BENCHmark January 2005
How do we know that our answers are correct? What level of
confidence can we place in our results? Is our analysis “fit
for purpose”?
The increasingly proliferate use of simulation tools such as FEA
and CFD is one of the engineering success stories of the last few
decades. All those who are involved with the technology can –
justifiably – claim to have developed products with improved
quality, increased safety and/or reduced costs. Yet these most
fundamental of questions can still cause difficulty.
NAFEMS has always endeavoured to play a leading role in improving
the confidence that can be placed in simulation results. In the
early years, this focused on developing internationally recognised
benchmarks that software developers could use to verify that their
algorithms were correctly coded.
In more recent years, although new benchmarks are still being
actively developed by the organisation, the emphasis has shifted
more towards demonstrating confidence in the entire analysis
process. For example, the Knowledge Base article in this issue
refers to the SAFESA procedure with which NAFEMS was involved.
However, there are no easy – or complete – answers. It
remains a highly topical subject. One of the earliest posts on the
recently formed North American discussion group raised precisely
this issue, and quickly generated a flurry of replies.
Many of the meetings of the FENet project
have spent a considerable amount of time discussing “fitness
for purpose” and related topics. For example, the meeting in
Glasgow had a lengthy session talking about the definitions of
Verification and Validation as well as the responsibilities of both
the software developer and the analyst. It was interesting to note
that a reasonably representative selection of experts found it
difficult even to reach a consensus on defining the terms
Verification and Validation. So much so, in fact, that one of the
first tasks that the newly formed Analysis Management Working Group
has set itself is to agree some standard definitions.
(Contributions to this debate are welcome at the amwg section
of the website).
 Over the coming years, much time will be spent debating these
topics at NAFEMS events and developing material to help engineers
to provide answers to the questions raised.
Tim Morris Chief Operating Officer
January 2005
Knowledge Base 006 - Commercial Analysis Validation
CAE Data Management at Audi AG
AUDI reveal how they have turned the theory into practice.
Simulation of the Effects of Condensation Induced Waterhammer
Fluid Structure Interaction and correlation with test in steam
systems
Childs Play
Meeting Stringent Cost, Safety and Quality Issues - Simulation of
the manufacturing process in the most juvenile products
Simulation of the Locking Mechanism of an Injection-Moulding Clamp
Unit
Multi-Body Simulation, Fluid Power Simulation, and Finite Element
Analysis working together
CFD for Fun - Fluid Dynamics used in Soapbox Racing
The technological evolution of soapbox racing
|
