when the testing sample
undergoes vibrations. Parameters to look out for include eigenfrequencies and peak
responses. One example would be the effects of starting up an internal combustion
engine.
Most of the models concerned in this project will fall into the static category, although a dynamic
analysis is done to observe how each software cope with more complex simulations.
2.2 Key Parameters

The most common parameters that can be determined from FEA include:
• Stresses
• Strains
• Displacements
• Thermal distributions
• Natural vibration frequencies
• Fatigue life
3
Finding out these properties without needing to conduct destructive testing is perhaps the biggest
advantage of FEA. The automotive and construction industries have utilised and integrated FEA into
their working structure, making it irreplaceable in its role in research & development.
2.3 FEA Procedure

The following steps are done to accurately perform FEA simulations:
1. Create part – the geometry of the component is generated. The component is normally 3D,
although some models can be simplified to 2D.
2. Select material – The mechanical properties of the component are required to carry out
analyses.
3. Apply boundary conditions – Sufficient constraints such as fixed edges or faces must be
given, to prevent rigid body motion during static analyses.
4. Apply loads – These include forces, pressures or moments to the corresponding locations
on the component.
5. Create mesh – The size and type of mesh are vital to the output of the simulations and are
variables that can be changed before performing the analysis.
6. Run analysis – The main output of the software is in the form of contour plots, which the
user can refine.
2.4 Materials
A key input variable for performing simultaneous simulations on each software is to ensure that the
materials have the same properties, as this has a direct effect on the results of simulations. An
assumption that the materials are perfect must be made, as it is impossible to model defects on a
microstructure level on either software, but in the real world, the test specimens are likely to be
made from materials that contain impurities and defects that could affect its properties. Table 2 lists
the mechanical elastic properties of aluminium & steel extracted from [3], two common materials
that will be featured in the simulations and those of glass, taken from [4].
4
Table 2 – Material Properties
Material Young’s Modulus Poisson’s Shear Modulus Thermal Expansion

(GPa) ratio (GPa) Coefficient (K-1)
Aluminium 68.9 26.5 23 x 10-6

0.3
Steel 207 79.6 11 x 10-6
Glass 70 0.22 28.0 9 x 10-6
2.5 Software Capabilities

There is a lot of debate not just about which software produces the more accurate results, but also
which offers the more complete package, in terms of ease to use and post-processing abilities.
However, as Abaqus is purely dedicated for FEA, its wider range of capabilities means that it takes
the upper hand when it comes to:
1. Non-linear problems involving multiple contact interactions – as the loads applied are
increased, SolidWorks starts to struggle with the convergence process, as it’s less capable
of handling the increased amount of data and therefore integration equations. Abaqus
gives the user more control and has a built-in general contact feature, which automatically
determines which surfaces come into contact.
2. Rapid events – when it comes to modelling rapid events, a timeframe for the process to
happen across is required, as no collision or drop is instantaneous, and SolidWorks offers a
shorter one compared to Abaqus, making the solve harder. Abaqus takes a more robust
and less time-consuming approach to model shock actions [5], along with the ability to
model non-linear behaviour better. Figure 2 below shows an Abaqus simulation of a car
crash.
5
Figure 2 – Abaqus Simulation of a Car Crash [6]
3. Problems with large distortions – for the same reasons as point 1, SolidWorks tends to
struggle with scenarios involving large displacement and stresses, and the user is more
limited when it comes to defining the properties of materials, despite it coming with a pre-
existing material library.
4. Multiphysics problems – materials can also be subject to phenomena like thermal
expansion and electromagnetic effects, and Abaqus offers a wider variety of tools for these
types of analysis. When electrical, thermal and structural aspects of the simulation are
constantly influencing each other, Abaqus offers fully coupled modelling, making it the
superior choice [7].
6
2.6 Mesh Convergence
As the number of elements in a mesh increases, the accuracy of the analysis improves in a process
called convergence. This has a large effect when solving non-linear problems, as the mathematical
models become more difficult to compute. Figure 3 below shows the effects of convergence.
Figure 3 – Mesh convergence graph [8]
Convergence effects can also be observed on contour plots. As seen in Figure 4 below, as the mesh
is refined, the smaller elements give the user more detail of the stress distribution in critical areas,
and values are closer to the theoretical values obtained via calculations.
Figure 4 – Reduction in error with mesh refinement [9]
7
This proposes one question: How much do the meshes produced by both software have to be
refined to reach convergence? Whilst increasing the element number provides benefits in terms of
improving accuracy, the extra computing power required to produce the mesh can lead to increased
run times, which if too long can contravene any gains made by using smaller elements. Therefore, a
key objective of this project is:
To determine which software requires the least number of elements to converge and estimate
an upper limit.
2.7 Element Type

Table 3 – Node Numbers for Element Types
Shape Tetrahedral Hexahedral
Type Linear Quadratic Linear Quadratic
Nodes 4 10 8 20
In quadratic elements, an extra node is present on a line connecting two nodes to represent any
quadratic variations. Note that each node has 3 degrees of freedom – movement in the x, y and z
axes. Having more nodes provides the user with more data, and produces a mesh with lower
stiffness, which can lead to higher-quality contour plots. However, more computing power is
required, which make FEA using quadratic elements more time-consuming, hence more expensive.
Therefore, another objective is:
To determine suitable scenarios for when quadratic elements produce more accurate results,
without hugely compromising run-times.
Note that table 3 do not include speciality elements such as beam and shell elements, as these
element types are only used for specific scenarios.
8
2.8 Element Shape
Table 4 below shows the two types of element shapes:
Table 4 – Element Shapes ([Images from [10]]
Shape Tetrahedral Hexahedral
Image
For a given element size, a tetrahedral element will have a smaller volume, meaning more elements
can be generated for a mesh of the same component. Tetrahedral elements are better for modelling
more complex geometries, as their order within the mesh is more flexible.
An issue encountered is that SolidWorks FEA is only able to produce tetrahedral element meshes,
which can lead to overcomplication if the model has a simple geometry, leading to an unnecessary
increase in run time without a significant improvement in results. In Abaqus, element shape is user-
defined, therefore another objective is:
To compare analyses done with each element shape on Abaqus and determine the effects of
element shape for different scenarios.
This segment of the project will not be performed on every model – instead, one model from each
category will be chosen to use as a guideline on the effects of changing the element shape from
tetrahedral to hexahedral impacts the results of the FEA.
2.9 2D/3D Elements

By default, models are done with 3D elements to replicate seen in tutorial questions, but 2D
elements can be utilised occasionally, usually for parts with constant cross-sections such as pressure
vessels and beams. The obvious advantage of doing this is the reduction in elements required, which
brings down overall run time.
By introducing 2D elements, it is important to define how they behave – they can be either plane
stress, where the stress normal to the element plane is zero, or plane strain, where the strain normal
to the element plane is zero.
9
3. Modelling Methodology & Results
In this chapter, the setup for each model is shown, simulations are done on Abaqus and SolidWorks
FEA and then compared to analytical solutions to determine their accuracies.
The accuracy of a parameter is defined as:
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 (%) = 1 − | | (1)
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Where theoretical value is the value calculated using equations and simulation value is the value
obtained from the analysis ran on Abaqus or SolidWorks. The most accurate set of results for each
software using each element type is listed giving 4 columns in total, with the best setup highlighted
in green.
Results from all analyses are then classified into three main categories:
1. Pressure Vessels – Internally/externally pressurised cylinders.

2. Beams – Cantilever/simply supported girders with different cross-sectional geometries.
3. Tensile Components – parts that are stretched/compressed in one direction.
Values are aggregated to determine how well each package performs for each study type, looking
at both accuracy and run times. By default, contour plots in this chapter will be taken off Abaqus,
but ones from SolidWorks will be included if they differ.
For each model, a table showing results is included, along with contour plots and convergence plots
to show the variation of simulation accuracy with mesh refinement.
3.1 ME1 Models

ME1 sees the introduction of internally pressurised cylinders, bending of beams, elastic stress/strain
and torsion.
3.1.1 Model 1: Thin, pressurised open-ended cylinder

This model looks at the hoop stresses and strains in an aluminium cylinder to show the principles of
radial stress and strain and how they vary with pressure. Figure 5 shows the vessel diagram and
parameters.
10
Φ = 100 mm
σr = εr = 0
σz = εz = 0
P = 10 MPa
T = 5 mm
Figure 5 – Model 1 Diagram and parameters [11]
To model this scenario on SolidWorks, the most efficient way is to model a quarter of the cylinder,
as the two flat cross-sectional surfaces can be used to constrain the part in free space (Figure 6).
The process for this simulation is different on Abaqus – 2D plane strain scenarios can be modelled
without the requirement of a 3D model, reducing run time. Hence only the cross-sections of the
cylinder need to be modelled (Figure 7), as the length is irrelevant due to the open ends.
Figure 6 – SolidWorks 3D setup Figure 7 – Abaqus 2D setup
Table 5 – Model 1 results
Theoretical SolidWorks Abaqus

Element Type N/A Quadratic Linear Quadratic Linear
Elements 5286 113430 3329 162
Hoop Stress (MPa) 90 95.47 96.25 95.42 91.62
Hoop Strain 0.0013 0.001414 0.001449 0.001427 0.001343
Average Maximum Accuracy 92.58% 90.80% 92.10% 97.45%
11
Figure 8 – Model 1 hoop stress contour plot Figure 9 – Model 1 hoop stress contour plot (Abaqus)
(SolidWorks)
Figure 10 – Element size vs. Stress Accuracy
12
Figure 11 – Element size vs. Strain accuracy
3.1.2 Model 2: Bolt under tensile load

This study will predominantly look at the axial stress distribution within a steel bolt along with
extension, considering stress concentrations at sharp edges. Figure 12 shows the bolt diagram and
parameters.
U=0
D = 16 mm
F = 42.4 kN
Figure 12 – Model 2 Diagram [12]
13
For this model, the tensile to the lower face of the thread and constrain the head of the bolt so that
its displacement is zero.

Elements 6706 767 11262
Stress (MPa) 211 229.1 211.4 210.948 213.117
Displacement (mm) 0.0528 0.05855 0.05918 0.05811 0.05821
Figure 13 – Model 2 tensile stress contour plot
14
Figure 14 – Number of elements vs. stress accuracy
Figure 15 – Number of elements vs. displacement accuracy
15
3.1.3 Model 3: Cantilever beam – elastic bending
For this study, the main parameters to determine are the end displacement of an aluminium beam
built-in at one end, along with shear stresses along the beam. Figure 16 shows the beam diagram
and parameters.
F = 100 N
Cross-sectional area:
Fixed end
10mm x 10 mm
L = 100 mm

Elements 6706 767 11262
Stress (MPa) 1 229.1 211.4 210.948 213.117
Displacement (mm) 0.58 0.05855 0.05918 0.05811 0.05821
Figure 17 – Model 3 end deflection contour plot
16
Figure 19 – Number of elements vs. displacement accuracy
17
3.1.4 Model 4: I-beam elastic bending
This study will determine the displacement variation of an aluminium I-beam simply supported at
both ends. Note that the beam is symmetrical in the x and y axes. Figure 20 shows the beam diagram
and parameters.
400 mm
Uniform load: 100 kN/m
100 mm
Beam length: 10 m
Simply supported at ends
400 mm
100 mm
For both software, the part must be treated as a beam instead of a solid. There are numerous
reasons: Fewer Degrees of freedom (DoFs) as the beam geometry is only defined by its cross-section,
the results are easier to post-process and present, but most importantly, produces more accurate
results. When the beam is treated as a solid, the software assumes that less deformation will occur,
hence results produced are a lot smaller – the effects are more significant when using SolidWorks
(See Figure 21 for the mesh). This means that a low-quality mesh can be produced without
compromising results. Abaqus does not produce a 3D mesh – a line is created which replicates a
simplified geometry of the beam, which although reduces run time and CPU consumption, means
that results are more difficult to visualise.
Figure 21 – Model 4 SolidWorks mesh
18

Displacement (mm) 97.7 99.16 106.1
Average Maximum Accuracy 98.51% 94.96%
Figure 22 – Model 4 SolidWorks displacement contour plot
Figure 23 – Model 4 Abaqus displacement contour plot
3.1.5 Model 5: Beam torsion

In this study, an Aluminium 6061-T6 beam with a triangular cross-section is built-in at one end, and
a moment is applied along its axis at the free end. This study aims to observe the shear stress
distribution, and although angular rotation is another useful parameter, its simulation is made more
difficult due to change in cross-sectional area, something not assumed in the question. Figure 24
shows the beam diagram and parameters.
19
Fixed end
T = 179 Nm
Figure 24 – Model 5 Diagram & dimensions [15]
The dimensions of this component meant that beam elements would have been an appropriate
choice but are not chosen due to the low-quality contour plots as seen in model 4. Also, in this study,
there is no deflection expected at the free end of the beam, hence solid elements are more suitable
to model the part.

Elements 738 45392 43567 43567
Shear Stress (MPa) 56 52.48 36.02 49.02 35.7
Stress Accuracy 93.71% 64.72% 87.54% 63.75%
Figure 25 – Model 5 shear stress contour plot
20
3.1.6 Model 6: Strain block

Model 6 demonstrates the effects of a tensile load on the x, y and strains on a steel block. Initially,
this study was also meant to include the effects of heat, which would make this a Multiphysics study,
but SolidWorks is unable to perform simulations that include more than one type of load – this is
one of the biggest constraints of SolidWorks FEA. Figure 27 shows the beam diagram and
parameters.
100 MPa 400 mm 100 MPa
Cross-sectional area:
10 mm x 10 mm
Figure 27 – Model 6 Diagram
The effects of heat were also considered when performing a simulation that involves strains in a
component. However, SolidWorks cannot perform a Multiphysics scenario, unlike Abaqus. It is
possible to apply thermal effects to a component in SolidWorks FEA, but not simultaneously with
physical loads. Superposition of numerical results would have likely produced more uncertainty
within results, hence the decision to not include temperature effects was made.

Element Type N/A Quadratic Linear Both
Elements 112 92 57
Average Strain Accuracy 99.96% 99.92% 99.99%
21
Figure 28 – Model 6 tensile strain contour plot
(SolidWorks) Figure 29 – Model 6 tensile strain contour plot (Abaqus)
Figure 30 – Number of elements vs. root mean squared strain accuracy
3.2 ME2 Models

ME2 sees the introduction of beams with cut-outs in the web, thick-walled cylinders, plastic bending
of beams and strut buckling.
3.2.1 Model 7: Beam with cut-outs

An analysis is performed to ensure that the safety factor against yielding does not drop below 1
when a mid-point force is applied. In this study, the beam is fixed at both ends. Figure 31 shows the
diagram and parameters.
22
Mid-point force: 100 kN
Fixed ends
Beam length: 10 m
As the bending is plastic, beam elements are not chosen due to their inabilities to model contours
at regions of high stress. Note that for this study, beam elements are not used due to an inconsistent
cross-section produced by the cut-outs, thus the full geometry of the beam has meshed, as seen in
Figure 32.
Figure 32 – Model 7 mesh

Elements 43517 43517 45215 45215
Stress (MPa) 260 241.4 112.2 236.9 146.3
Safety Factor 1 1.077 2.317 1.098 1.777
Stress Accuracy 93.71% 43.15% 91.12% 56.27%
23
Figure 33 – Model 7 shear stress contour plot
24
3.2.2 Model 8: Thick-walled, pressurised close-ended cylinder
The axial, radial and hoop stresses are analysed in this model. See figure for an illustration of the
problem, and table for parameters. See Figure 35 for the vessel diagram and parameters.
Yield strength: 500 MPa
15 mm
Like model 1, only a quarter of the cylinder needs modelling. The reason why a quarter is the
recommended fraction for simplifying cylindrical components is because the perpendicular cross-
sectional faces provide a perfect area to apply the boundary conditions, which is the movement
constrains in the hoop, radial and axial directions to prevent Rigid Body Motion (RBM). The purpose
of these constraints is to only allow in-plane movement of the structure for the specific surface. See
Figure 36 for an illustration of how to apply the correct constraints.
Constrain in y-axis
Constrain in x-axis
Constrain in z-axis (On lower face)
Figure 36 – Diagram showing constraints for a cylindrical component
25

Elements 81425 81425 86956 86956
Hoop Stress (MPa) Ri 196.2 194.40 192.90 192.91 190.57
Ro 166.2 186.90 184.20 189.52 187.68
Radial Stress (MPa) Ri -30 -29.97 -25.24 -29.97 -25.49
Ro 0 -0.09 -2.19 -0.03 -4.08
Axial Stress (MPa) 83.08 83.54 84.08 81.78 80.43
Average Accuracy 96.73% 83.38% 96.40% 73.20%
Figure 37 – Model 8 hoop stress contour plot
(See Appendix A for a complete selection of stress plots.)
26
3.2.3 Model 9: Cantilever beam – plastic bending
This study will determine the depth of yielded material on the beam when a load is applied, and one
end is fixed. See Figure 38 for the beam diagram and parameters.
F = 32.7 kN Cross-sectional area:

Fixed end
50 mm x 120 mm
L = 1.5 m Yield stress: 320 MPa
To determine the yield depth, it is critical for accurate and precise contour plots to be produced, as
they are required to determine the sections of the beam which has exceeded the yield stress, hence
providing coordinates for where the point of maximum yielding occurs. On SolidWorks, a fatigue
check plot can be produced, where yielded elements are highlighted on the plot in a different colour
(Figure 39). On Abaqus, a lower limit can be applied to the contour plot so that locations with values
lower than the minimum do not show up (Figure 40).
Figure 39 – Model 9 SolidWorks Fatigue check plot
Figure 40 – Model 9 Abaqus plot with a lower limit applied
27

Elements 60297 8169 9640 59178
Yield zone depth (mm) 20 20 20 19 20
Yield zone depth accuracy 100% 100% 95% 100%
Figure 41 – Model 9 Von Mises stress contour plot
Figure 42 – Number of elements vs. yield zone depth accuracy
28
Figure 43 – Run time vs. yield zone depth accuracy
3.2.4 Model 10: Strut buckling

The scenario of this analysis is a table with 4 steel, hollow tubular legs being subject to a certain
load. The aim is to determine and compare the maximum central deflection of the leg, given that it
buckles in the first mode. Note that the leg is built-in at both ends. See Figure 44 for diagram and
parameters.
Force: 97.12 kN
Pinned end Leg diameter: 25 mm
0.9 m
Leg wall thickness: 2 mm
Fixed end
Figure 44 – Model 10 diagram & parameters
As the loading is not eccentric, there is no accurate analytical solution with the right equation to
give an accurate result. Therefore, for each simulation, the result generated by the finest mesh is
used as a reference as the most ideal result, since in theory, the finer the mesh, the more accurate
the result due to convergence.
29
SolidWorks Abaqus
Element Type Quadratic Linear Quadratic Linear
Elements 28155 44493
Displacement (m) 1.39 x 10-3 1.02 x 10-3
Figure 45 – Model 10 central deflection contour plot
3.3 ME3 Models

ME3 sees the introduction of compound cylinders, bending of plates and membranes.
3.3.1 Model 11: Shrink fit

In this model, a bronze alloy collar is shrunk fit onto a solid steel shaft, and the collar yields via the
Tresca criterion. This study aims to determine the contact pressure between the two components.
Effects of friction are not mentioned in the questions, thus can be ignored. See Figure 46 for
illustration and Table 15 for parameters.
Shaft Collar
Figure 46 – Model 11 illustration
30
Table 15 – Model 11 Parameters [17]
Component Shaft Collar
Collar inner diameter (mm) N/A 79.62
Collar outer diameter (mm) 80 120
Young’s Modulus (GPa) 208 104
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 0.333
Yield Stress (MPa) N/A 540
Modelling is done differently on each software – on SolidWorks, the procedure is standard as both
parts are modelled and their properties are defined, then they are meshed to produce the required
contour plots. On Abaqus though, the procedure follows a different path. Firstly, only a quarter of
everything needs to be modelled, as it has a useful feature where it can mirror output visualisations
to create the full model. This allows time to be saved in the meshing stage, hence reducing run time
without compromising accuracy. Secondly, the shaft in the question does not yield, hence it can be
modelled as a rigid solid on Abaqus, a feature not available on SolidWorks.
Therefore, the total amount of elements in the system is reduced since the rigid body only consists
of the shaft’s external surface. Hence for model 11, only the number of elements in the mesh of the
collar is recorded. Figure 47 below lists the meshing setup on Abaqus.
Figure 47 – Simplified Abaqus mesh for model 11
As mentioned in Figure 36, the corresponding geometrical constraints are applied to the faces on
the collar to prevent RBM. For this analysis, the contact interaction between the inner surface of
the collar and the shaft must be manually defined on Abaqus, as the software does not know
31
whether the parts come into contact until the user defines it. This is not a process required for
SolidWorks, as the interaction is created automatically when the surfaces are mated in the
assembly. Note that for this model, there are no loads that require defining.

Elements 7234 49627 762 27844
Contact Pressure (MPa) 150 150.6 174.8 149.5 180.4
Contact pressure accuracy 96.53% 83.47% 99.67% 79.73%
Figure 48 – Model 8 contact pressure contour plot Figure 49 – Model 8 contact pressure contour plot
(SolidWorks) (Abaqus)
Figure 50 – Number of elements vs. contact pressure accuracy
32
Figure 51 – Run time vs. contact pressure accuracy
3.3.2 Model 12: Plate bending

This model includes a solid circular steel plate of uniform thickness with a simply supported outer
edge, and a thin-walled tube rests concentrically on the plate. An axial force is applied, and the
objective is to determine the central deflection of the plate relative to the tube without the plate
exceeding the critical stress. See Figure 52 for illustration and parameters.
100 mm
Critical stress: 200 MPa
Total axial force: 15 kN
Plate thickness: 6.455 mm

200 mm
Pinned edge
U=0
Figure 52 – Model 12 simplified diagram & parameters [17]
This study does not require for the tube to be modelled – on SolidWorks, a partition can be made
on the plate, which can act as the location for where the tube would be located. This creates a
boundary on which a force can be applied. Hence a reduction in total run time can be expected with
this feature. On Abaqus though, this process cannot be replicated, because it is not possible to apply
a force along a partition line, therefore a small circular area on the plate must be created by drawing
a circle with a diameter of 98 mm. This creates an area small enough to be a representation of a
thin-walled tube, but not a perfect one.
33
Regarding the boundary condition, the outer face of the plate is constrained to stop any axial or
radial movement, whilst allowing bending to occur.

Elements 920 920 15984 828
Central deflection (mm) 0.26 0.246 0.259 0.3122 0.303
Central deflection accuracy 94.62% 99.62% 99.67% 83.46%
Figure 53 – Model 12 displacement contour plot
Figure 54 – Number of elements vs. central deflection accuracy
34
Figure 55 – Run time vs. central deflection accuracy
3.3.3 Model 13: Membrane

This model investigates the effects of applying uniform pressure to the internal surface of a conical
membrane made from ABS plastic, which is supported at its circular edge. The main parameters to
determine is the total vertical reaction force acting on the membrane at the circular edge. See
Figure 56 for illustration and Table 18 for parameters.
Fixed edge 120o 56 mm
P = 1 MPa
Membrane thickness: 2 mm
Figure 56 – Model 13 simplified diagram & parameters [17]
35
Table 18 – ABS material properties (Extracted from SolidWorks material library)
Young’s modulus (GPa) 2
Poisson’s ratio 0.394
Density (kg/m3) 1020
The model uses 2D shell elements with a defined thickness of 2 mm. Note that gravity is also
considered for this problem, as the cone is hung at its upper edge, and the mass of the cone will
also impact the vertical force at the circular edge.

Elements 300 300 6005
Total force (N) 9852 10240 10183 9849 3390
Force accuracy 95.89% 95.93% 99.96% 34.41%
Figure 57 – Model 13 reaction force contour plot
36
Figure 58 – Number of elements vs. force accuracy
Figure 59 – Run time vs. force accuracy
37
3.4 Advanced Models
3.4.1 Model 14: DMT component optimisation study
A more complex component to use for this study would be an Aluminium 6082-T6 cantilever beam
design used for a 3rd year DMT group project which was used for a turbocharger torque calibration
rig. FEA was conducted via SolidWorks FEA to ensure the part would not fail under loading, as this
component was extremely critical. The beam is constrained with 4 screws in the centre to prevent
rotation under loading. See Figure 60 for illustration and parameters. The aim is to perform a design
optimisation study on the part by creating different sized cut-outs to reduce the amount of material,
without compromising structural integrity. This was something not done during the project and
comparing how results differ on both software would give a good insight into how each adapts to
changes in geometry. The elements used are quadratic tetrahedral with a size of 3 mm.
L = 600 mm
T = 10 Nm
Pinned
No rotation conditions on
screw holes
Figure 60 – Model 14 diagram
The cut-out depth will be varied in this study (see Figure 61), and the maximum stress and end
displacement is measured to see how removing more material affects both parameters.
Cut-out depth
Figure 61 – Beam cross-section
Due to part symmetry and one end of the beam subject to external forces, only one half of the beam
needs to be modelled (Figure 62).
38
Figure 62 – Model 14 SolidWorks mesh
From above, it can be seen that the mesh gets finer in regions of high stress concentration such as
sharp edges and holes. This is because on both Abaqus and SolidWorks FEA, there is a feature where
the mesh is automatically refined for regions where high stress is expected. On Abaqus, the user
can also manually select regions to have a finer mesh to produce more accurate results or to
increase element size in more remote areas where low stresses are expected to reduce element
number and run time.
39
Figure 64 – Cut-out depth vs. max deflection accuracy
Figure 65 – Cut-out depth vs. max stress
40
3.4.2 Model 15: Mobile phone drop test
The final study of this project consists of simulating the effects of a mobile phone being dropped on
a floor, and this analysis attempts to analyse the effects, focusing on visual damages on the device
such as dents in the frame and cracks on the glass panels if possible. See Figure 66 for a render and
Table 20 for parameters.
Figure 66 - Model 15 Render
Table 20 – Model 15 Parameters [18]
Dimensions 146.7 x 71.5 x 7.4 mm
Materials • Panels: Glass

• Frame: Stainless steel
(See Section 2.4 for properties)
The setup consists of dropping the phone from a height of 1.5 m, defined as the distance between
the floor and the iPhone’s centre of mass, onto a rigid ground with no damping. Upon impact, there
is a 30o angle between the ground and the lower face of the phone, meaning one corner will meet
the ground first (see Figure 67 below). In terms of output results, the effects of the impact are
measured for 50 milliseconds directly after the moment of contact, with results being extracted
every 5 milliseconds, giving 10 frames.
41
g = 9.81 m/s2
30o
Figure 67 – Model 15 setup illustration
Apart from contour plots showing locations of high stress, time history graphs can also be
generated, where the maximum stress is measured over a timeframe defined by the user. The main
purpose is to observe the relationship between time and stress during a dynamic study.
Aside from defining the drop height, the speed upon impact can also be used to define how ‘hard’
the drop is. Therefore, a useful comparison would be to see whether if either approach is more
accurate, by using the SUVAT equation to determine the impact velocity for a specific drop height.
This is essential as Abaqus does not have a feature purely for drop tests – by doing a dynamic study,
the floor has to be modelled separately, as most studies concern with an object colliding with other
objects rather than the ground, hence it has to be modelled as a rigid solid.
Software Method Max Stress (MPa)

SolidWorks Drop Height 4728.528
Impact Speed 4852.65
Abaqus 4030
42
Figure 69 – Stress time history graph for a point on the phone
43
3.5 Summary
Tables 22 to 25 list the accuracy of each simulation and the proportion of elements required to reach
the accuracy for simulations performed by both software, using both quadratic and linear elements.
These tables highlight the impact of both mesh size and element type, two of the most important
factors when conducting FEA studies. Results are extracted from a segment in [19].
Definitions
• Average Maximum Accuracy: Average accuracy of all parameters within a study.

• Percentage of Elements Used: Percentage of elements relative to that of the smallest
element size.
• Delta Accuracy of Quadratic Elements: The improvement in results when quadratic
elements are used instead of linear elements.
Table 22 – Pressure Vessels Results
Software SolidWorks Abaqus

Model

Thin-walled
Percentage of Elements Used 4.66% 100.00% 100.00% 4.87%

Thick-walled

Overall
Delta Accuracy of Quadratic Elements 7.57% 8.93%
44
Table 23 – Beam Results

Model

Cantilever

Torsion

Cut-outs

Overall
Table 24 – Tensile Component Results

Model

Bolt

Strain block

Overall
Delta Accuracy of Quadratic Elements -1.79% 0.29%
45
Table 25 – Summary of categorised results

Analysis
Pressure Average Maximum Accuracy 94.65% 87.09% 94.25% 85.32%
Vessels Percentage of Elements Used 52.33% 100.00% 100.00% 52.43%
Beams
Tensile Average Maximum Accuracy 95.10% 96.89% 97.48% 97.18%
Components Percentage of Elements Used 3.69% 3.65% 0.57% 7.75%
Overall
46
4. Discussion
4.1 Usability Comparison
Before conducting any data analysis, the usability of each software is compared. Common steps of
FEA studies are performed on both software to identify how easy that step is, and potential
roadblocks that require an alternative method. Table 26 shows a chart used to assign a numerical
value to how well the software performs on each parameter, with 1 being very poor and 5 being
very well.
Table 26 – Parameter comparison chart
Parameter Abaqus SolidWorks
Part generation 1 5
Property application – ability to apply material, constraints and loads 3 4
Contour plot quality 5 4
Run time 5 3
Ease of making changes 4 5
Troubleshooting – ability to detect errors in user inputs 2 4
Accuracy 4 4
It is clear that SolidWorks FEA is the more ‘user-friendly’ package mainly due to easy part
generation, as the FEA Simulation package integrates seamlessly into SolidWorks CAD. Part
generation on Abaqus is more difficult to perform, as it’s a lot easier to make mistakes, and making
objects with complex geometries is something not recommended. SolidWorks also allows for parts
to be imported into Abaqus directly, by saving the part as an IGES file, which are large data files used
to exchange 2D/3D design information between CAD software, mainly containing geometrical
information of a component [20]. However, users are able to produce 2D parts without needing to
create the 3D part, a feature not possible on SolidWorks.
The outputs of an FEA study on both software consist of both numerical values and visual contour
plots. To obtain detailed numerical results, the nodes on the mesh of the parts have to be probed –
the user has to choose where they want to extract a value from. This can be useful if the user wants
to obtain the average value on the face of a component or the variation of a parameter along an
47
edge (e.g. Radial stress in a thick-walled cylinder). In terms of investigating the numerical results
more thoroughly, data probed can be visualised graphically on both software.
Figure 70 shows the variation of radial stress along the wall of an internally pressurised thick-walled
cylinder. This feature is especially useful if the user wants to investigate a parameter that varies with
distance, particularly if the change is relatively small.
Figure 70 – Graphical representation of stress against parametric distance
4.2 Key Findings

4.2.1 Mesh Related Findings
One of the main objectives of this project is to highlight the impact of both element size and element
type on the accuracy of FEA simulations. From Table 25, the most notable takeaway is the
improvement in results by using quadratic elements – on average, they improve result accuracy by
12.25% on SolidWorks FEA and 9.63% on Abaqus. This is expected because quadratic elements
contain mid-side nodes which provides a much closer approximation to the real system according
to [21]. An investigation conducted by Benzley et al. [22] showed that using quadratic elements
instead of linear ones can improve accuracy by up to 70%, depending on the type of analysis.
However, studies involving tensile load application showed almost no improvement in results,
because as the movement of nodes is dominantly in one axis (accounting for the Poisson effects),
the extra nodes do not provide a more refined mesh.
Determining the ideal element size proved to be challenging. Theoretically, increasing the number
of elements present in a mesh increases the final result closer to the calculated value. A study done
by Liu [23] found that values produced by FEA can vary in both sides compared to the experimental
48
value, mainly depending on the part geometry, hence accuracy is used to compare results rather
than pure deviation from the theoretical values. However, data collected showed that decreasing
the element size occasionally resulted in the final result deviating further from the analytical result.
Possible causes include excess element distortion and inconsistent averaging. Data from Table 25
shows that on average, Abaqus requires more elements to achieve the best possible result, showing
that it’s the slightly more power-consuming package.
The effects of quadratic elements are most profound when conducting experiments involving
beams, as errors in stresses surmount errors in displacements. This concurs with a study conducted
by Dutt [24], where stress errors for a cantilever beam were up to 1500 times larger than the
displacement error. Similar experiments performed showed alike magnitudes, but only for when
quadratic elements are used – simulations using linear elements showed far greater displacement
errors for larger element sizes. Figure 71 and Figure 72 below show the variation of both stress and
displacement errors against elements in a mesh for model 3. The figures show the drop-off in
accuracy for stress when the number of elements in the mesh is approximately 10000 is more than
that for displacement, and back up the theory of linear elements being far worse at computing beam
deflections.
Figure 71 – Graph of stress accuracy against the total number of elements for study 3
49
Figure 72 – Graph of displacement accuracy against the total number of elements for study 3
Another key takeaway from the tasks conducted so far is that with regards to beam elements, the
element size has zero effect on the accuracy of the beam study. Due to beam elements having a
simpler structure and fewer nodes and DoFs, the run times are far shorter than that of solid
elements, as there are fewer equations to solve. An important requirement for the use of beam
elements is that the part must have constant cross-section properties according to [25]. Figure 73
below shows a comparison of the beam element accuracy.
Figure 73 – Beam element accuracy comparison
50
After establishing quadratic elements to be better than linear elements, the mesh can be further
defined by how many dimensions the elements contain. For model 12, the study sees the usage of
2D shell elements, used to model thin components such as this steel plate. A review by Kuusisto [26]
showed that an advantage of shell elements is the reduction in computational time due to shell
elements being able to model parts with a fewer number of mesh elements. Figure 74 shows the
mesh using 3D elements.
Figure 74 – Model 12 mesh with shell elements
It is possible to model thin components like plates with both shell and solid elements – with plate
elements, the thickness of the element is assigned as an element property, so the model itself does
not have to be 3D. The main advantage of this feature is the reduction in elements generated and
hence run time for the simulation. Table 27 lists the reduction in mesh elements by using shell
elements instead of solid elements for model 12.
Table 27 – Element reduction via using shell elements for an element size of 3mm
Element type Solid Shell Solid Shell
Number of elements 15955 7040 15984 7743
Percentage reduction in elements 55.18% 51.56%
For the test using different element types, this is only applicable with simulations using thin
components. According to Zardadkha [27], a rule of thumb of when to use shell components is when
the ratio h/L (h being the component thickness and L being the component length/diameter) is
about 0.05. This is because for a low h/L ratio, there is very little transverse shear deformation
present, hence solid elements don’t have to be used, thus reducing elements and run time.
51
Figure 75 and Figure 76 show the effects of each of the four different element types on the accuracy
and run time for the plate bending analysis. It can be seen that 2D quadratic elements are the most
sensitive to element size, as the accuracy approximately doubles when the number of elements
increases from 400 to about 8000. This is due to the extra nodes present on a quadratic element
that simulate bending trajectories more accurately. Linear 2D elements are the best option in terms
of both accuracy and run time, making them the ideal element choice for thin components under
quasi-static loads.
Figure 75 – Element type vs. central deflection accuracy
Figure 76 – Element type vs. run time
52
As mentioned previously, Abaqus holds an advantage over SolidWorks as it can model with both
tetrahedral and hexahedral elements. To identify whether or not hexahedral elements are better, a
study was performed with three models, one from each analysis type, to observe the effects. Table
28 shows the results of the study.
Table 28 – Effect of element shape on accuracy
Element Type
Analysis Example
Tetrahedral Hexahedral
Pressure Vessels 92.10% 97.38%
Beams 91.81% 95.84%
Tensile Components 94.96% 94.77%
Data shows that hexahedral elements are superior when it comes to the simulation of pressure
vessels and beams, but for parts under tensile loads, element type has a negligible effect. This is
again due to shear deformation being a less dominant aspect, so the extra nodes from hexahedral
elements are not fully utilised. However, hexahedral elements reduce the total number of elements,
which shortens the run time. See Appendix C for complete plots comparing tetrahedral and
hexahedral elements.
The material application also differs. From contour plots of model 6, it can be seen that for Abaqus,
the part has uniform stress, but varies on SolidWorks, as it accounts for random defects in the
material. This is therefore a more accurate reflection of materials that are used in real life, where
defects can act as stress raisers and should be considered if FEA is done on a load-bearing
component.
Finally, as to mesh restrictions, both have their limits. For SolidWorks, the minimum element size
is dependent on the part, whereas for Abaqus, each part cannot have more than 250,000 nodes.
4.2.2 Analysis Related Findings

On both Abaqus and SolidWorks, simulations that fall into either of the three main categories do
not show any obvious anomalies. The trends in data align with the findings for the mesh, where
decreasing element size and using quadratic elements increases simulation accuracy, although one
scenario where this is not always true is when a bending load is applied to a non-beam component,
which applies to models 12 and 13. The opposite occurred for the plate, but this scenario was not
present once shell elements were used. Mesh refinement had no impact on results for the
membrane.
53
Both software coincide when it comes to applying boundary conditions and loads, but one feature
which is less direct on Abaqus is applying a load to an edge. To do this, a tie must be created between
the edge and a point on that edge, as Abaqus only has a create point ‘load’ feature.
Something else observed in the results is that for both software, studies involving tensile
components are the most stable, produce the most accurate simulations and are least affected by
the change in element type between linear to quadratic. Hence it is recommended to use linear
elements for problems involving tensile components, as factors such as stress and displacement
have a linear relationship with distance. Table 29 lists the average results by analysis type.
Table 29 – Average results by analysis type
Average Average Delta Accuracy of

Analysis Type
Accuracy Quadratic Elements
Pressure Vessels 90.33% 8.25%
Beams 79.53% 42.27%
Tensile components 96.66% -0.75%
The shrink-fit study proved more problematic on Abaqus – as two components were modelled,
there is little compatibility regarding meshing along the curved face, hence when running the
simulation, there is ‘incomplete’ contact between the shaft and collar shown in Figure 77, resulting
in zero contact pressure. Abaqus does allow for the user to manually override the mesh
automatically generated to adjust parameters to reduce the effects of this error, which is only
significant for large element sizes.
Figure 77 – Illustration of the ‘incomplete’ contact
54
For the DMT optimisation study, Figure 78 shows that SolidWorks is more sensitive to changes in
the amount of material removed, meaning it is likely to predict a more conservative outcome when
performing a simulation that predicts any onset of failures.
Figure 78 – Effect of cut-out depth on end deflection increase
Regarding the drop test simulation, there are notable differences. As seen in Figure 69, it is clear to
see that results produced differ by a factor of approximately 10. The reason for this discrepancy is
because on SolidWorks, the value is taken at the same point on the model, whereas on Abaqus, the
maximum stress at any location on the phone is used. A reason behind this is how each software
models the drop. On SolidWorks, the phone is simulated to be dropped from a specified height, so
gravity is considered, hence the phone accelerates, meaning it will hit the ground with a greater
force, thus stress. On Abaqus, the direction of the drop in free space has to be predefined by the
user, and when body forces are considered, there is no function to define the drop height. An
alternative is to define the impact velocity, but it will assume that the phone is falling with no
acceleration, hence it will impact the ground with less force and stress. On Abaqus, studies can
include up to 18 different types of energies, whereas SolidWorks does not have this option. It is
important to note that neither software accounts for energy losses via aerodynamic drag.
55
Both software can show how the maximum stress varies with time after the moment of impact, but
on SolidWorks, the value is taken at the same node on the model, whereas on Abaqus, the maximum
stress at any node on the phone is used. This is especially useful because contour plots created on
Abaqus show that the location of maximum stress changes with time, which counterfeits the theory
that the location of impact is where the stress is at its maximum. See Appendix B for a stress-time
plot produced on SolidWorks – Abaqus does not have the option to automatically create a stress-
time history plot.
4.2.3 Performance Related Findings

Regarding run times, Abaqus is predominantly faster, with 80% of simulations being completed
faster than the equivalent on SolidWorks. Run times were compared on both software with the
same element shape, type and size to ensure parity. On average, a run time reduction factor for
Abaqus of 4.82 was tallied. See Appendix D for the full results table. From data in Table 30,
Approximately 85% of the 125 simulations performed were done faster via Abaqus.
Table 30 – Simulation speed comparison
Tests Faster Software Equal

SolidWorks Abaqus
125 15 106 4
12.00% 84.80% 3.20%
(Numerous parts of this section were extracted from [19].)
56
4.3 Result Verification
Data produced by both software have to be verified via comparing their outputs against theoretical
calculations done based on the models and their respective loads as there’s no defined international
standard to validate an FEA software. But there are 3 alternatives at can be used if the calculations
are too difficult to be done manually.
The first option is verification utility, where simulation results are compared to either an analytical
solution or a physical test [29]. This is an add-in unique to SolidWorks, and a document is provided
containing examples of common scenarios such as beam bending and pressurised vessels. The
percentage deviation in results are approximately 1%. There is yet to be an equivalent feature for
Abaqus.
The remaining 2 are standards that can be used regardless of which software the FEA is performed
on. One is the NAFEMS benchmark, which stands for the national agency for finite element methods
and standards and is also a library of pre-calculated solutions against which users can compare their
analyses. The other is provided by ANFOR, found in France. Both see a smaller percentage deviation
in results, between 0.1 to 0.2%.
4.4 Future Work

Regarding future work, the aim is to use both software to further explore problems involving
dynamic loading. The component optimisation and phone drop studies both provides more insight
into how Abaqus and SolidWorks FEA cope with more complex scenarios such as fatigue over time,
impacts and possibly vibrations, as these types of questions will most likely be asked by students
when it comes to using FEA to perform testing on designs for their DMT or FYP projects. Although
their choice of FEA software may not directly result in catastrophic failures, it can aid in maximising
the performance and efficiency if they are working as close to the limit as possible, and this limit is
dependent on the package chosen.
57
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, it is very difficult to separate the two software from their overall performance. Due
to SolidWorks FEA possessing an advantage in having an easier part generation interface and
flexibility for adjustments, this makes it slightly more favourable for people with no prior experience
with FEA packages, helped by the coherent integration with the CAD package. On the contrary,
Abaqus is better suited for more experienced engineers who are looking to simulate more complex
phenomena, and since Abaqus offers a more substantial mesh choice, a wider range of analysis it
can replicate and the ability to better refine contour plots produced, it takes the upper hand on this
front.
The most ideal mesh element is a quadratic hexahedral, and its size will depend on the part
geometry. When it comes to which software is more accurate, for the same type of mesh,
SolidWorks gains an advantage for models used in ME1 and ME2 as it can get closer to the
theoretical value, but Abaqus yields more consistent results for the ME3 models, part optimisation
and impact study. Therefore this backs up the statement above regarding how SolidWorks is better
suited for beginners since the parts possess simpler geometry and loads. If run time is important to
the user, Abaqus is superior as the software is dedicated to calculating multiple differential
equations, and simulations can also be performed on Abaqus via Python code, so automated tasks
can be performed with ease, which is very useful if the user wants to carry out applying different
loads on a single component.
In terms of how these models can be used to act as a teaching tool for undergraduate students, they
aim to help students grasp a firmer understanding of the key principles taught in ME1 and ME2
Stress Analysis and allow them to see how they are applied in the real world, such as performing
design optimisations or non-destructive testing. Parameters on these models can be adjusted to
better replicate issues students may come across, whether it is component dimensions, load
directions or magnitudes. FEA is not only used to confirm theoretical calculations but to also provide
a visual aspect to learning, so more niche facets of solid mechanics such as stress concentration
factors and contact compatibility can be learnt without the need for more elaborate equations.
For students new to FEA, a suggestion would be to use SolidWorks FEA to practice modelling and
applying loads and boundary conditions, and after they become more fluent with the procedures,
start using Abaqus to simulate more advanced models and problems, and take advantage of the
features not available on SolidWorks FEA.
58
6. References
[1] SimScale (2020). What Is FEA | Finite Element Analysis? Available at:
https://www.simscale.com/docs/simwiki/fea-finite-element-analysis/what-is-fea-finite-
element-analysis [Accessed 25 October 2020]
[2] Shi, B. (2020). Abaqus vs. SolidWorks: Dawn of FEA – Project Plan Report.
[3] Imperial College London (2017). Mechanical Engineering Data & Formulae.
[4] Saint Gobain (2021). Physical properties of Glass. Available at: https://uk.saint-gobain-
building-glass.com/en-gb/architects/physical-properties [Accessed 7 March 2021]
[5] Hawk Ridge Systems (2016). SOLIDWORKS Simulation vs SIMULIA Abaqus. Available at:
https://hawkridgesys.com/blog/solidworks-simulation-vs-simulia-
abaqus#:~:text=SOLIDWORKS%20Simulation%20can%20offer%20integrated,is%20the%2
0way%20to%20go [Accessed 22 November 2020]
[6] Harvard University (2020). Abaqus FEA Car Crash Analysis. Available at:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/davidschoenberg/abaqus-fea-car-crash-analysis [Accessed 23
November 2020]
[7] Fidelis (2020). Abaqus vs SOLIDWORKS Simulation. Available at:
https://www.fidelisfea.com/post/abaqus-vs-solidworks-simulation [Accessed 23
November 2020]
[8] Hansen, U. (2020). Finite Element Analysis and Applications Lecture Notes.
[9] SimScale (2017). What is Convergence in Finite Element Analysis? Available at:
https://www.simscale.com/blog/2017/01/convergence-finite-element-analysis [Accessed
23 November 2020]
[10] Wikipedia (2021). Types of mesh. Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_mesh [Accessed 30 October 2020]
[11] Engineers Edge (2021). Pipe Burst Working Pressure Calculator. Available at:
https://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/pipe_bust_calc.htm [Accessed 4 February
2021]
[12] Engineers Edge (2021). Bolt Torque, Axial Clamp Force, Bolt Diameter. Available at:
https://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/torque_calc.htm [Accessed 4 February
2021]
[13] MechaniCalc (2021). Beam Analysis – Validation. Available at:
https://mechanicalc.com/calculators/beam-analysis/validation [Accessed 4 February
2021]
[14] Wermac (2021). Dimensions of Steel Beams type HEM European standard NEN-EN 10025-
1 and NEN-EN 10025-2. Available at: http://www.wermac.org/steel/dim_hem.html
[Accessed 4 February 2021]
59
[15] Jeffers, J. (2017). ME1 Stress Analysis Lecture Notes.
[16] Reddyhoff, T. (2018). ME2 Stress Analysis Lecture Notes.
[17] Hansen, U. (2019). ME3 Stress Tutorial Question Solutions.
[18] GSMArena (2020). Apple iPhone 12 Pro - Full phone specifications. Available at:
https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_12_pro-10508.php [Accessed 4 February
2021]
[19] Shi, B. (2021). Abaqus vs. SolidWorks: Dawn of FEA – Project Progress Report.
[20] FileInfo (2020). IGES File Extension - What is an .iges file and how do I open it? Available
at:
https://fileinfo.com/extension/iges#:~:text=An%20IGES%20file%20is%20a,model%2C%20
and%20circuit%20diagram%20information [Accessed 21 November 2020]
[21] University of Cambridge (2010). Introduction to Finite Element Method (FEM)
[22] Benzley, S. et al. (1995). A comparison of all hexagonal and all tetrahedral finite element
meshes for elastic and elastoplastic analysis. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.70.392 [Accessed 16 January
2021]
[23] Liu, P. (2009). Calculations of plastic collapse load of pressure vessel using FEA. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A0820023
[24] Dutt, A. (2015). Effect of Mesh Size on Finite Element Analysis of Beam. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.14445/23488360/IJME-V2I12P102
[25] Dean, J. (2020). Introduction to the Finite Element Method. Available at:
https://www.ccg.msm.cam.ac.uk/images/FEMOR_Lecture_2.pdf [Accessed 15 January
2021]
[26] Kuusisto, E. (2017). SHELLS vs. SOLIDS | Finite Element Analysis Quick Review. Available at:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/shells-vs-solids-finite-element-analysis-quick-review-
kuusisto-p-e-/ [Accessed 4 February 2021]
[27] Zardadkha, I. (2012). Simulation: Shell Elements vs. Solid Elements. Available at:
https://www.javelin-tech.com/blog/2012/10/shell-vs-solid-elements/ [Accessed: 20 May
2021]
[28] EnterFEA (2019). What are the Types of Elements Used in FEA? Available at:
https://enterfea.com/what-are-the-types-of-elements-used-in-fea/ [Accessed 24 January
2021]
[29] SolidSolutions (2017). So how accurate is SOLIDWORKS Simulation? Available at:
https://www.solidsolutions.co.uk/blog/2017/09/so-how-accurate-is-SOLIDWORKS-
simulation/#.X7uXQ2T7SdZ [Accessed 23 November 2020]
60
7. Appendices
61
62
63
64
Appendix B: Stress-time plots for model 15
Figure 87 – Stress time history plot for model 14 (SolidWorks)
65
66
67
68
69
70
View publication stats

Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Abaqus vs. SolidWorks: Dawn of FEA

Thesis · June 2021

Abaqus vs. SolidWorks: Dawn of FEA View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Author: Yuxin Shi

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Aims & Objectives ................................................................................................................. 2

2. Fundamentals of FEA .................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Types of FEA Simulations ...................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Key Parameters ..................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 FEA Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.5 Software Capabilities............................................................................................................. 5

2.6 Mesh Convergence ................................................................................................................ 7

2.7 Element Type ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.8 Element Shape ....................................................................................................................... 9

2.9 2D/3D Elements .................................................................................................................... 9

3. Modelling Methodology & Results ............................................................................................. 10

3.1 ME1 Models......................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 ME2 Models......................................................................................................................... 22

3.4 Advanced Models ................................................................................................................ 38

4.1 Usability Comparison .......................................................................................................... 47

4.2 Key Findings ......................................................................................................................... 48

4.3 Result Verification ............................................................................................................... 57

4.4 Future Work ........................................................................................................................ 57

Figure 1 – FEA simulation of a piston rod [1]

(Background extracted from [2].)

1.2 Aims & Objectives

The specific aims of this project are listed below.

• To determine which software is more accurate.

2.1 Types of FEA Simulations

Table 1 – Types of FEA Simulations

2.2 Key Parameters

2.3 FEA Procedure

Material Young’s Modulus Poisson’s Shear Modulus Thermal Expansion

Aluminium 68.9 26.5 23 x 10-6

Glass 70 0.22 28.0 9 x 10-6

2.5 Software Capabilities

Figure 3 – Mesh convergence graph [8]

Figure 4 – Reduction in error with mesh refinement [9]

2.7 Element Type

Shape Tetrahedral Hexahedral

Type Linear Quadratic Linear Quadratic

Table 4 – Element Shapes ([Images from [10]]

Shape Tetrahedral Hexahedral

2.9 2D/3D Elements

The accuracy of a parameter is defined as:

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

1. Pressure Vessels – Internally/externally pressurised cylinders.

3.1 ME1 Models

3.1.1 Model 1: Thin, pressurised open-ended cylinder

Figure 5 – Model 1 Diagram and parameters [11]

Figure 6 – SolidWorks 3D setup Figure 7 – Abaqus 2D setup

Table 5 – Model 1 results

Theoretical SolidWorks Abaqus

Figure 10 – Element size vs. Stress Accuracy

3.1.2 Model 2: Bolt under tensile load

Figure 12 – Model 2 Diagram [12]

Table 6 – Model 2 results

Theoretical SolidWorks Abaqus

Figure 13 – Model 2 tensile stress contour plot

Figure 15 – Number of elements vs. displacement accuracy