MSC Software Corporation

There are numerous reasons why fatigue analysis is faster with NEF, but 2 of the most notable are listed below:

1. The traditional approach involves taking FEA results, then transferring, and submitting them to a fatigue program. This approach unfortunately has an impact on solution performance, with need for large amount of computational resources and analyst time. With NEF, the fatigue calculation occurs immediately within the FEA analysis, which saves time and effort required, improving analysis efficiency. In one example, the traditional fatigue analysis process took 8 hours, but with NEF, the analysis took 38 minutes. [Source]
2. Since the fatigue calculation occurs in MSC Nastran, the high cost and time needed to move numerous intermediate files between FEA and fatigue program is reduced. This simplification of durability analysis leads to savings of computational resources, resulting in additional simulation capacity and higher productivity. In one example, the fatigue analysis involved 191 files, but with NEF, the number of files involved was just 2. [Source p.62]

Minimizing the mass of a product, while obtaining a desired fatigue life, is more feasible with NEF. The support of fatigue calculations within MSC Nastran extends into Design Optimization (SOL 200). Models may now be optimized while taking into account fatigue life and other performance criteria such as mass. If the need to consider and optimize multiple models exists, the multi-model optimization capabilities in MSC Nastran may also be utilized. This provides a truly optimized model that can be used faster, without the need for verification of the designs after design optimization analysis.