Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Analytical or not?[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Analytical or not?
- From: Alexander Bausk <bauskas(--nospam--at)gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:43:26 +0300
Gregory, of course I want to hear all opinions from all the English-speaking world, thanks! I see that the fact is, 'analytical' safely retains two meanings in English. The same cannot be said about other local environments though. On 10/5/11, gregory szuladzinski <ggg(--nospam--at)bigpond.net.au> wrote: > Blank > COMMENT: > > Alexander, > > It all sounds like a storm in a teacup. > > I think the underlying issue is whether someone is using closed formulas or > numerical models. > > The term "analytical" has often be used for both and the usage will so > remain. > If you are discussing matters within more specialized, computational domain, > you are likely to make a distinction between analytical (closed form) and > numerical (formless). > > The first of those uses a calculator or, these days, Mathcad and the likes > of it. > The second is mainly FEA, sometimes discrete elements, occasionaly boundary > elements. > > A spreadsheet, on the other hand, can support both. > > You did not say you wanted to hear an opinion from Australia, > but I thought I might volunteer my two cents worth. > > Sincerely > Gregory form Oz > > > TOPIC: > > > > From: Alexander Bausk <bauskas(--nospam--at)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: "Analytical model" > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org > > --bcaec51dd7d7df86c004ae7cd8a9 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Hello Bill, > "right" is "richtig"; "rechen" is derived from rechnen, "(to) count". > I'm not sure about the German terms. It is essentially a bait to lure Germa= > n > listers to the thread (there are some AFAIK). > > What I'm sure about is, we say something like "structural model", or > "calculation model" to describe any generic formalized model of a structure= > . > Then, all sort of generic calculation models are, mathematically speaking, > split into two domains: analytical and computational. You may clearly see > this is a common scheme throughout many engineering and research discipline= > s > by reviewing this search: http://goo.gl/FvHKt. > > Analytical model has a closed form solution, that is, it can be solved in > one iteration using the simplest operators. If your model is Y=3Df(X), you = > are > usually able to retrieve the inverse solution, X=3Df'(Y), and express it in > more or less simple terms. > In practice, any code check is deemed analytical and the common term used t= > o > humiliate junior engineers, the "hand analysis", usually redirects here (if > you are not solving FE matrices by hand which is quite possible). > > Computational model is usually highly iterative and includes complex > procedures like FEA, boundary element analysis or CFD. It is still called > analysis of course (in your language). You cannot directly express X > depending on Y in this case. > > In other terms, your 15-minute-to-design ACI Excel spreadsheet calc is most > likely analytical while any FE model is computational. These two models may > actually describe the same structure like a pinned beam. > Any FEA software verification manual will host dozens of comparisons of > computational vs. analytical models describing the same structures. > > So yes, I think this is actually the most fundamental difference there is. > And the current term usage disturbs me, especially when I see it propagatin= > g > to masses on Autodesk venues and help materials (and they are darn good at > help materials). > > P.s. I'm sorry if I was getting too much narrative, that is just to be > completely clear on the subject, I am clearly not qualified to lecture > anybody on the list. > > > > -- Alexander Bausk Civil/Structural design & inspection engineer, CAD professional MSc Structural engineering, Ph.C. Engineering http://bausk.wordpress.com ONILAES Lab at PSACEA Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine Tel. +38 068 4079692 Fax. +38 0562 470263 bauskas(--nospam--at)gmail.com ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Re: Analytical or not?
- From: Conrad Harrison
- Re: Analytical or not?
- Analytical or not?
- From: gregory szuladzinski
- Analytical or not?
- Prev by Subject: Analytical or not?
- Next by Subject: Re: Analytical or not?
- Previous by thread: Analytical or not?
- Next by thread: Re: Analytical or not?