At ESRD, we take Simulation Governance, Verification and Validation seriously. That’s why we have developed a comprehensive Handbook library of verified and validated models, compared our solutions to NAFEMS Benchmarks, implemented only theories that have been refereed in engineering journals and challenged our users to find a more efficient solution.
Public FEA Benchmarks
The following are publicly available benchmark solutions, either posed by NAFEMS, the FEA community or in the available literature.
StressCheck® Professional solutions to selected NAFEMS Standard Benchmarks are provided below. Our solutions indicate that our Numerical Simulation Technology is the simplest and most effective way to solve these benchmark problems.
In late 2014, ESRD began participating in the NAFEMS Benchmark Challenge series. NAFEMS is the International Association for the Engineering Modelling, Analysis and Simulation Community (about NAFEMS). The goal is to compare solutions from multiple FEA tools, and determine who is closest to the exact solution.
A sample of NAFEMS Benchmark Challenges solved in StressCheck® Professional are presented below:
In many cases, benchmark challenges are defined as problems involving significant resources to solve accurately using numerical methods. We invite those who are users of FEA tools to solve one such problem, the classical Girkmann Problem:
- Stress resultants Qa (shearing force, kN/m) and Ma (bending moment, Nm/m)
- The location and magnitude of the maximum bending moment in the shell.
- Verify the results are accurate to within 5 percent. Describe how accuracy was verified.
- Software used, what mesh and type of elements were used.
ESRD received responses to this exercise from 15 FEA experts using a range of different modeling techniques and FEA software tools.
Visit our Resource Library to view a summary of the study results, and download a PDF of the proper approach to the solution of the problem.
CAE Handbooks, Verification & Validation
ESRD provides with the StressCheck® Professional and CAE Handbook software a Handbook Library of parametrically defined models for comparison to published solutions from Timenshenko, Peterson, Mura, Tada, Blevins, Roark, et al. If there are differences, do they result from the mathematical model (in this case an approximation using the finite element method) or are they the result of errors in idealization (boundary conditions, material properties, etc.)?
StressCheck® Professional is the only FEA software tool on the market that provides feedback to the user regarding the quality of the computed information. This ‘verification’ process assesses the sensitivity of the computed data to changes in the mesh density, order of the element shape functions, and element mapping. Verification is an important first step in validating the model.
- Verification – Am I solving the equations right?
- Validation – Am I solving the right equations?
It is clear that validation can only be achieved if verification of the data of interest has been completed.
Users want to know: How well does your finite element analysis software predict the response of a physical system to an applied load? A comparison is made to test data if available, or benchmark solutions (e.g. classical methods, text books).
General guidelines pertaining to the use of mathematical models in solid mechanics were issued by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) in 2006 and adopted by the American National Standards Institute. This document describes the importance of verification and validation.
Looking for Resources?
Recent News & Events
The software provides a highly reliable and user-friendly production stress analysis tool that will replace the Finite Element Method (FEM) tools and failure criteria the experts currently employ for analyzing bonded joints. The software includes an FEM-based handbook format, which allows non-experts to utilize models prepared by specialists. The handbook problems include built-in failure criteria, geometric and material nonlinearities, and the modern FEM technology provides better error control and the treatment of very large aspect ratios.”
Dr. Stephen P. EngelstadTechnical Fellow, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Structural Methods and Analysis