Elmer Solver, Next Equations??

[bernd]

true, it should be elmer next equations in terms of FreeCAD FEM.

[raback]

Yes, the word "solver" has been suboptimal term for Elmer. To avoid confusion I sometimes try to use word "model" instead but "analysis" could of course be one too. Also that might not be ideal since same model/solver may be used to to create transient or eigenmode analysis, for example.

[RatonLaveur]

true, it should be elmer next equations in terms of FreeCAD FEM.

<-- i hereby shamelessly paraphrase you, Sir.

[Jee-Bee]

again i don't have experience with elmer.
Here (http://feacluster.com/CalculiX/ccx_2.13 ... de156.html) is a list of different analysistypes that exist in Calculix.
If a compatible brakedown can be made for Elmer than is it maybe an ide to breakdown mechanical calculations further(so take static, frequency, buckling etc apart ).
a short check here(https://www.nic.funet.fi/index/elmer/do ... Manual.pdf) it looks there some overlap but i haven't dive in the hole manual(only table of content) so i'm not into the details!

@Bernd can you split the naming off from the original topic?

[bernd]

again i don't have experience with elmer.
Here (http://feacluster.com/CalculiX/ccx_2.13 ... de156.html) is a list of different analysistypes that exist in Calculix.
If a compatible brakedown can be made for Elmer than is it maybe an ide to breakdown mechanical calculations further(so take static, frequency, buckling etc apart ).

This is may be not a good idea. The terminology in CalculiX is rather bad. There we use analysis type but is is an attribute of the solver. This is for historical reason, because the analysis type used to be a analysis attribute and was moved to the solver years ago.

What is called Solver in Elmer terminology is a Equation in FreeCAD FEM. Means a Elmer Solver is a FreeCAD Equation. This topic is about extending these Equations. Equations are implemented in Elmer solver only. I like the concept. I would like to implement this for CalculiX too, and move all the solver attributes into the correct Equation. But this is not on hight priorty ATM. Because I did not want to change names twice I decided to stick with the name analysis type so far.

What we need to make a consens about is the Equation terminology. Is Equation a good word for this object even if we would start to use it for other solvers (CalculiX, Z88, OpenSees) as well.

bernd

[RatonLaveur]

I actually like "equation" a lot, it describes exactly what it will solve. The current implementation of Elmer in FreeCAD is crystal clear to me:

I create an Analysis (i.e. breaking down a problem into the sum of its components) to study the problem at hand
in that analysis I create a Solver which will be there to direct and perform calculations
in that solver I populate a list of Equations each describing a very physical problem (Navier-Stokes, Heat Transfer, Elasticity, Frequency...)

I know I am here only enumerating the current state, but written like this, it makes perfect sense to me. Each name in that nomenclature is very close to its real definition.

What I love about this architecture is how complex multi-physics problems are reduced to a simple stack of physical equations each with its priority.

[HoWil]

Hello Maybe it is up to me... But i think that the name solver in (Elmer?) this topic is a bit weird. Shouldn't that be a analysis? In my opinion it leads to confusion between Elmer, Calculix, Z88 etc compared to Elasticy, electrostatic, flow, etc...
I understand that when using plain elmer different naming confentions could exist. But compared to the way FC with the different solvers work it makes it fuzzy

You are completely right for FC... as already pointed out its Elmer thermology, I always mix it up .
@Bernd thanks for modifying the title.