Structural Analysis (1of2) - Compatibility and/or Functionality - Octave vs SciLab (for MATLAB "compatibility")
Eric Marceau
Hello everyone,
Sorry ... but that subject line is only a hint of a loaded topic!
[1] Choice of Tool / Development Environment
I've seen multiple inquiries of a tool to do this, but there have been no responses of one existing. So, I've decided to take this on.
I want to undertake the development of a tool to perform, as a first iteration, limited to the load (force/vector/moment) analysis for geodesic domes. This would give at least a sense of the magnitudes involved, in order to make "educated estimates" and decisions regarding choices for structural materials and sizing.
My second iteration would push further into the stress/strain, and resulting displacements, for a fuller loading/failure analysis.
My original concept was to build a C program from scratch, but a huge number of references on structural analysis make reference to MATLAB.
So ...
To those familiar with MATLAB and either GNU Octave
or SciLab (now part of Dassault), can you offer advice as
to which of the two Open-Source alternatives would be ...
- most "complete" in terms of functionality to
match MATLAB (hard requirement),
- most "compatible" with MATLAB (not a
hard requirement, but desirable), and
- offer the greatest ease of development for a custom (geodesics-specific) tool ?
Your experience, insights and opinions regarding those packages
would be greatly appreciated. If you have any opinion on whether
to pursue the C program direction, please voice those as
well.
Thank you all in advance in your consideration of these ideas and contributions.
Eric
Dx G
Eric Marceau
Thank you, Dx G,
for passing on that information. Those look VERY interesting!
The reason I embarked on this initiative was because I frequently
saw references stating that there was no available software for structural analysis, specifically targeting
geodesic domes, that people had to try to make
the problem fit the software, instead of the other way around.
When I looked around, I couldn't find any that seemed to fit the bill, because they seemed to focus on the FEM approach applied to rigid joints (a.k.a. frames), rather than the "kinematic" approach of pinioned joints. I felt that seemed to add a level of complexity that need not be thrown into the mix at the stage of "sizing" where, in my view, the focus is on identifying the magnitude of forces acting at joints, rather than the stress/bending of rigid frames, which add an entirely different level of complexity.
I guess you could say that I was looking to identify/offer a tool that quickly provided "order-of-magnitude" values at joints, from which other properties could then be extrapolated/estimated for joint design before going the full-fledged FEM route.
That was my concept of the approach to the workflow that would be involved for such designs!
If there is no demand for such a tool, I guess I would back away from an effort to make a "user-friendly" tool publicly available, as opposed to simply building a "personal-productivity" tool.
The comments/opinions about Octave and SciLab were specifically
because I wanted to build an open-source tool, on top of existing
FOSS (Free Open-Source Software).
Thanks again for that reference!
Eric
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Geodesic Help" Google Group
--
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GeodesicHelp...@googlegroups.com
--
To post to this group, send email to geodes...@googlegroups.com
--
For more options, visit http://groups.google.com/group/geodesichelp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Geodesic Help Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geodesichelp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geodesichelp/ee6d083f-e608-4951-857f-fe0be57081ban%40googlegroups.com.
Ashok Mathur
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geodesichelp/387f516e-84af-4737-89b8-3d28867abcc7%40gmail.com.
Eric Marceau
Hi Ashok,
Thank you very much for that generous offer!
If you have that kind of contact at Dassault, that would be an awesome source for an opinion, if you feel he would share the "straight goods", giving a realistic view, and not a "company-line" view.
Eric
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geodesichelp/B4C3174A-87F8-4DBD-B6EB-E0DF4685C178%40gmail.com.
Ashok Mathur
On 04-Nov-2023, at 10:03 PM, Eric Marceau <eajma...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geodesichelp/b66833d4-de6c-4c54-92af-57199800c042%40gmail.com.