NAFEMS Commercial Analysis Validation engineering analysis and simulation - FEA, F...

Page 1 of 4

Description your basket is empty

Qty

Item Price

home about membership events e-learning publications resources regional groups technical groups media & news partners contact us projects NICC 2012 Conferences home resources Knowledge Base Commercial Analysis Validation advanced search

search

analysis terms A-Z Knowledge Base The Importance of Mesh Convergence - Part 1 The Importance of Mesh Convergence - Part 2 Fundamentals of Numerical Techniques for Static, Dynamic and Transient Analyses Part 1 Fundamentals of Numerical Techniques for Static, Dynamic and Transient Analyses Part 2 Assessing Errors in Analysis Models Commercial Analysis Validation Concepts in Load Application and Stressing Probabilistic Analysis Analysis of Fabricated Structures Nominal and Non-linear Stresses-Part 1 Nominal and Non-linear Stresses-Part 2 Stresses Pressure Vessel sub total 0.00 checkout $

http://nafems.org/resources/knowledgebase/006/

10/21/2011

NAFEMS Commercial Analysis Validation engineering analysis and simulation - FEA, F... Page 2 of 4

Inelastic Analysis Plastic Analysis Plasticity, Collapse and Fatigue Hysteresis in Fatigue Fatigue Overview CFD jargon explained CFD Analysis - Guidance for Good Practice General Guidelines for Good Convergence in CFD consultancies software register of advice experts Language

login username keep me logged in Forgotten password? English English Deutsch Espaol Franais Italiano

Commercial Analysis Validation

This article discusses how it might be proved that a particular numerical analysis is correct. This is called analysis validation and can take many forms. Physical testing is the most obvious and convincing means of showing that an analysis is accurate. This is often not viable or costeffective however. Other options are FE analyses of similar structures that have been validated through testing, or independent calculations.

A Formal Procedure for Validation

The SAFESA documents mentioned in the last article (NAFEMS Documents Ref. R0039 , R0040 , R0041 ) introduce new definitions and concepts for validating numerical structural analyses. Perhaps the most important concept is distinguishing between uncertainties in the physical description of the structure, and errors in the definition of the model created to represent it. The analyst team will often have full responsibility for the latter and perhaps some of the former. The SAFESA approach breaks down the whole analysis process into discrete steps, each one requiring validation. This takes the concept of validation to another level. For example, several sources of data all demonstrating that a mesh is suitably refined do not, on their own, represent thorough validation. Instead, validation should include information to show that errors have been considered for each modelling assumption, decision or step in the analysis process.

http://nafems.org/resources/knowledgebase/006/

10/21/2011

NAFEMS Commercial Analysis Validation engineering analysis and simulation - FEA, F... Page 3 of 4

Validation in a Commercial Environment

Detailed model validation procedures as described in the SAFESA documents are appropriate for safety-critical structures. But in other applications, validation is at the discretion of the analysis team and devising a suitable validation strategy for each project can be difficult. Many analyses that consultancies carry out are novel, where no previous validation from similar structures is available. Despite the important requirement for it in these cases, it can be a challenge to carry out appropriate validation under commercial pressures, typically experienced by consultancy teams. Consultancies clients often have a perception of analysis as being 100% accurate, a view for which they cannot be blamed. In giving the client what they want, it can be tempting to let this view prevail and short-cut the validation process since it provides no obvious improvement in the appearance of the analysis for the client. This is a risky approach however. It is the job of the analysis team to openlydiscuss with the client (or internal customer) the errors, uncertainties and corresponding risks associated with the full analysis process and, if a budget can be obtained for so doing, attempt to quantify them. Perseverance may be required here to portray validation as a benefit rather than an inconvenience.

A Risk Based Approach to Analysis

An open discussion of risk can help recalcitrant clients see analysis as a powerful but not an absolute process. If the level of risk of an event occurring can be estimated, then a cost can be associated with it. For example, consider a newly designed moulded part where tooling rework is estimated to cost 50,000. We can make a rough estimate of the risk of this occurring: based on the success rate of the design team with similar past projects, lets say that the risk of structural problems occurring in the part is 30%. With a good analysis supporting the design process, the risk of the design being structurally inadequate can be reduced to say, 10%. (That is the analysis is likely to be valid in 90% of cases.) The risk reduction value of the analysis is therefore 20% of 50,000, or 10,000. This is then a limiting cost for an analysis of this part. (As well as discussing structural analysis, this approach could also apply to mould flow simulation, for example.) One digression that springs from this is considering the reasons for an analysis being incorrect. The risk of an analysis project drawing the wrong conclusions is different to the risk of the analysis team being at fault. Unfortunately, good professional conduct does not eliminate all risk. The distinction made previously between uncertainty and error may be useful here: errors may be considered the analysis teams direct responsibility whereas uncertainties are more difficult to assign.

Analysis Validation to Reduce Risk

Risk assessment can also be applied to analysis validation. Continuing with the previous example, a physical test and further analyses to correlate with it could be carried out to improve confidence in the model. If this improved confidence from 90% to 95%, then the risk reduction value of the validation would be 5% of 50,000, or 2,500. So physical testing could not be justified if it cost more than around 2,500 in this example. In a risk assessment context, hand calculations, sensitivity tests and independent checking procedures, are usually cost-effective validation steps. A difficulty with risk assessment generally is deciding on actual risk levels a 5% risk reduction due to physical testing is not easily proven. Despite this, considering the approximate risk associated with

http://nafems.org/resources/knowledgebase/006/

10/21/2011

NAFEMS Commercial Analysis Validation engineering analysis and simulation - FEA, F... Page 4 of 4

different stages of an analysis is a useful process for an analyst. And when used merely to communicate the concept of analysis risk to a client, accurate figures are not required of course.

Download PDF Version

Nafems 2011 website by duo design | powered by duo cms

http://nafems.org/resources/knowledgebase/006/

10/21/2011