I would like to point out that there is an error on your page.Accuracy of the FEA method cannot -practically- be improved indifinitevely. There is an upper limit.This limit is determined by convergence check performed by all FEA analysts. After a number of elements accuracy stays practically the same, while computing time increase
And what about FEA freeware?
1.Does FEA include FEM and FDM? 2.The current article seems to explain info already contained in FEM page.Why not try to explain when does FEM becomes FEA,and explain some practical applications and uses of FEA?--Sahodaran 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This page has more external links to commercial finite element vendors than actual content. Any ideas of what to be done about it? I would think we should just keep a paragraph listing all commercial software but with no direct links to the companies publishing them (and same for free software links). Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. But this article is now one screenful big, with the external links taking up almost three screenfuls. Not a healthy state of affairs.
Also, certainly that collection of external links is indiscriminate, people just use this page to boost their google ratings. I will cut off the whole thing when I have time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, so please let me know if this does not fit into the overall scheme. What about making a new page for "finite element software"? It could have a matrix with types of solvers and basic capabilities. For the open source software, it could also include licensing. This would allow the "finite element analysis" page to be dedicated to the method and give people interested in the software a resource. --Jbaylor 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed the line that said "some free and some commercial", which seems to imply that free software cannot be commercial, to "both free and proprietary". I hope this doesn't become an issue. (I'm a bit new to the Wikipedia community.) Swap 01:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Should we have some references for these historical statements?--Jbaylor 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah since the History section is taken pretty much verbatim from the first paragraph of http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/num/widas/history.html :
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was first developed in 1943 by R. Courant, who utilized the Ritz method of numerical analysis and minimization of variational calculus to obtain approximate solutions to vibration systems. Shortly thereafter, a paper published in 1956 by M. J. Turner, R. W. Clough, H. C. Martin, and L. J. Topp established a broader definition of numerical analysis. The paper centered on the "stiffness and deflection of complex structures".
One of the sentences is:
It seems like
I am not sure where compatibility should go; does this refer to compatibility of deformations? (I know I have encountered this as the sense compatibility is enforced in the structural FEA derivations I've worked with, but I have a feeling it might be more general. I don't see anything on the disamb that would work. Also, constitutive should probably be linked better. I think Constitutive equation is our man, right? Notthe9 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The bottom part of this article seems to be very... not Wikipedia. Notthe9 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I also had suspicions of that, but I didn't find a match. It certainly seems fishy. I really don't think it was originally written for this page. Notthe9 03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
How come there's a bunch of content about the truck industry in this article? What makes them special? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.199.251 (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed several redlinks and external links from the software list, because there is nothing to indicate the notability of those items, and they could easily be interpreted as spam. The bluelinks are at least notable enough to have surviving Wiki articles, so I've left them intact.
Before re-adding those links, please think carefully about whether they warrant inclusion, specifically whether they are notable enough (see WP:Notability). The best bet would be to try creating Wiki articles for these items; if the articles are deleted, it'll be a sure sign they aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion here.
Regards, Oli Filth(talk) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed two 'citation needed' tags from the opening paragraph. One was that finite element is used in engineering analysis - since we have an entire (referenced) section on its application in mechanical engineering, I don't see this as needed. The other was that there are many FE packages 'both free and proprietary'; since the article has external links to public domain and commercial packages, this seems redundant. Jovial Air (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This page contains large portions of the same material as Finite element method. I would suggest a page (name Finite Element Methods) that grabbed all the history and general discussion together, then another page including a more technical discussion. As it is both pages seem to be competing for the same content -Art187 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
After a week of no response I have performed proposed merge. Unfortunately most of what was written on the Finite element analysis page belonged on something more like Computer-aided engineering, but I have tried to keep the central themes of the the article in tacked. -Art187 (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there are three main articles on the FEM. The article Finite element method presents an introduction to the theory of FEM as a technique for numerical solution of PDE--This mathematically oriented approach is particularly useful for non-structural applications. The article Finite element method in structural mechanics, on the other hand, presents FEM from the stress analyst's point of view as the FEM was initially developed--An approach that is intuitive, natural and easily comprehensible to structural engineers. Finally, the article Finite element analysis gives a survey of current practice and applications of FEM in stress analysis.
The three articles have different emphases and cater to very different interests. Merging all or any two of them will lengthen, complicate the article and burden the readers with unnecessary baggage and requisite background.
I tried to look for but did not see any written rationale for merging the articles. I suggest that whoever makes the suggestion should first make the case and put forward a merged version for public critique. TVBZ28 16:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This page has largely the same content as the Finite Element Method and who are we kidding they should have the same content. What is worse is that there are links to software on both pages that had differences. I went ahead and took care of that though. --Art187 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)