Hi Ditho, thanks for your question. MultiMech’s multiscale approach (which we call TRUE Multiscale technology) uses FE models as microstructures. This gives the user far more versatility in terms of material design and constitutive modeling. Digimat’s multiscale approach uses Mori-Tanaka as the analytical model for the microstructure. There are multiple assumptions in that model, limiting its versatility. It was originally only meant for materials with ellipsoidal inclusions perfectly bonded to the matrix, so accurate nonlinear material behavior is unfeasible when those assumptions are violated. When comparing both multiscale approaches, there is no question that FE microstructures are more accurate and realistic than any analytical solution, including Mori-Tanaka. The only drawback of the FE method is that it used to take an enormous amount of time to perform. The good news is that MultiMech’s new proprietary data compression technology reduces the computational cost of multiscale FE simulations to the point that they are now practical and the choice between the two approaches is now a no-brainer. In terms of decision/evaluation criteria, speed is fine, but accuracy is final.
Hi Hicham, great question. The FE-RVE plug-in for Abaqus allows for users to create microstructures and extract the homogenized properties of the composite material. These homogenized material properties can then be used to run linear simulations of a part. MultiMech can also do homogenization, with just as many (if not more) automatically created microstructures. Where MultiMech separates itself is its ability to include damage parameters in these microstructures and simultaneously run the global and local scale models, where each RVE is entirely unique. However, the FE-RVE plug-in and MultiMech can be used in conjunction. MultiMech can import the RVEs generated with this plug-in and with it, run a fully coupled multiscale simulation.
