Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has been around for quite some time and continues to gain popularity. However, it remains a complex subject that is not always well understood. Given its depth, FEA can quickly become intricate, requiring careful consideration of various factors. Recently, we hosted a webinar comparing FEA results to code-based values (SANS 10100-1) within the structural industry. While that discussion focused on structural engineering, it raises an important question: How does FEA apply to manufacturing?
The distinction between these two industries is crucial. Structural engineering deals with large-scale frameworks—buildings, bridges, and other substantial structures—whereas manufacturing often involves machined components, such as gears, brackets, and mechanical assemblies. Although both industries rely on FEA for simulation and validation, the software tools supporting these workflows are typically specialized rather than interchangeable. Here’s why:
Scale Matters. One of the most significant differences in FEA between manufacturing and structural engineering is the scale of the analysis, particularly in meshing. A mesh is the foundation of any FEA study, and its size directly impacts accuracy and computational feasibility. In manufacturing, where precision is paramount, mesh sizes typically range between 1mm and 5mm to capture fine details. In contrast, structural FEA requires much coarser meshes, typically between 50mm and 1m, as analyzing every small detail of a massive structure would be impractical.
For example, the image below from Autodesk Inventor Professional shows a finely meshed mechanical component, where bolts are approximately 14mm in diameter. Meanwhile, a structural analysis in Prokon SUMO involves a much larger model, where a single panel measures 6x4m. Applying a manufacturing-scale mesh to a structural model would be computationally excessive, while using a structural-scale mesh for a small component would lack the necessary detail for accurate results.
Ultimately, the application of FEA dictates meshing strategy, and using the right approach for each industry is critical. Understanding these differences ensures accurate, efficient simulations tailored to the unique demands of each engineering discipline.
