• About
    • Who We Are
    • Partners & Providers
    • News & Events
    • The ESRD Blog
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Applications
    • What We Solve
    • Detailed Stress
    • Composites
    • Fracture Mechanics
    • Residual Stress
    • Sim Apps
  • Products
    • What We Develop
    • StressCheck Professional
      • StressCheck Core
      • Solvers
      • Advanced Modules
      • Utilities
      • Academic Licensing
    • StressCheck Apps
      • CAE Handbook
      • StressCheck Tool Box
    • Product Updates
  • Support
    • How We Can Help
    • Training
    • Webinars
    • Quick Start Guide
    • Help Documentation
    • Software FAQ’s
  • Simulation
    • How We Simulate
    • Benchmarks
    • Simulation Governance
    • History of FEA
    • Dictionary & Terms
  • Resources
    • Browse Our Resource Library
    • White Papers
    • Case Studies
    • Product Demos
    • StressCheck Tutorials
Serving the Numerical Simulation community since 1989
  • Contact Us
  • Register
Login
Forgot Password?
Join Us
ESRDESRD
ESRDESRD
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • Partners & Providers
    • News & Events
    • The ESRD Blog
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Applications
    • What We Solve
    • Detailed Stress
    • Composites
    • Fracture Mechanics
    • Residual Stress
    • Sim Apps
  • Products
    • What We Develop
    • StressCheck Professional
      • StressCheck Core
      • Solvers
      • Advanced Modules
      • Utilities
      • Academic Licensing
    • StressCheck Apps
      • CAE Handbook
      • StressCheck Tool Box
    • Product Updates
  • Support
    • How We Can Help
    • Training
    • Webinars
    • Quick Start Guide
    • Help Documentation
    • Software FAQ’s
  • Simulation
    • How We Simulate
    • Benchmarks
    • Simulation Governance
    • History of FEA
    • Dictionary & Terms
  • Resources
    • Browse Our Resource Library
    • White Papers
    • Case Studies
    • Product Demos
    • StressCheck Tutorials

S.A.F.E.R. Simulation Views: Challenges Faced by A&D Programs

Home S.A.F.E.R. SimulationS.A.F.E.R. Simulation ViewsS.A.F.E.R. Simulation Views: Challenges Faced by A&D Programs

S.A.F.E.R. Simulation Views: Challenges Faced by A&D Programs

March 26, 2018 S.A.F.E.R. Simulation Views

Q&A’s with colleagues, experts and industry leaders

In our February edition of S.A.F.E.R. Simulation Views, we asked ESRD President & CEO Dr. Ricardo Actis about simulation-driven design.

In this month’s S.A.F.E.R. Simulation Views we asked David Rusk, Team Lead over Airframe Risk & Reliability, Structure Division, for the U.S. Navy NAVAIR Systems Command, the following question:

Q: What do you see as important challenges faced by A&D programs to achieve the wider, more reliable use of simulation software?

Mr. Rusk responds:

There are numerous critical challenges confronting the design programs and sustainment efforts of military aircraft. We all recognize that historic methods of fly-fail-fix are no longer acceptable due to their cost, risk, and the potential for loss of life. This is accelerating the need for improved aircraft design rules, analysis methods, and certification procedures. These in turn are all made more complex and risky by the introduction of new materials and new manufacturing methods.

Simultaneously, we are confronted with the need to reduce the time and cost of testing, all while the complexity of aircraft performance requirements demands more time in the schedule for prototyping and testing, not less. As a consequence, advanced simulation and modeling capabilities are being used earlier on in the design cycle, often prior to detailed design.

Our challenges don’t stop once the aircraft is in service. Traditional approaches for aircraft inspection, maintenance operations, and repair services are becoming unsupportable. We are experiencing just as much pressure on the back end for new methods and tools to support the design and certification of repairs that can ensure the reliability and extend the life of an aging airframe structures.

Developing a framework to help manage all these risks with improved reliability is a priority for NAVAIR. A key requirement of this framework is that it explicitly support Verification and Validation of engineering methods and models with the fidelity and reliably to capture the parameters of interest whether they be stress, strain, dynamics, or failure modes. This is of critical importance as some aero-structure models may be used and repurposed for years with many changes, enhancements, and extensions. Without some form of governance over our simulation methods, tools, rules, and best practices we may inject even more risk and complexity into our programs.

For that reason the practice of Simulation Governance, which ESRD among others has championed in recent years, is viewed as a key enabling capability to achieve the wider, more reliable use of simulation that benefits military aircraft programs.

Up Next…

Stay tuned as we explore other pressing questions in the areas of Simulation Governance, Benchmarking, Democratization of Simulation and more!

Share Your Views on Simulation…

=
Loading
Tags: Aerospace and DefenseFatigueNumerical SimulationSimulation Governance
2

You also might be interested in

Watch StressCheck Demos of Digital Engineering.com FEA Case Studies
Extraction of minimum principal stresses for the aircraft keel beam analysis. Digital Engineering case study results (bottom right) compared well with StressCheck Professional's live dynamic extractions.

Watch StressCheck Demos of Digital Engineering.com FEA Case Studies

Aug 14, 2018

In recent years, Digital Engineering contributor, NAFEMS instructor and FETraining.net developer Tony Abbey has put together a list of practical engineering simulation case studies, walk-thrus and software overviews for a variety of FEA software tools. Watch as ESRD reproduces a selected set of his 3D detailed stress analysis case studies, and see how we compare with Digital Engineering's published results!

Digital Twins

Digital Twins

May 2, 2024

The idea of a digital twin originated at NASA in the 1960s as a “living model” of the Apollo program. When Apollo 13 experienced an oxygen tank explosion, NASA utilized multiple simulators and extended a physical model of the spacecraft to include digital simulations, creating a digital twin. This twin was used to analyze the events leading up to the accident and investigate ideas for a solution. The term "digital twin" was coined by NASA engineer John Vickers much later. While the term is commonly associated with modeling physical objects, it is also employed to represent organizational processes. Here, we consider digital twins of physical entities only.

Happy Holidays from ESRD (2023 Edition)

Happy Holidays from ESRD (2023 Edition)

Dec 21, 2023

From all of us at ESRD, we wish you a very happy holiday season! We truly feel that each and every one of our users are part of the ESRD family and we are incredibly grateful to get to work with all of you. There is much we are thankful for as we approach the end of the year, and we'd like to take a moment to acknowledge some of the reasons we're looking back fondly on 2023...

Leave a Reply

We appreciate your feedback!
Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Looking for Resources?

Interested in a Demo, Evaluation or Purchase?

Have a Software Question, Issue or Feature Request?

Recent News & Events

  • Trustworthiness in Simulation: Credibility or Decision-grade Reliability?
  • Beyond the Black Box: Explainable AI Requires Explainable Simulation
  • Turtle Shells and Legacy Finite Element Codes: Evolutionary Constraints in the Age of Explainable AI

Quick Links

  • Quick Start Guide
  • Documentation
  • Software FAQs
  • Software Demos

Testimonials

  • “Small errors in modeling can lead to substantial errors in joint performance prediction. To alleviate this problem, the CAI used the handbook functionality of ESRD Inc.’s (St. Louis, Mo.) trademarked StressCheck P-version finite element software to develop reusable models of typical joints.”

    Dr. John Russell
    Composites World Magazine

Testimonials

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. Engelstad, Technical Fellow, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Structural Methods and Analysis

Member Portal

  • Member Registration
  • Member Login

Contact Us

© 2026 · Engineering Software Research & Development, Inc. | Terms & Conditions | Privacy & Cookie Policy | Software License Agreement | Software Maintenance and Technical Support Policy

Prev Next

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits, as outlined in our Cookie Policy. You may adjust your cookie preferences within .

ESRD
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.