With respect to interoperability across FEM formats I think what meshio is doing is also worth taking note. Meaning you can visualize your deformed structure with stresses and strains in Paraview (I guess it would not take much time to visualize that also in Blender using the blender api). In XDMF you can store information such as stresses and strains and also displacement vectors. Among the interesting formats building on HDF5 I can think of MED (which is already mentioned and in use by Code Aster) and XDMF which is supported by vanilla Paraview (not necessary with a custom compiled Code Aster version). Hi! I agree HDF5 looks very promising for FEM meshes. It's a mature solution and, as far as I know, quite comprehensive (element types, field types, etc.). I think med could be an excellent option. I agree about the need of being able to store the FE mesh and the analysis results inside IFC files. At that point we should be able to finally perform structural workflows in BlenderBIM using the ifc2ca scripts and we will need to visualize the results. In any case I believe soon we will have to deal with med and rmed files in Blender and FreeCAD as I am developing a small library to run Salome and Code_Aster on any python application, if there is a local installation of the software. At that point we should be able to finally perform structural workflows in BlenderBIM using the ifc2ca scripts and we will need to visualize the said: Perhaps this could be a viable option, what other structural minds think on this? (ping ) Right now, we have, for example, the rebars in reinforced concrete structures but we do not have the forces or other fields that were used to calculate them.Ĭode_Aster and Salome-Meca uses the med and rmed format that is based on the HDF5 standard ( could this be useful for ifc-hdf5?) and there is a good open-source library meshio that can convert between various mesh formats, including formats related to commercial software, and can expose content also as npy objs or json with some basic scripting. I think the approach must be more holistic regarding the structural analysis part with the possibility to freely manipulate this results, apply custom calculations, etc. In the current context, we can potentially use openBIM tools to author ifc files with structural analysis objects but there is no "placeholder" for the mesh and the results of structural analyses, which are fundamental low-level information to further calculations for designing and verifying structural members. So, based on that, I would stop at properly assigning physical group tags and numbers and do the material properties assignment on the side of your FEM solver.Please let me know your thoughts and how to improve this list.įor the structural engineering part I would add the need toĭefine an open-data model for representing the mesh and the analysis results (on the mesh) of finite-element models try using postprocessing-intent ElementData, but that renders the use of Physical Group tags useless (as you'll have to do it based on individual element IDs).Since sections with unknown headers are ignored, you can manually (after *.msh is generated) add your data there and provide your solver with the required input functionality based on your needs.You are left with two bad choices (the ones that I can come up with): So, there is not a section that will naturally fit your needs. NodeData, ElementData, ElementNodeData - postprocessing-intent datasets.Entities, Partitioned Entities, Nodes, Elements, GhostElements – geometry definitions.PhysicalNames - the connection between physical groups numbers and names.In v4 (v2 offers even less), the following sections are available (some, optional): (As GMSH just recently updated to v4, we can also look at the previous legacy MSH v2). Thus, we can use the specification of GMSH *.msh. I guess, the intention is to use *.msh file (obtained by GMSH processing the corresponding *.geo file) as an input to the FEM solver. This job is best left to the solver, GMSH provides a simple mechanism to tag groups of elements In short, you should not (look at question 13 in this section of GMSH FAQ).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |