CalculiX vs Code-Aster

bhanups1991

Is there anyone out there who has moved to Code-Aster from CalculiX?

If yes, then could you tell me why?

Actually, I am trying to move from ABAQUS to an open-source tool, and I chose to work on CalculiX last year when I started this transition. I remember vaguely trying to search for the differences b/w CalculiX and Code-Aster back then also but could not find anything significant. Anyway, I think I chose CalculiX probably because I found it easier to set up. Basically, I just want to be sure that I am not missing out on available features if I choose to work with one of them (currently it is CalculiX as I mentioned earlier).

It would be nice to have some suggestions/comments on which one is better (CalculiX or Code-Aster). Maybe both have their advantages and disadvantages. Maybe it depends upon the type of problems at hand (2D/3D, Mechanical/Thermal/Coupled, etc.).

The type of problem that I am looking to solve is a high-speed impact/blast/shock wave type loading on a soft foam/rubber-like material.

To start off the discussion, let me post the things that I've noticed so far:

1. CalculiX community seems to be a smaller one (judging from the no. of users/active discussion forums that I could find: one is on Discord, a server by the name of Elmer, and another on Discourse named as calculix.discourse.group). I am guessing that the CA forum (this one) has more users which is better

2. Code-Aster documentation seems to be more comprehensive or I should say organized (at least that is what I gather).

3. Another difference is the choice of programming language. CalculiX I know uses primarily FORTRAN and C and Code-Aster works on Python I guess.

Comments are welcome.

Maybe, you can add to the list of differences you've noticed/found between the two open-source FEA codes.

Thanks

GXA_William

Greetings bhanups1991.

We transitioned to Aster seven years ago and now we use both Aster and Nastran. During the transition we looked at Elmer, CalculiX, Aster and among the open source codes we found that Aster is "hands down" the most comprehensive general purpose FEA.

Really, it is hard to believe that a code as competent and comprehensive as Aster is available as open source.

The learning curve is "not easy", but if you already know FEA and understand that ALL codes have idiosyncrasies, the learning curve is not unreasonable, particularly because the documentation is good and the verification cases are great for learning various features of the code.

CalculiX would be my #2 choice among the open source FEA tools.

My $.02.

-William

bhanups1991

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Bhanu

sb1966

Hi,

Nice to know that you are moving towards Free-Libre software world.

Some differences between CalculiX and Code-aster, I could list at this moment are:

1. Code-aster has been in use in real world industrial applications in the complex field of nuclear engineering for about 35 years,

2. It has the benefit of this huge field application experience,

3. Thousands of validation cases, every new version must pass through, before it is released,

4. Huge documentation which is exceptional compared to most other opensource softwares.

(CONS: For Non-French speaking users like me, the machine translated documents are very often nightmares. Thanks to Google Translate that our lives are reasonably manageable these days).

5. Large and very supportive user community.

6. Of late, there have been quite a number of good tutorial videos becoming available in YouTube. In addition, a very good English book by one of the Code-Aster Gurus- J. P Aubry ( https [colon slash slash] framabook.org/beginning-with-code_aster/) is freely available to beginners or intermediate users.

Hope this partly addresses your query.

Sukumar

bhanups1991

@sb1966

Thanks for your comments.

I checked the book, looks like a good start for beginners.

Bhanu

sameer21101970

Calculix in Highlighted Writing Says " We Don't Guarantee Accuracy of Analysis Results".

Only Time Passers will use Calculix.

bhanups1991

@miib

Seriously, I don't know how to react.

Those videos you linked, show a huge difference (I am assuming you ran an IDENTICAL simulation using both the codes).

And, the thing that you said about there being only 2 developers v/s an organization, I can't say much.

Essentially, what you are saying is that Code-Aster is hands down the best among the two.

Anyway, thanks for your comments. You provided a whole new perspective.

Bhanu

bhanups1991

@sameer21101970

No time pass. :)

I am simply collecting reviews/opinions on the differences b/w the two codes.

I just want to be sure which one is better or the best so to speak before I commit myself to it.

Thanks

Bhanu

bhanups1991

miib wrote:
[quote=bhanups1991]@miib

Seriously, I don't know how to react.

Those videos you linked, show a huge difference (I am assuming you ran an IDENTICAL simulation using both the codes).

And, the thing that you said about there being only 2 developers v/s an organization, I can't say much.

Essentially, what you are saying is that Code-Aster is hands down the best among the two.

Anyway, thanks for your comments. You provided a whole new perspective.

Bhanu

no the boundary conditions is different :-)

in calculix i imposed a pressure on the wings and i was runing the post processing view in a "loop".

In Code Aster i imposed a rotation and plus a translation to the body.

Strictly i think this :

Calculix is good for the first approach

Code_Aster is good for an inspection study in detail

:-)[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. :)

lsalles

miib wrote:
Who does compare a product of two men with a product of an organization ??? :-)

Just for your information Calculix is the MTU finite element software so it is not a two men product.

It is used by other organizations (GE for example)

lsalles

Hi,

In my group we used both software and I developped in both.

In opininon they are both very good software.

Calculix is easier to use and will run faster for small problem.

Code_Aster has much more features, element types and physical models.

If you want to model beam, plate or shell elements you should used code_aster. Calculix is limited to 4dofs per nodes.

In my opinion Calculix is easier to use for turbomachinery application: cyclic symmetry, modal analysis for different nodal diameter.

If you need to interact a lot with the field and/or matrices of your analysis Code_Aster is much better as you can export any data to python.

I hope it helps.

bhanups1991

lsalles wrote:
Hi,

In my group we used both software and I developped in both.

In opininon they are both very good software.

Calculix is easier to use and will run faster for small problem.

Code_Aster has much more features, element types and physical models.

If you want to model beam, plate or shell elements you should used code_aster. Calculix is limited to 4dofs per nodes.

In my opinion Calculix is easier to use for turbomachinery application: cyclic symmetry, modal analysis for different nodal diameter.

If you need to interact a lot with the field and/or matrices of your analysis Code_Aster is much better as you can export any data to python.

I hope it helps.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Just one clarification: the stiffness/mass/conductivity etc. matrices can be exported in CalculiX also, right?

Bhanu

fsfarimani

For those who end up on this page, we actually have a CodeAster Discord channel on the same server as CalculiX. The Discord server was initially for Elmer, but then it grew to have many channels for other FLOSS and proprietary CAD/CAE. You are welcome to join and invite the rest of the community. If you want I can make some of the core members/devs admins of the channel too so you have full control.