Steve Maki wrote:
> jimlux wrote:
>> It's much worse with structural FEM than for ElectroMagnetic.. In EM
>> modeling, it's a conductor with specified properties, and generally
>> isotropic, and there's no concept of "bending". In structural, a beam
>> has torsional, bending and shear, and they're different in all
>> directions and coupled to boot.
>>
>> There's a reason that introductory texts talk about idealized beams with
>> uniform cross section in axial compression, tension, or simple bending
>> or torsion only.
>
> I took a look at those two, and it's obvious there would be a steep
> learning curve.
>
> I'd like to have one of the custom tower packages, like Tower,
> RisaTower, or Guymast, but they start around $3k. I imagine these
> programs are like EZNEC in that they are elegant GUIs on top of a
> standard FEM engine.
>
> Steve K8LX
the underlying math for structural FEM is simple (Hooke's and Newton's
laws).. it's knowing what numbers to plug in, and having an
appreciation for the numerical issues that is the key.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
