NAFEMS has named Simulation Governance a “Big Issue”. But what is it?

We hope you had Happy (and S.A.F.E.R.) Holidays! We look forward to rolling up our sleeves and getting back to work for you.

You may have heard of Simulation Governance, or may be familiar with the phrase. As we are heavily involved in the conceptualization and implementation of Simulation Governance standards and practice, we have developed a one-stop page that provides historical background, thought leadership and resources on this topic.

Learn how Simulation Governance was introduced, how it came to be one of the Big Issues of NAFEMS, and how ESRD’s leadership and other world-renowned simulation experts are using this powerful function for enhancing reliability of modern numerical simulation.

ESRD has posed a new FEA challenge problem in the October 2018 issue of NAFEMS Benchmark Magazine. Can you show that you solved it with sufficient accuracy?

In the October 2018 issue of NAFEMS Benchmark magazine, ESRD Chairman Dr. Barna Szabó posed a new “FEA Puzzler”: Can you determine the progression in spring rate as a 3D coil spring is deformed and can you verify the accuracy of your solution?

Dr. Szabó has produced a converged solution for the spring rates in our high-fidelity FEA software StressCheck Professional, and is requesting solutions from the engineering community on how they tackled the problem.  He will publish his solution after the submission deadline of February 1st, 2019.

The problem posed in NAFEMS Benchmark magazine is as follows:

FEA Puzzler from NAFEMS Benchmark Magazine October 2018

You can download the geometry (in Parasolid or STEP format) from nafe.ms/puzzler. Do you think you have the “FEA Puzzler” solved? Submit your reply to challenge@nafems.org by February 1st, 2019.

Are you an ESRD customer? If you’d like some tips on how to solve the model in StressCheck Professional, feel free to contact us below:

In this 15-minute pre-recorded webinar, ESRD Chairman Dr. Barna Szabó addresses some of the key issues of simulation governance, including how model development must adhere to the requirements of simulation governance in order to minimize risk and increase reliability.

Following is the abstract of the webinar (via NAFEMS):

Advancements in predictive computational science make it possible to increase reliance of numerical simulation, necessitating fewer physical experiments for substantial savings in time and costs of product development projects. The first and perhaps the most challenging obstacle to full realization of the benefits of predictive computational science is a widespread misunderstanding of what numerical simulation is.

Most managers and many individuals who present themselves as experts in numerical simulation confuse numerical simulation with “finite element modeling” or “numerical modeling“. Those are outdated concepts, responsible for much of the disappointing results that caused widespread loss of confidence in the usefulness and reliability of numerical simulation. Current simulation and data management practices will have to be revised in order to meet the technical requirements of predictive computational science.

The presentation focuses on the central role of simulation governance and management in the coordination of experimental and analytical work necessary for proper use of the tools and techniques of predictive computational science with the objective to maximize the reliability of computed information.

The presentation outlines the methodology of model development in the applied sciences, the essential constituents of which are the formulation, calibration and ranking of mathematical models, data and solution verification, validation and uncertainty quantification. It will be shown that consideration of the size of the domain of calibration is essential. Without such consideration just about any model, even pseudoscientific models, can be calibrated on a sufficiently small domain of calibration.

The presentation also highlights the differences between numerical simulation and finite element modeling. Understanding these concepts and procedures is an indispensable prerequisite to any successful implementation of a Simulation Governance plan. Recognizing that technology changes and the available information increases over time, planning must incorporate data management and systematic updates of simulation practices so as to take advantage of new information and advancements in technology.

Watch the Live Webinar at NAFEMS World Congress (NWC) 2021

The webinar will also be presented live by Dr. Szabó on 10/27/2021 @ 17:30 local Salzburg time (CEST) on-site in Room W, as well as virtually (NWC 2021 is a hybrid event) as part of the Simulation Governance sessions (L6).

To register for NWC 2021 as either an on-site attendee or online attendee, click the below button:

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI – December 5, 2017

In ESRD’s November S.A.F.E.R. Simulation post we summarized the business trends in A&D that are driving the need for higher-performing aerostructures that are more efficient, lighter-weight, and more durable and damage-tolerant over longer life spans. This in turn is driving the requirement for higher-fidelity engineering analysis that brings increased accuracy and reliability to the structural engineering function without adding more time and risk to the program schedule.

In this second of our multi-part series on “S.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry” we will distill what this means to stress analysis groups and the challenges experienced when using legacy simulation and analysis technologies based on the finite element method (FEM).

Aerospace & Defense budgets are squeezed ever tighter, yet simulation demands and complexities keep increasing…

The Democratization of Simulation

As discussed in our last post on the state of simulation in aerospace, the capabilities of FEA-based software tools have become increasingly more advanced in functionality and richer in features. Not surprising, they have also become more sophisticated to use and difficult to master, even by expert analysts. Training analysts in FEA-based simulation software is a laborious, expensive process, and the results are not always transferable as analysts move to new programs or employers which have their own set of tools, processes, and best practices.

Across the engineering software community there is much discussion about the democratization of simulation; meaning the reliable and routine use of numerical simulation software by non-simulation experts. These non-experts may be mechanical design engineers, occasional users, or new engineering graduates. The hope of democratization is that much of the complexity and risk of FEA-based simulation can be distilled out such that simulation-driven design may be performed with greater confidence by engineers earlier in the design cycle.

Excerpt from “The Role of Simulation Governance in the Democratization of Simulation Through Sim Apps in the A&D Industry” presented by ESRD’s CEO Dr. Ricardo Actis at NAFEMS 2017 Aerospace Simulation Engineering: The Big Issues

Indeed, democratization has great potential to compress the product development lifecycle, but is it a realistic objective for the demanding aviation, aerospace, and defense industries? The answer few may want to hear is that it will not be easy to accomplish using legacy FEA-based simulation technologies along with the software tools based upon these technologies.

The results when reviewing the previous attempts to put FEA tools into the hands of the non-expert have not been encouraging.  These schemes included embedding solvers into CAD software to hide complexity, employing scripted templates to insulate users from making errors, and exercising wizards to automate processes. None of these have yet to move most FEA work off of the expert analyst’s desktop and place it into the hands of the design engineer.  Upon closer inspection, most of these approaches failed not because they were bad ideas, but because they were still based on legacy FEA methodologies where creating, debugging, running, and post-processing finite element models was a complex error-prone art form for the expert.

Challenges with Legacy FEA Software

Simulation software providers have continually sought ways to compensate for – and in some cases hide – the inherent complexity of the finite element method (FEM) when applied to analysis problems in computational solid mechanics.  There have certainly been many advancements in the functionality, user interfaces, pre/post processors, high-performance computing, delivery platforms, and licensing options of FEA software over recent years. Yet, none of these individually or collectively removed the intrinsic complexity and challenges of learning and performing FEA by either the expert or novice user.

There are many good reasons why this is so. The underlying theory and methods employed “under the hood” of nearly all FEA software products on the market today are in fact many decades old. As a result, there are near endless sources of assumptions, idealizations, approximations, manipulations and judgement calls, each that add complexity, time, and uncertainty to engineering simulations.

Example of loading fastener holes via Rigid Body Elements (RBE’s). Using RBE’s and other element libraries may be acceptable for expert users, but for non-experts they can be a source of unknown errors.

As an example, the element libraries of most FEA software products contain dozens of variants and odd mutants that must be carefully selected and deployed. When these overly-sensitive elements are used in fragile meshes it is not uncommon for a finite element model to break with even small changes to design geometry or boundary conditions. Rarely can the same elements and meshes be used for different types of physics modelling such as non-linear, contact, heat transfer, dynamics, or fracture analysis.

Often more time is spent in the pre-processing steps of constructing “bad” models, to finally arrive at the “good” ones, than in post-processing the results or optimizing a design. While CAD data is increasingly 3D solid-based, it must often be repaired, defeatured, re-created, or reduced before meshing. It is often unrealistic in legacy FEA simulations to use solid finite element models of large-spanning, multi-scale geometries of built-up components, which are common in aerostructures. Often a series of increasingly granular models must painstakingly be constructed to perform a sequence of multi-fidelity, multi-scale global/local analyses.

Extracting and validating results in traditional FEA is an equally laborious process that is inherently error-ridden. In legacy FEA software mathematical degrees of freedom are nodal based, which means quantities of interest at other locations must be interpolated, extrapolated or massaged in a way that potentially injects additional inaccuracies in engineering data. High-density meshes must be used in areas of stress gradients, which often requires a-priori knowledge of the results and locations of interest, or changing the model once the results are produced and then iterating. It is not uncommon that models are tuned and tweaked such that the computational results align with empirical test data.

Averaged vs. Not Averaged results for Legacy FEA Simulation Technology. Which stress concentration (Kt) is more accurate, if either one? Is this the right mesh density?

All of the above limitations and challenges are so well understood by the expert analyst, who typically has advanced engineering degrees and many years of experience, that they rarely think twice about whether it has to be this complex. They know all the traps, fixes, tricks, and workarounds of finite element modelling. Yet, there is a more fundamental challenge often overlooked; legacy generation finite element methods do not provide a fool-proof measurement of the quality of their solutions. There is no inherent quality assurance, much less explicit support of solution verification. As such, it is up to the individual analyst to assess the applicability, accuracy, and completeness of the computed results. It is no wonder that it always takes an expert in the loop to determine if the results are good and more importantly when they are deficient.

It All Ends Up On The Engineer’s Desktop…

The confluence of demanding A&D business drivers, higher product performance requirements, and increasing complexity of digital simulation all end up on the structures engineer’s desk. The stress analyst on a modern A&D program ends up owning the burden to produce a larger volume of higher-fidelity analyses, earlier in the NPD cycle, spanning an expanded optimization solution space of structural design variations.

In doing so they are expected to create all-encompassing 3D digital models, with few details left behind to support virtual prototyping and reduce testing, while using more sophisticated tools that take longer to learn and master. And they are expected to perform these analyses in less time with a greater level of confidence in the results and with less tolerance for uncertainty or “fat” factors of safety that were once acceptable in yesteryear’s aerostructure designs.

Compounding the above pressures, today’s analysts may no longer have access to internal support from engineering methods groups which historically provided training, troubleshooted problems, captured institutional knowledge, and shared best practices. It is little surprise that industry associations like NAFEMS report that providing oversight of the simulation function through the practice of Simulation Governance is one of “The Big Issues” for engineering managers who often see their simulation teams struggle to deliver with so many conflicting requirements.

These pressures are not letting up, and current trends do not appear sustainable. The evidence speaks for itself that FEA-based structural analysis often adds so much more time and complexity to engineering processes such that project managers seek to minimize its use when there are other faster methods available. Fortunately, a new generation of simulation software is emerging where that is no longer the case.

Coming Up Next…

In Part 3 of this series we will explain why Numerical Simulation is not the same as Finite Element Modeling and what this means to engineering analysis within the A&D industry. We will describe how the practice of Simulation Governance, enabled by the next generation of software based on numerical simulation, is helping engineering groups respond to an avalanche of complexity in products, processes, and tools.

In our final segment we’ll profile the capabilities of ESRD’s numerical simulation software StressCheck™ and Smart Sim Apps deployed in a Digital CAE Handbook built using StressCheck. Finally, we’ll share use-case examples from A&D that document the benefits to engineers and value to their programs from the use of this newer generation of analysis software that is Simple, Accurate, Fast, Efficient, and Reliable – S.A.F.E.R – for both the expert and non-expert user alike.

Next Week’s Webinar…

On Thursday, December 14th @ 1:00 pm EST an Aerospace & Defense-oriented webinar titled “High-Fidelity Stress Analysis for S.A.F.E.R. Structural Simulation Webinar” will be provided by ESRD’s Brent Lancaster and Gordon Lehman.

Sign Up for Next Week’s High-Fidelity Stress Analysis Webinar

To receive future S.A.F.E.R. Simulation posts…

We would like to thank NAFEMS for allowing us to co-sponsor, exhibit and present at the NAFEMS 2017 Aerospace Simulation Engineering conference in Wichita, KS on November 8th.  It was a pleasure to meet the other vendors, co-sponsors, attendees and NAFEMS community.

ESRD’s President and CEO Dr. Ricardo Actis presented on how Simulation Governance is a requirement for Democratization of Simulation, and ESRD Project Engineer Mr. Eric Buettmann presented on improving global-local simulation workflows for detailed Aerospace Simulation Engineering.  Both presentations spent time addressing several Big Issues in the Aerospace & Defense industry.

These presentations are now available to download from our ESRD Resource Library:

• The Role of Simulation Governance in the Democratization of Simulation Through Sim Apps in the A&D Industry.
• Improving Global-Local Simulation Workflows for High-Fidelity Stress and Damage Tolerance Analysis.

Reminder: ESRD will be attending and exhibiting at ASIP 2017 next week.  We hope to see you there!

Qualitative Deformation Contours for StressCheck’s Coil Spring Solution

In a recent S.A.F.E.R. Simulation post, we announced that ESRD Chairman Dr. Barna Szabó had posed a new “FEA Puzzler” in the October 2018 edition of NAFEMS Benchmark magazine. This challenge problem related to determining incremental spring rates for a coil spring under axial displacement AND demonstrating that the approximation errors are small via solution verification procedures.

As a refresher, the original NAFEMS FEA Puzzler description was as follows:

FEA Puzzler from NAFEMS Benchmark Magazine October 2018

As noted in a January 2019 LinkedIn post by Mr. David Quinn (Chief Marketing Officer at NAFEMS), the original deadline of February 1st, 2019 has been extended an additional four (4) months. From Mr. Quinn’s post:

Send your responses, in confidence, to Professor Szabó at challenge@nafems.org. Responses of sufficient merit will win an exclusive NAFEMS business card holder, and a summary of the responses will be published without attribution in a future issue of Benchmark.

The challenge will close on June 1st 2019 – best of luck!

So, there is still ample time to submit your solutions (along with proof of solution verification) to challenge@nafems.org. Feel free to use any FEA software tool, and make note of your modeling process and interpretation of results.

Need A Hint?

To help provide a nudge in the right direction, ESRD has recorded the following teaser video using its StressCheck Professional FEA software to show some of the model setup and results processing (no actual values, that would be cheating!):

Dr. Szabó and NAFEMS are very much looking forward to your submissions!

The Conference on Advancing Analysis & Simulation in Engineering.

ESRD is pleased to announce that we will be attending and presenting at The Conference on Advancing Analysis & Simulation in Engineering (CAASE) 2018 from June 5-7 in Cleveland, OH. This event is co-sponsored by NAFEMS and Digital Engineering.  From the CAASE 2018 agenda:

CAASE 2018 will bring together the leading visionaries, developers, and practitioners of CAE-related technologies in an open forum, unlike any other, to share experiences, discuss relevant trends, discover common themes and explore future issues.

Our President & CEO Dr. Ricardo Actis will be joining other simulation experts to discuss Simulation Governance & Democratization of Simulation, in addition to other topics in CAE-related technologies & solutions.

Join Dr. Actis on Tuesday, June 5th @ 11:20 am in Room 24 for his presentation “The Role of Simulation Governance in the Democratization of Simulation through the Use of Smart Sim Apps”. Below is an excerpt from the presentation abstract:

The technical and business value of numerical simulation performed by engineers across many industries, including those in the aviation, aerospace, and defense sector, is well established. However, the performance requirements and complexity of the products that engineers in these industries design has dramatically increased. This has created additional demands on the engineering organization to improve the speed, accuracy, and reliability of the simulation function. Incremental improvements to legacy finite element methodologies and software tools based upon them, are reaching a point of diminishing return as they struggle to address these new business challenges. All of this is occurring at the same time that the capabilities and complexity of these traditional FEA‐based tools require ever greater levels of expertise and specialization from the engineering staff. Simulation Governance, a concept that originated from the appreciation that numerical simulation is a highly complex activity, is essential to address these challenges.

ESRD + Rev-Sim Initiative

ESRD will be included in a CAASE 2018 roundtable discussion on Democratization of Simulation on Thursday, June 7th @ 1:00 pm in Room 23. This roundtable will be hosted by Comet Solution‘s Malcolm Panthaki, who will also be introducing a new web portal for simulation thought leaders called RevolutioninSimulation.org, or Rev-Sim for short.

From Dr. Actis, on why ESRD joined the Rev-Sim initiative:

Advanced simulation should be safely accessible to everyone – not just the experts.  That is why ESRD has joined the initiative at RevolutionInSimulation.org to provide thought leadership on Simulation Governance & Democratization of Simulation.  We will be posting related papers, presentations, videos, blog articles and more in support of the advancement of this topic.

Will You Be Attending CAASE 2018? Let Us Know!

We’d like to say hello if you will be attending this conference and would like to talk to us about ESRD’s Smart Sim Apps and how we can implement Democratization in your organization. Complete the short form below to set up a meet and greet:

The Conference on Advancing Analysis & Simulation in Engineering.

Recently, ESRD attended and presented at The Conference on Advancing Analysis & Simulation in Engineering (CAASE) 2018 from June 5-7 in Cleveland, OH. This event was co-sponsored by NAFEMS and Digital Engineering.

Our President & CEO Dr. Ricardo Actis joined other simulation experts to discuss Simulation Governance & Democratization of Simulation, in addition to other topics in CAE-related technologies & solutions.  He also gave a presentation on “The Role of Simulation Governance in the Democratization of Simulation through the Use of Smart Sim Apps”. Below is an excerpt from the presentation abstract:

The technical and business value of numerical simulation performed by engineers across many industries, including those in the aviation, aerospace, and defense sector, is well established. However, the performance requirements and complexity of the products that engineers in these industries design has dramatically increased. This has created additional demands on the engineering organization to improve the speed, accuracy, and reliability of the simulation function. Incremental improvements to legacy finite element methodologies and software tools based upon them, are reaching a point of diminishing return as they struggle to address these new business challenges. All of this is occurring at the same time that the capabilities and complexity of these traditional FEA‐based tools require ever greater levels of expertise and specialization from the engineering staff. Simulation Governance, a concept that originated from the appreciation that numerical simulation is a highly complex activity, is essential to address these challenges.

The presentation can be downloaded here:

The Role of Simulation Governance in the Democratization of Simulation Through the Use of Smart Simulation Apps

ESRD’s Leadership Joins Rev-Sim As Sponsors and Simulation Experts

As mentioned in our recent post on CAASE 2018, Drs. Ricardo Actis & Barna Szabó have joined RevolutioninSimulation.org (or Rev-Sim) as Sponsors, Simulation Experts and Topic Moderators on Simulation Governance.

What is Rev-Sim?

From “Who We Are” under About Rev-Sim Initiative:

The Revolution in Simulation non-profit initiative and the Rev-Sim.org website are the results of an open collaboration and alliance between a number of leading simulation industry professionals who have volunteered their time, expertise, and passion.

Learn more about the Rev-Sim initiative here.

Engineering.com on “Launching the Simulation Revolution”

Engineering.com’s Michael Alba recently wrote an article on the Analysis, Simulation, and Systems Engineering Software Strategies (ASSESS) initiative, the challenges in Democratization of Simulation and how the new Rev-Sim initiative is providing leadership and expertise in the CAE community:

The simulation revolution brings us back to the idea of democratization. Think of it this way: democratization of simulation is the end goal, and the revolution in simulation is how we—i.e., the broader CAE community—can get there. It’s like the French revolution, but hopefully with less beheadings.

A new web portal, RevolutionInSimulation.org (Rev-Sim.org for short) aims to be the online ecosystem for the simulation revolution. Launched this past May, Rev-Sim.org is a non-profit cross-industry initiative working to democratize simulation.

Read Michael’s full Engineering.com article “Launching the Simulation Revolution” to learn more.

This year, Aerospace Simulation Engineering is one of the “Big Issues” promoted by NAFEMS Americas. Because ESRD is hyper-focused on Aerospace & Defense, Numerical Simulation, Simulation Governance, and Verification and Validation, we will be co-sponsoring a NAFEMS Americas event dedicated to exploring this challenge. From the NAFEMS Americas website:

Located at the NIAR training facility in Wichita, KS, “Aerospace Simulation Engineering: The Big Issues,” will cover these topics and more, gathering attendees from the aerospace industry in a non-competitive environment to exchange ideas, identify best practices, and drive the near-future direction of engineering simulation technology and utilization strategy.

This event aims to deliver information and insights on critical topic areas in a manner that maximizes the “take-away” value for attendees. An event agenda and concept championed by several leading figures in the aerospace industry will provide the opportunity to learn about the latest technologies and practices, which attendees can later share and apply within their own organizations.

Are you interested in joining us and NAFEMS in solving this challenge? Head out to Wichita, KS on November 8, 2017. Dr. Patrick Safarian, FAA, Fatigue & Damage Tolerance Sr. Tech. Specialist, will give a talk on “Finite Element Analysis Validation Requirements and Methods“, which is fundamental to the design of ESRD’s Simulation Technology.

StressCheck Result for NAFEMS LE1: Plane Stress – Elliptic Membrane

To compliment and bolster our recent S.A.F.E.R. Simulation articles, and to provide the engineering analysis community quantifiable insight into the performance of our Numerical Simulation technology, verified StressCheck results for “The Standard NAFEMS Benchmarks” are now available for download in our Resource Library.

In the first volume of the StressCheck Benchmarks Guide, we focused on solving the Linear Elastic Test benchmarks referenced in “The Standard NAFEMS Benchmarks”, Rev. 3, October 1990.  In accordance with Simulation Governance rules, we ensured the benchmark’s target extraction converged before reporting our results or comparing with the NAFEMS benchmark reference.

You can download the first volume here:

View Benchmark Results

About Our Results

• ESRD defines a “Minimum Mesh” as the least-refined mesh required to achieve numerical convergence within 1% of the target extraction, and “Dense Mesh” as an overly-refined mesh relative to the “Minimum Mesh” to demonstrate that adding more elements produced insignificant changes in the target extraction.
• The discretization error was reported to be < 1% for all StressCheck results in all benchmark models.  This means that the results no longer changed significantly as the degrees of freedom were increased, thus providing solution verification in our results.
• The StressCheck results and the NAFEMS reference benchmark solutions differed by < 3% for all benchmarks.  Differences in results were justified in the notes for each problem.

Benchmark Suggestions/References?

Do you have a benchmark challenge for ESRD?  If you can provide a reference, and it is within our current capabilities, we will be happy to consider it for future publication!