Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
RestartPausePlay
% buffered00:00
00:00
00:00
UnmuteMute
←→
Is your analysis predicting a continuous stress distribution? Plot showing contours of un-averaged nodal stress using a coarse mesh.
Note the 10 percent variation (2355 vs. 2122) at the peak stress location. Is a 10 percent mesh discretization error within your high
stress region acceptable?
Integration of simulation into multiple stages of a product development process can yield big benefits in terms of cost
reduction and process efficiency. However, it is key that engineering firms perform this integration in an organized
Verification and validation form the backbone of any good quality assurance plan related to simulation.
Without proper focus on these V&V items, it is unlikely that a simulation plan will succeed. Ignoring V&V can create
instances where simulation will do more harm than good by leading the design process in the wrong direction.
Yes, simulation can actually lead you astray—if you don’t have the right checks and balances in place. Let’s first clarify
what is meant by V&V using structural analysis and FEA procedures as a specific example. The overall concepts are
Verification is the process by which we check that the FEA was conducted properly. Validation is the process to check
whether the simulation results reflect real world results. I came across the following definition a long time ago, which helps
modeling, data input and boundary conditions can lead to very large errors in the results. Even worse, these errors can be
relatively small and difficult to identify, but have significant impact on performance or service life.
For example, using the incorrect reference temperature for thermal strain in a structural model may only affect the
stresses by a few percent. This error will not be large enough to raise a flag when comparing FEA results to a hand
calculation. However, the error may be more than large enough to change fatigue life significantly. These types of
mistakes are hard to catch unless someone is reviewing the analysis very thoroughly.
Errors are inevitable in finite element models—the more complex the model, the higher the probability that they will occur.
The important thing is to put a process in place to catch them before they do any damage—the verification process.
Verification – Steps in the Process
All locked up and no place to go? Discontinuous pattern hydrostatic stress indicates volumetric locking.
The verification process can take many different forms depending on:
The analysis must begin with clearly defined goals, accuracy requirements and key assumptions.
For ease-of-use, repeatability and ultimate success, it is helpful to create a verification template. Verification should also
be a gated process that is used by everyone in the organization who performs FEA.
For example, some typical items to check as part of the verification process for a static structural analysis might include:
Geometry—do key model dimensions agree with the actual part dimensions?
Does the FE model mass and CG compare well with the actual part?
Are the material properties correct and are they properly associated to model regions?
Are element properties like shell thickness or beam properties correct and properly associated to model regions?
Is the mesh sufficiently refined to produce the required accuracy? What is the plan to check this?
Are the applied loads and constraints correct—location, magnitude and direction?
Have FE code errors and warning messages been reviewed and reconciled?
Are the deformations and stresses believable—magnitude and direction? Do they compare well with hand calculations?
Are the results consistent with the assumptions, e.g. small deformation or small strain?
Is shear or volumetric locking a problem? Is your numerical integration scheme too low?
The above list is not complete. In fact, some important checks have been left out. Would you like to guess what they are?
Please suggest them in the comments below. We’d like to look at verification checklists for other types of analysis, too.
Nicholas M. Veikos, Eng.Sc.D., is president of CAE Associates Inc. Nick has more than 30 years of experience in
engineering analysis across finite element theory, structural dynamics, random vibrations, structural nonlinearities and
rotordynamics.
All opinions are those of Nicholas M. Veikos and are not necessarily those of ENGINEERING.com.
3D Printing Simulation, Part 2: Where Are We Now
Structural Software Claims Better Accuracy without Finite Elements
1 comment
ENGINEERING.com
Login
1
Recommend
TweetShare
Sort by Best
LOG IN WITH
OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS