A method for evaluating the structural algorithmic simulation capability

Abstract

The embodiment of the application provides a kind of structure algorithm simulation ability evaluation method, the method comprises the following steps: first, establish standard model library;Step 100: verify the geometric model processing capability of structure algorithm: different versions and different formats of geometric model are imported into structure algorithm one by one, the geometric model processing capability of structure algorithm is recorded and judged, step 200: verify the meshing capability of structure algorithm: after the geometric model is imported into structure algorithm, the geometric model is meshed, then the meshing process is recorded and judged, step 300: verify the solving capability of structure algorithm: the structure of structure algorithm is analyzed;Step 400: the final result is obtained by weighted evaluation of data sets S1, S2, S3, the application can be subdivided test category, make the evaluation of structure algorithm simulation ability more comprehensive and accurate, and then obtain the evaluation result with higher reliability.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The application relates to the technical field of simulation capability evaluation, in particular to a structural algorithm simulation capability evaluation method. BACKGROUND

[0002] Structural algorithm simulation is often applied to complex system structure characteristic analysis, can help users reduce the number of prototypes and test times of complex systems in the design, optimization, verification and other links, improve product design efficiency, and reduce product development cost. Structural algorithms are increasingly widely used, and the types are also increasing. Therefore, in the numerous structural algorithms, how to select a suitable algorithm is particularly important, so the structural algorithm simulation capability needs to be evaluated and verified.

[0003] At present, the traditional structural algorithm simulation capability evaluation method mainly verifies and evaluates the solution accuracy and calculation speed of the algorithm, the means and methods are relatively limited and not comprehensive, thereby reducing the reliability of the evaluation result. Therefore, the structural algorithm simulation capability evaluation method needs to be improved. SUMMARY

[0004] The purpose of the application is to provide a structural algorithm simulation capability evaluation method, which can analyze and evaluate different structural algorithms with simulation capability, and in detail detect the geometric model capability, mesh division capability and solution capability, and then compare the comprehensive value obtained by the weighted calculation method after detection with the standard value of the database to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the structural algorithm, thereby avoiding large errors of the simulation structural algorithm affecting the real effect.

[0005] To achieve the above technical purpose, the technical scheme adopted by the application is as follows:

[0006] A structural algorithm simulation capability evaluation method, the method comprising the following steps:

[0007] First, a standard model library (the number of models is not less than 20, and different versions and different formats of geometric models are required) is established, the standard model library is simulated and analyzed by using an industry general structural simulation algorithm, and then the standard values of the structural algorithm geometric capability, mesh division capability and solution capability are determined as qualified values;

[0008] Step 100: verifying the geometric model capability of the structural algorithm: different versions and different formats of geometric models are imported into the structural algorithm one by one, and whether the structural algorithm supports import, import speed, import model quality and geometric cleaning and repair capability are recorded and judged, and the judgment standard is the standard value of the database, and a data set S1={S11, S12, S13,...} is formed;

[0009] Step 200: verifying the meshing capability of the structure algorithm: after the structure algorithm is imported into the geometric model, the geometric model is meshed, and whether the meshing is supported, the meshing speed, the meshing quality and the mesh repairing capability are recorded and judged when the structure algorithm meshes the geometric model. The judgment standard is based on the standard value of the database, which is divided into five levels: excellent, better, medium, worse and poor. At the same time, the five levels are converted into numerical values to form a data set S2={S21, S22, S23…};

[0010] Step 300: verifying the solving capability of the structure algorithm: under the same grid model, the same boundary setting and the same solving setting conditions, the structure algorithm is analyzed for structure type solving, including strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis. Then the solving speed, solving accuracy, compatibility and parallel capability of the strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis are recorded and judged, and the judgment standard is based on the standard value of the database to form a data set S3={S31, S32, S33…};

[0011] Step 400: weighted evaluation of data sets S1, S2 and S3. The value of S after weighted evaluation is S, which is the score of the simulation capability of the structure algorithm. Comparing S with the standard value or with the S of other structure algorithms can determine the specific situation of the simulation capability of the structure algorithm. At the same time, data sets S1, S2 and S3 are the specific scores of the capability, which can be selected according to the needs to select the structure algorithm with more prominent capability for simulation, which is more practical. Moreover, comparing data sets S1, S2 and S3 with S with other structure algorithms can more detailedly and accurately evaluate and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each simulation structure algorithm, so as to select a more suitable simulation structure algorithm for use.

[0012] The obtained value is compared with the standard value of the database, and the result is divided into five levels: excellent, better, medium, worse and poor. According to the five levels, the numerical values are converted into a data set.

[0013] The step 100 further includes the geometric type of the geometric model capability import, which includes IGS, AICS, CATIA, INVENTOR, NX, Parasolid, Pro\E\Creo, solidworks and Step. Each geometric type corresponds to an S1. The geometric model capability verification method includes:

[0014] Step 110: judging whether these geometric types support import and export. According to the actual situation, if import and export are supported, the score is obtained, otherwise the score is not obtained. Then the final score S11 is compared with the standard values excellent, better, medium, worse and poor.

[0015] Step 120: firstly judge whether different versions of geometric types can be imported or exported to the structure algorithm, and the specific steps are:

[0016] Step 121: calculate the number of different versions that can be exported by the same geometric type, and then average the number of versions that can be supported by the same geometric model;

[0017] Step 122: compare the average number of versions S12 that can be supported by the structure algorithm for different geometric types with the standard values of good, better, medium, worse, and poor;

[0018] Step 130: calculate the import time of each geometric model, and then average the import time of all geometric models S13 and compare it with the standard values of good, better, medium, worse, and poor;

[0019] Step 140: check the imported structure algorithm model, whether the imported geometric model has the problem of broken surface and penetration quality, set a standard score, if a quality problem is found and cannot be repaired, the corresponding score will be deducted, if it can be repaired, the corresponding score will be added, and the final score is the ability score S14;

[0020] Step 150: finally add the support of geometric type import and export, whether the different versions of the same geometric type can be imported or exported, the time of geometric model import and the score of import model quality to get the comprehensive score of the ability S1.

[0021] The step 200 further comprises: the grid division types include quadrilateral grid, tetrahedron grid, hexahedron grid, polyhedron grid and prism grid, and the grid division ability verification steps are specifically:

[0022] Step 210: divide the structure algorithm one by one, judge whether the structure algorithm can support the above grid division types, if five grid division types can be supported, it is good, each reduction of one kind of supported grid type reduces one level, the remaining levels are: better, medium, worse, and poor, at the same time, the five levels are converted into numerical values S21;

[0023] Step 220: calculate the division speed of the structure algorithm one by one for different grid division types, and average the speed of all grid division types S22, and then compare it with the standard values of good, better, medium, worse, and poor;

[0024] Step 230: quality analysis is performed on the divided model, and the quality evaluation indexes include: minimum unit size, maximum unit size, warping, taper, aspect ratio, Jacobian, minimum internal angle of triangle, maximum internal angle of triangle, minimum internal angle of quadrilateral, maximum internal angle of quadrilateral, and maximum internal angle of quadrilateral, and the specific sub-steps further include:

[0025] Step 231: the quality evaluation indexes are used to analyze the geometric model, and then the number of analysis failures is calculated;

[0026] Step 232: the average value S23 of the number of failures of all quality evaluation indexes is compared with the standard values of excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor;

[0027] Step 240: the grid repair capability standard value of the database is set, and then it is detected whether there is a quality problem after the structural algorithm is imported into the geometric model, if there is no quality problem, the value of the final grid repair capability = the grid repair capability standard value set in the database, if there is a problem, the repair is performed using the structural algorithm, after the repair is successful, the grid repair capability standard value is scored, if the repair is not successful, the grid repair capability standard value is scored, and the final value of the grid repair capability standard value after the scoring is added or subtracted = S24;

[0028] Step 250: the average value S2 of whether the above grid division types can be supported, the division speed of different grid division types, and the scores S21, S22, S23, and S24 of the grid repair capability are taken;

[0029] The step 300 further includes the following sub-steps:

[0030] Step 310: the solution accuracy of the structural algorithm is verified, and the detailed steps are as follows:

[0031] Step 311: the solution accuracy verification indexes of the strength analysis are: the maximum stress value, the maximum displacement value, and the maximum load of the measuring points, then the three specific values obtained are compared with the standard values in the database respectively to give the scores corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor, and then the average value P1 is taken;

[0032] Step 312: the solution accuracy in the modal analysis of the structural algorithm is verified, and the verification indexes are: the maximum frequency and the maximum eigenvalue of the measuring points, then the two specific values obtained are compared with the standard values in the database respectively to give the scores corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor, and then the average value P2 is taken;

[0033] Step 313: the solution accuracy in the fatigue analysis of the structural algorithm is verified, and the index is: the maximum fracture stress of the measuring points, then the specific value obtained is compared with the standard value in the database to give the score P3 corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor;

[0034] Step 314: Then average P1, P2 and P3 = S31;

[0035] Step 320: Verify the solving speed of structural algorithm strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis respectively, calculate the time taken by the structural algorithm when performing structural analysis, and then take the average with the number of times taken = S32;

[0036] Step 330: Verify the compatibility of structural algorithm strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis respectively, the verification index is: Windows 10, Windows 11 and Windows Server 2016, record the number of three analysis types that the structural algorithm can be compatible with, then compare the number with the standard value of the database to give the scores corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse and poor = S33;

[0037] Step 340: Verify the parallel capability of structural algorithm strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis respectively, the verification index is: whether to support parallel and support maximum core number, the detailed steps are as follows:

[0038] Step 341: Record the number of parallel cores that the structural algorithm can support, then compare the number with the standard value of the database to give the scores corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse and poor = P4;

[0039] Step 342: Then record the maximum number of cores that the structural algorithm can support and compare it with the standard value of the database to give the scores corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse and poor = P5;

[0040] Step 343: Finally, the comprehensive value is the average of P4 and P5 = S34;

[0041] Step 350: Take the average of the scores S31, S32, S33 and S34 obtained by solving accuracy, solving speed, compatibility and parallel capability = S3.

[0042] The data amount in the geometry model database in the geometry model capability verification is not less than 40, the data amount in the database in the solving capability verification is not less than 40, and the data in the database in the solving capability verification includes different fields and different analysis types.

[0043] When selecting the weighted evaluation coefficient, the verification of solving capability occupies the largest proportion coefficient in the weighting, followed by the grid division capability, and the geometry model capability occupies the smallest proportion.

[0044] The average values are all the average values after removing the maximum value and the minimum value, if the number of average values is less than or equal to 4, the maximum value and the minimum value are not removed.

[0045] This invention can analyze and evaluate structural algorithms with different simulation capabilities. It conducts detailed tests on geometric modeling capabilities, mesh generation capabilities, and solution capabilities. Then, it compares the comprehensive value obtained by the weighted calculation method of the tested data with the standard value in the database to analyze the merits of the structural algorithm, thereby avoiding large errors in the simulation structural algorithm that may affect the real effect. Attached Figure Description

[0046] The accompanying drawings illustrate, by way of example and not limitation, the various embodiments discussed herein.

[0047] Figure 1 This is a mind map illustrating the method for evaluating the simulation capability of a structural algorithm according to the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0048] In order to gain a more detailed understanding of the features and technical content of the embodiments of this application, the implementation of the embodiments of this application will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. The accompanying drawings are for reference and illustration only and are not intended to limit the embodiments of this application.

[0049] Example 1:

[0050] like Figure 1 As shown, the present invention provides a method for evaluating the simulation capability of structural algorithms, the method comprising the following steps:

[0051] First, a standard model library is established (containing no fewer than 20 models, including geometric models of different versions and formats). The standard model library is then simulated and analyzed using industry-standard structural simulation algorithms. The standard values ​​for the geometric capability, mesh generation capability, and solution capability of the structural algorithm are then determined to be acceptable. The obtained numerical values ​​are compared and analyzed with the standard values ​​in the database, and the results are divided into five levels: excellent, relatively good, moderate, relatively poor, and poor. The results are then converted into numerical values ​​based on these five levels to form a dataset.

[0052] Step 100: Verify the geometric model capabilities of the structural algorithm: Import geometric models of different versions and formats into the structural algorithm one by one, and record and judge whether the structural algorithm supports import, import speed, imported model quality, and geometric cleanup and repair capabilities. The judgment criteria are based on the standard values ​​in the database, forming a data set S1 = {S11, S12, S13...}. The geometric types that can be imported include: IGS, AICS, CATIA, INVENTOR, NX, Parasolid, Pro / E / Creo, SolidWorks, and Step.

[0053] Step 110: Determine whether these geometric types support importing and exporting the structure algorithm. If importing and exporting are supported, a score is given; otherwise, no score is given. After all geometric types have been tested, compare the final score S11 with the standard values ​​of excellent, better, moderate, poor, and bad. If S11 is larger than the standard value, it is considered better; if it is significantly larger than the standard value, it is considered excellent. This process is repeated in subsequent steps.

[0054] Step 120: First, determine whether different versions of the geometry type can be imported or exported into the structure algorithm. Specific steps:

[0055] Step 121: Calculate the number of different versions that can be exported for the same geometry type, and then take the average value A2 for the number of versions that the same geometry model can support. Take the average value A2 for the number of different versions that can be exported for all geometry types.

[0056] Step 122: Using the standard value in the database as the standard, take the average of A2, which represents the number of versions that can be exported or imported for all geometric types. The average number of versions that different versions can support, S12, is compared with the standard values ​​of excellent, better, medium, poor, and bad.

[0057] Step 130: Calculate the import time for each geometric model, and then compare the average import time of all geometric models, S13, with the standard values ​​of excellent, better, average, poor, and bad.

[0058] Step 140: Check the imported structural algorithm model to see if there are any broken surfaces or penetration quality issues in the imported geometric model. Set a standard score value to the standard value inside the database. If a quality problem is found and cannot be repaired, the corresponding score will be deducted. If it can be repaired, the corresponding score will be added. The final score S14 is compared with the standard values ​​of excellent, better, average, poor, and bad.

[0059] Step 150: Finally, add up the scores for whether the geometry type supports import and export, whether different versions of the same geometry type can be imported or exported, the time of importing the geometry model, and the quality of the imported model to obtain the comprehensive score S1 for this capability.

[0060] Step 200: verifying the meshing capability of the structure algorithm: after importing the structure algorithm into the geometric model, the geometric model is meshed, and whether the meshing is supported, the meshing speed, the meshing quality and the mesh repairing capability are recorded and judged when the structure algorithm meshes the geometric model. The judgment standard is based on the standard value of the data, which is divided into five levels: excellent, better, medium, worse and poor. At the same time, the five levels are converted into numerical values to form a data set S2={S21, S22, S23…}. The meshing types include quadrilateral mesh, tetrahedral mesh, hexahedral mesh, polyhedral mesh and prism mesh. The more meshing types, the more accurate the meshing capability.

[0061] Step 210: meshing the structure algorithm one by one, judging whether the above meshing types can be supported, if all five meshing types can be supported, it is excellent, and each type of meshing type that can be supported is reduced by one level, the rest of the levels are: better, medium, worse, poor, and at the same time, the five levels are converted into numerical values = S21. If the meshing types are too many to be judged according to the above method, the standard value in the database is compared with the number of meshing types that can be meshed to obtain the numerical value = S21.

[0062] Step 220: calculating the meshing speed of the structure algorithm for different meshing types one by one, and taking the average value S22 of the speed of all meshing types, and comparing it with the standard values excellent, better, medium, worse and poor.

[0063] Step 230: quality analysis of the meshed model, the quality evaluation indexes include: minimum unit size, maximum unit size, warping degree, taper, aspect ratio, jacobian, minimum internal angle of triangle, maximum internal angle of triangle, minimum internal angle of quadrilateral, maximum internal angle of quadrilateral and maximum internal angle of quadrilateral.

[0064] The evaluation standard of the quality evaluation index is: the minimum unit size is required to be <5mm, the maximum unit size is required to be >25mm, the warping degree is 15°, the taper is required to be >0.5, the aspect ratio is required to be >8, the jacobian is required to be <0.6, the minimum internal angle of triangle is required to be <15°, the maximum internal angle of triangle is required to be >135°, the minimum internal angle of quadrilateral is required to be <30°, and the maximum internal angle of quadrilateral is required to be >150°.

[0065] The specific sub-steps further include:

[0066] Step 231: analyzing the geometric model by the quality evaluation index and then calculating the number of failed analysis;

[0067] Step 232: taking the average value S23 of the number of failed analysis of all quality evaluation indexes and comparing it with the standard values excellent, better, medium, worse and poor;

[0068] Step 240: set the grid repair capability standard value of the database, then detect whether there is a quality problem after the structural algorithm is imported into the geometric model, if there is no quality problem, then the last grid repair capability value = the grid repair capability standard value set by the database, if there is a problem, then repair using the structural algorithm, after successful repair, the grid repair capability standard value is added, if there is no successful repair, the grid repair capability standard value is reduced, and the final value of the grid repair capability standard value after adding and reducing the score = S24;

[0069] Step 250: take the average value of whether the above grid division type can be supported, the division speed of different grid division types, and the scores S21, S22, S23 and S24 of the grid repair capability = S2;

[0070] Step 300: verify the solving capability of the structural algorithm: under the same grid model, same boundary setting and same solving setting conditions, the structural algorithm is analyzed for structural type solving analysis, the analysis types mainly include strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis, then the solving speed, solving accuracy, compatibility and parallel capability of the strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis are recorded and judged, the judgment standard is subject to the standard value of the database, and the data set S3 = {S31, S32, S33…} is composed;

[0071] Step 310: verify the solving accuracy of the structural algorithm, the detailed steps are as follows:

[0072] Step 311: the verification index of the solving accuracy of the strength analysis is: the maximum stress value, the maximum displacement value and the maximum load of the measuring point, then the three specific values obtained are compared with the standard value of the database respectively to give the scores P1 corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse and poor, then the three P1 values are averaged to reassign P1;

[0073] Step 312: verify the solving accuracy in the modal analysis of the structural algorithm, the verification index is: the maximum frequency and the maximum eigenvalue of the measuring point, then the two specific values obtained are compared with the standard value of the database respectively to give the scores P2 corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse and poor, then the three P2 values are averaged to reassign P2;

[0074] Step 313: verify the solving accuracy in the fatigue analysis of the structural algorithm, the index is: the maximum fracture stress of the measuring point, then the specific value obtained is compared with the standard value of the database to give the score P3 corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse and poor;

[0075] Step 314: then take the average value of P1, P2 and P3 = S31;

[0076] Step 320: verify the solving speed of the structural algorithm strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis respectively, calculate the time taken by the structural algorithm when performing structural analysis, and then take the average of the number of times taken = S32;

[0077] Step 330: verify the compatibility of the structural algorithm strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis respectively, the verification index is: Windows 10, Windows 11 and Windows Server 2016, record the number of three analysis types that the structural algorithm can be compatible with, then compare the number with the standard value of the database to give the scores corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse and poor = S33;

[0078] Step 340: verify the parallel capability of the structural algorithm strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis respectively, the verification index is: whether to support parallel and support the maximum number of cores, the detailed steps are as follows:

[0079] Step 341: record the number of parallel cores that the structural algorithm can support, then compare the number with the standard value of the database to give the scores corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse and poor = P4;

[0080] Step 342: then record the maximum number of cores that the structural algorithm can support and compare it with the standard value of the database to give the scores corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse and poor = P5;

[0081] Step 343: finally, the comprehensive value calculated is the average of P4 and P5 = S34;

[0082] Step 350: take the average of the scores S31, S32, S33 and S34 obtained by solving precision, solving speed, compatibility and parallel capability = S3.

[0083] Step 400: weighted evaluation of data sets S1, S2, S3, the value after weighted evaluation is S, which is the score of the simulation capability of the structural algorithm, compare S with the standard value or with the S of other structural algorithms to obtain the specific situation of the simulation capability of the structural algorithm, at the same time, data sets S1, S2, S3 are all specific scores of the capability, which can be selected according to the need to select the structural algorithm with more prominent capability for simulation, which is more practical, and comparing data sets S1, S2, S3 with S together with other structural algorithms can more detailed and accurately evaluate and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each simulation structural algorithm, and then select a more suitable simulation structural algorithm for use.

[0084] Example two:

[0085] On the basis of embodiment one, the data amount in the geometric model database in the geometric model capability verification is not less than 40, the data amount in the database in the solving capability verification is not less than 40, and the data in the database in the solving capability verification includes different fields and different analysis types; the data amount requirement of the database can ensure that the standard values in the database have reference value, and the more the data amount is, the more accurate the standard values are, and the more reference value the evaluation result has.

[0086] In step 400, when the weighted evaluation coefficient is selected, the solving capability verification is increased in the proportion coefficient in the weighting, followed by the grid division capability, and the geometric model capability occupies the minimum proportion. The solving capability occupies a main position in the whole simulation capability, and the grid division capability and the geometric model capability serve the solving capability, so that the solving capability occupies the main coefficient, and the detection structure is more accurate.

[0087] The average value is the average value after removing the maximum value and the minimum value, and if the number of average values is less than or equal to 4, the maximum value and the minimum value are not removed. Such a method avoids the influence of the extreme value with a large difference on the whole score, and thus the final result.

[0088] Embodiment three:

[0089] The application also provides a test and analysis of a structure algorithm simulation capability evaluation method.

[0090] The standard value is determined by the data amount analysis: excellent = 90; better = 75; medium = 60; worse = 45; and poor = 30.

[0091]

[0092] Table 1

[0093] The geometric import is excellent; the number of versions that can be imported is better; the import speed is better; and the import model quality and the cleaning and repairing capability are better.

[0094] From the above table 1, it can be obtained that the geometric model capability comprehensive S1 of the structure algorithm is 77.5, which is better, and if the comprehensive score after removing the maximum and minimum values is S1 = 80, the evaluation score is higher than that without removing the maximum and minimum values.

[0095]

[0096] Table 2

[0097] From the above table 2, the grid type support capability is excellent, the grid division speed is better, the grid division quality is better, the grid repair capability is excellent, and the grid division capability comprehensive score S2=83.25 of the structure algorithm is obtained; after removing the maximum and minimum value, S2=83.75; and the grid division capability comprehensive of the structure algorithm is excellent.

[0098]

[0099]

[0100] Table 3

[0101] From the above table 3, the solution accuracy of the structure algorithm is better, the solution speed is excellent, the compatibility is better, and the parallel capability is poor; and the solution capability comprehensive score S3=67.5 is obtained.

[0102] From the above, the geometry model capability comprehensive S1=77.5 is better, and if the comprehensive score after removing the maximum and minimum value is S1=80, the grid division capability comprehensive score S2=83.25 is obtained; after removing the maximum and minimum value, S2=83.75, and the solution capability comprehensive score S3=67.5 is obtained; finally, the weighted algorithm of S1, S2 and S3 is used, and the existing weighted average method is used, the solution capability which is an important part in the structure algorithm evaluation is assigned a weight value=0.5, the weight value of the grid division capability is 0.3, and the weight value of the geometry model capability is 0.2; finally, the formula of the weighted average method is used:

[0103]

[0104] (W1, W2, W3 are weight values, X1 is S1, X2 is S2, and X3 is S3) and finally S=74.225 (better) is obtained;

[0105] When the S after removing the maximum and minimum value is 77.03 (better than that without removing the maximum and minimum value), it is indicated that the individual capability of the structure algorithm is outstanding, so different structure algorithms with different superior capabilities can be selected for simulation work according to different requirements, and the structure algorithm is more practical.

[0106] The above description is only the preferred embodiment of the present application and the explanation of the applied technical principles. Those skilled in the art should understand that the disclosed range in the present application is not limited to the technical solutions formed by the specific combination of the above technical features, and also covers other technical solutions formed by the combination of the above technical features or equivalent features without departing from the disclosed concept. For example, the above features are replaced with the technical features disclosed in the present application (but not limited to) with similar functions to form.

Claims

1. A method of evaluating the capabilities of a structural algorithm simulation, characterized by, The method comprises the following steps: First, a standard model library is established, the number of models in the standard model library is not less than 20, and the standard model library comprises geometric models of different versions and different formats; simulation analysis is performed on the standard model library by using an industry general structure simulation algorithm, and then standard values of geometric processing capability, meshing capability and solving capability of the structure algorithm are determined as qualified values; In step 100, the geometric model capability of the structure algorithm is verified: different versions and different formats of geometric models are imported into the structure algorithm one by one, and whether the structure algorithm supports import, import speed, import model quality and geometric cleaning and repair capability are recorded and judged, the judgment standard is the standard value of the database, and a data set S1={S11, S12, S13,...} is formed; In step 200, the meshing capability of the structure algorithm is verified: after the structure algorithm is imported into the geometric model, the geometric model is meshed, and whether the structure algorithm supports meshing, meshing speed, meshing quality and mesh repair capability are recorded and judged when the structure algorithm is meshed, the judgment standard is the standard value of the database, and the five levels are converted into numerical values to form a data set S2={S21, S22, S23,...}; In step 300, the solving capability of the structure algorithm is verified: under the same grid model, the same boundary setting and the same solving setting conditions, the structure algorithm is analyzed for structure type solving, the analysis types mainly include strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis, and then the solving speed, solving accuracy, compatibility and parallel capability of the strength analysis, modal analysis and fatigue analysis are recorded and judged, the judgment standard is the standard value of the database, and a data set S3={S31, S32, S33,...} is formed; In step 400, the data sets S1, S2 and S3 are weighted and evaluated, the value S after the weighted evaluation is the score of the simulation capability of the structure algorithm, the S is compared with the standard value or the score of other structure algorithms to obtain the specific situation of the simulation capability of the structure algorithm, and the data sets S1, S2 and S3 are the specific scores of the capability, according to the selection needs, the structure algorithm with more prominent capability is selected for simulation, and the data sets S1, S2 and S3 are compared with S and other structure algorithms, so that each simulation structure algorithm can be evaluated and analyzed in detail and accurately, and a more suitable simulation structure algorithm is selected for use.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein: The obtained values are compared and analyzed with the standard values of the database, and the results are divided into five levels: excellent, better, medium, worse and poor, and the five levels are converted into numerical values to form a data set.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein: The step 100 further comprises: geometry model capability import geometry type, the geometry type comprises: IGS, AICS, CATIA, INVENTOR, NX, Parasolid, Pro \ E \ Creo, Solidworks, Step, each geometry type corresponds to an S1, and the geometry model capability verification method comprises: Step 110: judge whether these geometry types support import and export, according to the actual situation, if the import and export are supported, the score is not supported, then the final score S11 is compared with the standard value excellent, better, medium, worse and poor; Step 120: first, judge whether the different versions of the geometry type can be imported or exported into the structure algorithm, the specific steps are: Step 121: calculate the number of different versions that can be exported by the same geometry type, and then average the number of versions that can be supported by the same geometry model; Step 122: taking the standard value in the database as the standard, compare the average version number S12 that can be supported by the structure algorithm for different geometry types with different versions with the standard values excellent, better, medium, worse and poor; Step 130: calculate the import time of each geometry model, and then average the import time of all geometry models S13 and compare it with the standard values excellent, better, medium, worse and poor; Step 140: check the imported model into the structure algorithm, whether the imported geometry model has the quality problems of broken surface and penetration, set a standard score, if a quality problem is found, if it cannot be repaired, the corresponding score is deducted, if it can be repaired, the corresponding score is added, and the final score is the score of the geometry model capability = S14; Step 150: finally, add the scores of whether the geometry type supports import and export, whether the different versions of the same geometry type can be imported or exported, the import time of the geometry model and the quality of the imported model to obtain the comprehensive score S1 of the capability.

4. The method of claim 2, wherein: The step 200 further comprises: mesh division types including quadrilateral mesh, tetrahedron mesh, hexahedron mesh, polyhedron mesh and prism mesh, and the mesh division capability verification steps are as follows: Step 210: the structure algorithm is meshed one by one, and it is judged whether the structure algorithm can support the above mesh division types, if the five mesh division types can all be supported, it is excellent, each reduction of a supportable mesh type reduces a level, the remaining levels are: better, medium, worse and poor, at the same time, the five levels are converted into numerical values = S21; Step 220: calculate the division speed of the structure algorithm for different mesh division types one by one, average the speeds of all mesh division types S22, and compare them with the standard values excellent, better, medium, worse and poor; Step 230: quality analysis is performed on the meshed model, and the quality evaluation indexes include: minimum unit size, maximum unit size, warping degree, taper, aspect ratio, Jacobian, minimum internal angle of triangle, maximum internal angle of triangle, minimum internal angle of quadrilateral, minimum internal angle of quadrilateral and maximum internal angle of quadrilateral, and the specific sub-steps further comprise: Step 231: analyze the geometric model with quality evaluation indicators and then calculate the number of analysis failures; Step 232: average the number of failures of all quality evaluation indicators S23 and compare it with the standard values of excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor; Step 240: set the grid repair capability standard value of the database, then detect whether there is a quality problem after the structural algorithm is imported into the geometric model, if there is no quality problem, the value of the grid repair capability of the structural algorithm after the geometric model is imported = the grid repair capability standard value set in the database, if there is a problem, use the structural algorithm to repair, after successful repair, add points to the grid repair capability standard value, if not successful, subtract points from the grid repair capability standard value, and finally the final value of the grid repair capability standard value after adding and subtracting points = S24; Step 250: average the scores S21, S22, S23, and S24 of whether it can support the above grid division types, the division speed of different grid division types, and the grid repair capability = S2.

5. The method of claim 2, wherein: The step 300 further includes the following sub-steps: Step 310: verify the solution accuracy of the structural algorithm, the detailed steps are as follows: Step 311: the solution accuracy verification index of strength analysis is the maximum stress value, maximum displacement value, and maximum load of the measuring point, then compare the three specific values obtained with the standard values in the database to give the corresponding scores of excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor, and then take the average value P1; Step 312: verify the solution accuracy in modal analysis of the structural algorithm, the verification index is the maximum frequency and maximum eigenvalue of the measuring point, then compare the two specific values obtained with the standard values in the database to give the corresponding scores of excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor, and then take the average value P2; Step 313: verify the solution accuracy in fatigue analysis of the structural algorithm, the index is the maximum fracture stress of the measuring point, then compare the specific value obtained with the standard value in the database to give the corresponding scores of excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor P3; Step 314: then take the average value of P1, P2, and P3 = S31; Step 320: verify the solution speed of the structural algorithm for strength analysis, modal analysis, and fatigue analysis respectively, calculate the time taken by the structural algorithm for structural analysis, and then take the average value with the number of times = S32; Step 330: verify the compatibility of the structural algorithm for strength analysis, modal analysis, and fatigue analysis respectively, the verification index is Windows10, Windows11, and Windows Server 2016, record the number of three analysis types that the structural algorithm can support, then compare the number with the standard value in the database to give the corresponding scores of excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor = S33; Step 340: verify the parallel capability of the structural algorithm for strength analysis, modal analysis, and fatigue analysis respectively, the verification index is whether it supports parallel and supports the maximum number of cores, the detailed steps are as follows: Step 341: The record structure algorithm can compare the number of parallel cores with the standard value of the database to give the scores corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor = P4; Step 342: Then the record structure algorithm can compare the maximum number of supported cores with the standard value of the database to give the scores corresponding to excellent, better, medium, worse, and poor = P5; Step 343: Finally, the comprehensive value is the average of P4 and P5 = S34; Step 350: Take the average of the scores S31, S32, S33, and S34 obtained by solving accuracy, solving speed, compatibility, and parallel ability = S3.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein: The data amount in the geometric model database in the geometric model capability verification is not less than 40, the data amount in the database in the solving capability verification is not less than 40, and the data of the database in the solving capability verification includes different fields and different analysis types.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein: In the step 400, when selecting the weighted evaluation coefficient, the verification of the solving capability is increased in the proportion coefficient in the weighting, followed by the grid division capability, and the geometric model capability occupies the smallest proportion.

8. The method of claim 3-5, wherein: The average value is the average value after removing the maximum value and the minimum value, and if the number of average values is less than or equal to 4, the maximum value and the minimum value are not removed. The average value is the average value after removing the maximum value and the minimum value, and if the number of average values is less than or equal to 4, the maximum value and the minimum value are not removed.

Images