I have a reasonable armoury of info and knowledge with respect to the relative merits, use and background of the h and p-type approach.
I have Ken Short's note on Adaptivity from (about) 1995 and any number of references by looking at the public internet.
But does anyone have any 'slam-dunk' public references that will demonstrate Simulate's (or Mechanica's) competence as an FEA software?
I guess this should preferably be of non-PTC origin.
Thanks for that!
You are right, the old allegations ...
I too have had to do comparisons in in the past for disbelievers.
Thanks for your presentation. I should also do some simple presentations to share; my existing comparisons are client only.
We state upfront the s/w that will be used. This is the point the client has the opportunity to object. Any request to repeat in another s/w is then out of scope and requires more money. They then have the choice of getting a second opinion at their cost. Informing the budget holder and project manager know of threatened timescales and increased spend is often sufficient to stop the silliness.
Sensible requests to justify answers are always acceptable and should be a matter of course anyway.
I will look up your reference 'p.190 in Szabo and Babuska, Finite Element Analysis (1991)'.
I was directed to this website in the past and found it useful: http://www.tsdengineering.com/pages/conv_basic.html#fea_basic
It is very simplistic though, so if you are looking for a detailed comparison of the two methods then this is not it.
It has some other pages which are also helpful