<p>I want to be a structural analysis engineer and work with FEA programs when I graduate with my bachelors in ME this year. especially in the aerospace industry. Is this type of job in demand? How hard will it be for me to land this type of position in the future?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>'Sup, structural engineering finite element analyst buddy.</p>
<p>I’d HIGHLY recommend you go and get your masters degree, if not your PhD, in structural mechanics. Talk to your professors and get their feedback about this. Once you’re appropriately academified and you’ve gotten your first job and you’re trained in the ways of industry applications of finite element analysis, then you’ll be in demand. That’s a lot of 'if’s, though. For the most part, it’s not going to be a walk-away-from-undergrad-and-get-a-FEA-job, though.</p>
<p>Guess I am kind of old fashioned, but I believe too many new structural engineers use FEM programs as a kind of crutch. It is very easy to make a FE model without really understanding what the structure is doing. FEMs have their place to be sure.</p>
<p>I believe that a structural engineer should understand the load paths in the structure first. Then a FEM may be nesessary but may not. More than once, I have seen FEMs made that do not truely represent the structure and give erroneous results. In many of those cases, a simple hand calculation will show the problem and may be all that is needed for the analysis (and take less time than generating the FEM).</p>
<p>To me, a good structural engineer can do both a variety of hand calculations and do FEM work also. I retired from a large aerospace company where I was an engineering manager of a structural analysis group of as many as 30 structural engineers. Most people in the group did have their MS degree and a fair number had their PHDs.</p>
<p>If you want to do FEM work, definitely learn the mathematical theory behind it and applications to solid mechanics. You will make better decisions when utilizing the professional software and possibly know when it isn’t worth using. </p>
<p>I am taking a graduate course in finite element right now and the mathematical theory behind this numerical method is very interesting (to me at least). My professor shows applications to solid mechanics, though I am more of a fluids guy, but it is still pretty sweet. Also, I have been told that you really can’t get a FEM, CFD or any other simulation related position for a company without getting at least a masters in those subjects. So you will need to listen to aibarr if you want that opportunity!</p>
<p>Are these type of positions in demand?</p>
<p>Again, I say…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So… yes.</p>
<p>And HPuck, all the structural engineers I know are acutely aware of what goes on inside their finite element solvers. (Granted, I only really work with people who have advanced degrees, but still.) I had to write a solver from scratch as a masters student at Illinois about five or six years ago. </p>
<p>Garbage in, garbage out… If you have no idea what the answer really ought to be, then agreed, you have no business trying to design a finite element model for it. A clear understanding of the forces involved is… like… step zero. That’s drilled into us quite effectively these days, and we’re intuitive enough to know how to develop a large number of sanity checks to ensure that our models are accurate. It’s becoming increasingly important as these tools become more critical, and institutions don’t let you play with fun toys until you’re at a level where you can understand what’s going on.</p>
<p>^^ Agreed. You have to know a lot about the physics of your application AND the numerical method to be good at using a professional package. At my school, you don’t really have many opportunities to take a finite element class without taking solid mechanics and fluid mechanics, so people do understand the physics going in generally. Also, it isn’t so simple to develop GOOD and EFFICIENT finite element models. Takes people with coupled understanding of the physics and mathematics behind finite elements to do both of these well.</p>
<p>So, imfamus, you may want to consider going to grad school with a computational focus at some point and gain a good understanding of the method so you can do better at using finite element software and even be considered for a job. Good luck.</p>
<p>What goes on inside the FEM solvers is quite straight forward and is not my issue. </p>
<p>1) I have seen models that have a high element density where the stress/strain in the structure is fairly constant. This is more of a resource issue than a true technical problem.</p>
<p>2) The opposite of 1); too few elements in a rapidly changing stress/strain field. This mutes the peak values and can fail to identify low or negative margins (typically in fatigue) within the hardware. In a dynamic analysis, too few elements will result in a model that is stiffer than the actual structure, giving a different response that the real structure.</p>
<p>These two types of problems can usaully be avoided with a simple hand calculation to identify the element density required. For some reason, the analyst is either unable or unwilling to do that hand calculation and takes the “Oh, I can make a model of that” attitude right from the start.</p>
<p>I’ve also seen boundry conditions placed too near areas of interest in the model making the results inaccurate. I’ve seen beam elements attached to plate elements ignoring the incompatable degrees of freedom that occurs and resulted in a set forces in the plate that were totally wrong. </p>
<p>I’ve seen beam models that were made intersection point to intersection point that totally ignored the stiffening of the joint that comes from the beam flanges melding well before the intersection point. Test validation showed that the actual structure was 50% stiffer that the model.</p>
<p>The point I was trying to make is that it is not sufficient to be just a “FEM modeler” as the OP seemed to imply he wanted to do. One needs to understand the structure and be a complete structural analyist with the ability to make and use FEMs as just part of one’s expertise. After all, the point of any analysis is to mathmatically represent the physical structure such that one can then use that math model to predict the actual behaviour of the real structure.</p>
<p>HPuck35, I think you are missing aibarr’s and aerokid1491’s points. The point is that any competent program in any of these computational sciences (CFD has many of the same issues as FEA for structures) they teach exactly the sorts of things you are talking about and how to avoid them. The issue is that a lot of these classes and opportunities are graduate-level classes, so you end up seeing people who used Abaqus in one class as an undergrad who start doing it for a living without learning all the caveats and they make those rookie mistakes. I see the same thing with regards to CFD modeling.</p>
<p>Generally those who have gotten a graduate degree focusing on those areas have had a more solid foundation built under them as well as a more robust knowledge of the FEM packages out there and how to model with them effectively and you see much fewer of those really bad mistakes with them. That is why aibarr went immediately into suggesting graduate school, because many undergraduate programs tend to only give a brief taste of what FEM is and would leave someone still relatively clueless on how to use it effectively, much as you have described.</p>
<p>That is how I interpreted it anyway, based also on my experience with people doing CFD.</p>
<p>The people that were making these mistakes were people with advanced degrees and the knowledge of FEM that goes with that degree. </p>
<p>I think that you are missing my point. If you believe that just because you know how FEM analysis works you can jump right into making the model without any planning of the model element densities, boundry conditions, etc then ??? My point is that you do need the complimentary skills to understand the load paths, expected results, etc BEFORE you begin to make your model.</p>
<p>The OP stated that “I want to be a structural analysis engineer and work with FEA programs when I graduate with my bachelors in ME this year”. I was pointing out the complimentary skills he would need to be a succesfull structural engineer and what I’ve seen happen when people (who should know better) ignore those skills. The majority of engineers don’t usually fall into those traps, but when they do, it isn’t pretty.</p>
<p>Totally agree with you Hpuck…I’ve seen what you are talking about far to often.</p>
<p>I think generally I agree with you, HPuck. I’ve just seen that there are multitudinous opportunities for people of my generation to have all the stupid walloped out of them before they do any damage. If the OP goes to grad school like I’m telling him he really has to, he’ll encounter those opportunities, and will learn that he really needs to know the answer before he starts in with model-building. I, for one, will never be able to consider boundary conditions without seeing Professor Hjelmstad’s sneer of doom in my head.</p>
<p>I’ve been known to derisively mock my colleagues for reaching for their calculators to multiply something by one hundred, so I’m doin’ my part, too.</p>