Ten Common Mistakes in Finite Element Analysis

1. Doing analysis for the sake of it: Not being aware of the end requirements of a finite element analysis - not all benefits of analysis is quantifiable but an analysis specification is important and all practitioners should be aware of it. 2. Lack of verification: Not having adequate verification information to bridge the gap between benchmarking and ones' own finite element analysis strategy. Test data sometimes exists but has been forgotten. Consider the cost of tests to verify what the analysis team produces, compared with the potential cost of believing the results when they are wrong. 3. Wrong elements: Using an inefficient finite element type or model, e.g. a 3D model when 2D would do, or unreliable linear triangular or tetrahedral elements. 4. Bad post-processing: Not post-processing results correctly (especially stress) or consistently. Not checking unaveraged stresses. 5. Assuming conservatism: Because one particular finite element analysis is known to be conservative, a different analysis of a similar structure under different conditions may not be so. 6. Attempting to predict contact stresses without modeling contact: This might give sensible looking results but is seldom meaningful. 7. Not standardising finite element analysis procedures: This has been a frequent cause of repeated or lost work. Any finite element analysis team should have a documented standard modelling procedure for typical analyses encountered within the organisation, and analysts should follow it wherever possible. Non-standard analyses should be derived from the standard procedures where

possible. This is a quality issue - Procedures in Analysis Reduce Errors (PARE). 8. Inadequate archiving: Another frequent cause of lost work. Teams should have a master model store and documented instructions about what and how to archive. Again, this is a quality related issue. For any kind of analysis data, normal backup procedures are not sufficient - attention needs to be paid to what information and file types are to be archived in order to allow projects to be retraced, but without using excessive disk space. 9. Ignoring geometry or boundary condition approximations: Try to understand how inappropriate restraint conditions in static or dynamic analyses can affect results. 10. Ignoring errors associated with the mesh: Sometimes these can cancel out errors associated with 9, which can confuse the user into thinking that the model is more accurate than it is. A convergence test will help.