Well, I don't get this lab experiment either and perhaps we're missing some information?
In my trials, the result is the same between the two methods, based on my knowledge of FEA.
But of course, if you don't have the knowledge of the method, and just look at the numbers, it is not exactly the same.
Different thing can affect the results:
- Boundary conditions
- Mesh
- Solver
Boundary conditions effect are obvious.
Solver, well if you use the iterative compared to the direct sparse there will be differences since one is solving the equation directly and the other one makes a guess, verify the result and the guess again until it is "close enough".
Mesh, obviously the size and type of element effects the result. But also how the mesh layouts on the part since SW don't have the possibility to do a mapped mesh.
In my trial I get the results below where you can see that the tets are turned in different direction on different locations.
SW simulation solves the displacement and then extrapolates stress and strain from this value.
Displacement easier converges compared to stress and in my example the displacement is exactly the same between the two results.
The maximums stress is different, but of course this has more to do with the fact that it occurs as a singularity in the sharp inner corner.
It will continue to rise to infinity with finer mesh so it is pointless to look at this result.
SW also modifies the scale based on the maximum value, so to really compare them you need to set the scale similar in both examples.
So in the overall picture, with the same scale settings, I say that the result is the same between these two design methods.
