Nice write-up about what the new SP Physical Modeler brings to the table.
I found the discussion about the inefficiencies arising from the disconnect between the CAD design / physical model and the Analysis package's Analytical-Physical model and the meshed up FEM model.
Also, interesting was the bit about the interaction between the column and beam (stick) FEM and the slab and wall (plate) FEM models.
Some questions:
- Makes you wonder whether these different type of models can be integrated. I expect that the stick model would solve a lot faster than the plate model. Or would the stick elements be meshed to be solved as a unified mesh? Can this be done on demand automatically? It sounds like the stick model is "partially reduced by using single FEM elements to represent entire ‘physical’ objects" or a simplified model. Kind of like a selective LOD approach- Early stages- use stick model to help select optimal layouts (using Scenario Services if desired?)-> identify problem spots. Select problem spots to mesh for more detailed review ->Full mesh analysis to verify.
- Will RAM CE get a physical model UI like SPCE has? I guess LEAP, LARS, RM, SACS, MOSES, Multi-Frame etc would also follow suite at some point?
- What about apps like LIMCON for connections? FEM meshing already?
- ISM-SPCE's Physical Modeler Link: How is this different to the current ISM tool? Live-bi-directional working? Say the slabs are being designed in Aecosim or ProStructures. Can SP CE be running side-by-side with the design app so that changes in one can be synch'd to the other in real time? What would you use to verify a the rebar design for a RC connection modeled in ProStructures? ANSYS? ABAQUS? MIDAS? DIANA?
- ISM link: can the ISM link be used to bring in 'dummy' geometry so that the user can view and 'trace over' the non-structural elements when creating/modifying the A-P model? Maybe a switch on import settings.