• About
    • Who We Are
    • S.A.F.E.R. Simulation
    • Partners & Providers
    • News & Events
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Applications
    • What We Solve
    • Aerospace & Defense
    • Detailed Stress
    • Composites
    • Fracture Mechanics
    • Residual Stress
    • Sim Apps
  • Products
    • What We Develop
    • StressCheck Professional
      • StressCheck Core
      • Solvers
      • Advanced Modules
      • Utilities
    • StressCheck Apps
      • CAE Handbook
      • StressCheck Tool Box
  • Support
    • How We Can Help
    • Getting Started
    • Software FAQ’s
    • Documentation
    • Training
    • Consulting
    • Product Updates
  • Simulation
    • How We Simulate
    • Simulation Governance
    • History of FEA
    • Dictionary & Terms
    • Simulation FAQ
    • Simulation References
  • Resource Library
    • Case Studies
    • Webinars
    • Product Demos
    • Product Downloads
    • StressCheck Tutorials
    • Sim App & API Development
Serving the Numerical Simulation community since 1989
  • Contact Us
  • Register
Login

Forgot Password?

Login
ESRDESRD
ESRDESRD
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • S.A.F.E.R. Simulation
    • Partners & Providers
    • News & Events
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Applications
    • What We Solve
    • Aerospace & Defense
    • Detailed Stress
    • Composites
    • Fracture Mechanics
    • Residual Stress
    • Sim Apps
  • Products
    • What We Develop
    • StressCheck Professional
      • StressCheck Core
      • Solvers
      • Advanced Modules
      • Utilities
    • StressCheck Apps
      • CAE Handbook
      • StressCheck Tool Box
  • Support
    • How We Can Help
    • Getting Started
    • Software FAQ’s
    • Documentation
    • Training
    • Consulting
    • Product Updates
  • Simulation
    • How We Simulate
    • Simulation Governance
    • History of FEA
    • Dictionary & Terms
    • Simulation FAQ
    • Simulation References
  • Resource Library
    • Case Studies
    • Webinars
    • Product Demos
    • Product Downloads
    • StressCheck Tutorials
    • Sim App & API Development

S.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry Part 3: FEM is not Numerical Simulation

Home S.A.F.E.R. SimulationS.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry Part 3: FEM is not Numerical Simulation

S.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry Part 3: FEM is not Numerical Simulation

Jan 29, 2018 | S.A.F.E.R. Simulation |
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI – January 29, 2018

In ESRD’s last S.A.F.E.R. Simulation post, we profiled the challenges that structural engineers encounter when using legacy-generation finite element analysis (FEA) software to perform high-fidelity stress analysis of mixed metallic and composite aerostructures designed to be higher-performing and more damage tolerant over longer lifecycles. We went so far as to question whether because of these challenges the democratization of simulation was a realistic or safe goal if it means putting the current generation of expert FEA software tools into the hands of the occasional user or non-expert design engineer.

In this third of our multi-part series on “S.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry” we will examine why Numerical Simulation is not the same as Finite Element Modeling and what this means to the structural analysis function within the A&D industry. We’ll start by sharing a brief history of the finite element method.

Legacy Finite Element Modeling

The finite element method (FEM) used to solve problems in computational solid mechanics is now over 50 years old. Over the decades there have been many commercial improvements in analysis capabilities, user interfaces, pre/post processors, high-performance computing, pricing and licensing options. However, what has not changed is that nearly all of the large general-purpose FEA codes in use today for mechanical analysis are built upon the same underlying legacy FEM technology base.

How can someone identify a legacy FEA code? If it has more element types than you can count on one hand, if answers are dependent on the mesh, if different analysis types (e.g. linear, non-linear, thermal, modal) require different elements and models using different computational schemes, or if there is no explicit measurement of solution accuracy, then it is based on legacy FEM.

In these older implementations of the FEM the focus of the analyst shifts from the eloquence of the underlying method to the minutia of the model. These details include the selection of element types, location of nodes, and refinement of mesh among a long list of user-dependent judgement calls, assumptions, and decisions. It is no surprise for many users of legacy FEA codes that the task of creating the right mesh consumes most of the analyst’s time such that once an answer is attained there is little time or patience to verify whether it is the right answer.

A Brief History of the Finite Element Method

The first paper on FEM was 62 years ago. What has changed since then?

The first paper on the finite element method was published in 1956, and the next year the Soviet Union launched the first satellite (Sputnik) and the space race begun. This brought significant investments into engineering projects in support of the U.S. space program.

In 1965 NASA issued a request for proposal for a structural analysis computer program that eventually led to the development of the finite element analysis software NASTRAN. This marks the beginning of the development of legacy FEA software, and of the practice of finite element modeling.

Early work on developing the FEM was performed largely by engineers. The first mathematical papers were published in 1972. This is an important milestone because mathematicians view finite element analysis very differently from engineers. Engineers think of FEA as a modeling exercise that permits joining various elements selected from a finite element library to approximate the physical response of structural components when subjected to applied loads.

Mathematicians on the other hand, view FEA as a method to obtain approximate solutions to mathematical problems. For example, the equations of linear elasticity, together with the solution domain, the material properties, the loading and the constraints define a mathematical problem that has a unique exact solution which can be approximated by the finite element method.

Two main features characterize the early implementation of the emerging technology which lead to the current practice of finite element modeling: (1) large element libraries and (2) the lack of intrinsic procedures for solution verification.

Large element libraries put the burden on the analyst to make appropriate modeling decisions (e.g. why is reduced integration better?)

In 1981 it was proven and demonstrated for a large class of structural problems that the rate at which the error of discretization is reduced when the order of the approximating functions is increased over a fixed mesh, is at least twice as fast as when performing mesh refinement while keeping the order of the approximation functions constant.

In 1984 it was shown that exponential rates of convergence are possible when hierarchic finite element spaces are used with properly graded meshes, which is very significant in the modeling of bodies with cracks. The year 1984 marks the beginning of the development of Numerical Simulation Software (NSS) and of the engineering practice of numerical simulation.

The implementation of hierarchic models began in 1991 in which any mathematical model can be viewed as a special case of a more comprehensive model. This development highlighted the essential difference between numerical simulation software and legacy finite element modeling software.

In legacy FEA software, the mathematical model and the numerical approximation are combined resulting in the development of large element libraries. For example, a QUAD element for linear elasticity, a different QUAD element for nonlinear elasticity, yet another QUAD element for plates, and several variations for each.

In numerical simulation software the mathematical model is treated separately from its numerical approximation. Through the use of hierarchic finite element spaces and hierarchic models it is possible to control numerical errors separately from the modeling errors. As a result there is no need for large finite element libraries or using different element types for different types of analyses. Solution verification is an intrinsic capability for enabling a new generation of numerical simulation software that produces results which are far less dependent on the mesh or the user.

To learn more, watch ESRD’s 5-minute executive summary of the History of FEA and skim our decade-by-decade History of FEA timeline:

Finite Element Modeling Is Not Numerical Simulation

Numerical simulation, unlike finite element modeling, is a predictive computational science that can be used more reliably by both the expert simulation analyst and non-specialist engineer. Thus, a prerequisite for any numerical simulation software product is that it provides quantitative assessment of the quality of the results. Lacking that capability, it still requires an expert to subjectively ascertain if the solution is valid or not, and fails the most basic requirement for solution verification.

Finite element modeling is the practice of breaking the strict rules of implementing the finite element method such that the definition of the model and the attributes of the approximation are mixed, and errors of idealization and discretization are not possible to be separated. The model is re-imagined as LEGO® block connections at nodes using different idealizations and elements that are ambiguously mixed and matched. An example of finite element modeling is connecting 3D solid elements with 1D beam elements (mixing 3D and 1D elasticity). This is a dangerous practice as the model may not have an exact solution and the results will be mesh-dependent.

Numerical Simulation vs Finite Element Modeling: Key Facts

In numerical simulation an idea of a physical reality is precisely stated in the form of mathematical equations. Model form errors and the errors of numerical approximation are estimated and controlled separately. Numerical simulation is the practice of employing properly implemented computational techniques and methods for solving mathematical models discretely. The mathematical model representing the problem “at hand” (i.e., idealization) and the computational techniques employed to solve the mathematical model (i.e., discretization) should always be independent of the idealization. In the practice of legacy finite element modeling the idealization and the discretization are mixed making it impossible to ascertain if differences between predictions and experiments are due to idealization errors, discretization errors or both.

The implementation of hierarchic finite element spaces and models in the latest generation of numerical simulation software is quite different from that of legacy FEA codes, yet there is still confusion among users and software providers alike. When implemented properly, true numerical simulation is most definitely not achieved by adding yet another set of element types to an existing legacy FEA software framework, nor is it pretending that the finite element mesh is hidden. The implementation of hierarchic finite element spaces makes it possible to estimate and control the errors of approximation in professional practice while model hierarchies enable the assessment of the influence of modeling decisions (idealizations) in the predictions, neither one are possible with legacy FEA implementations.

Numerical Simulation supports a simple, hierarchic element library based only on topology

What this means for users is that degrees of freedom are no longer associated with or locked to nodes, design geometry can be mapped exactly without extensive defeaturing, large spanning 3D solid geometries of thin structures typical in aerospace can be modeled using 3D finite elements without simplification, high-fidelity solutions are continuous throughout the domain regardless of the mesh topology, and post-processing now becomes live dynamic results extraction of any function anywhere in the model at any time without a-priori knowledge of the solution required.

Most importantly for the engineering analysis function, numerical simulation software is inherently more tolerant when geometries, loads, or other boundary conditions change due to aerostructure design changes or revised operating conditions. Numerical simulation, unlike finite element modeling, is no longer about selecting the best elements to use or generating the right mesh then getting that mesh right. An objective measure of solution quality for all quantities of interest, combined with hierarchic finite element spaces, enables obtaining accurate results even with low-density “ugly” meshes.

Numerical simulation means that simulation-led design becomes more realistic for aerospace engineering groups, as does the democratization and appification of simulation for non-expert usage. The lack of automatic verification procedures is the most compelling reason to rule out the practice of finite element modeling in the creation of simulation apps that attempt to democratize the use of simulation.

Coming Up Next…

In the next S.A.F.E.R. Simulation post we will describe how the practice of Simulation Governance, enabled by a new generation of engineering analysis software based on Verifiable Numerical Simulation (VNS), such as ESRD’s StressCheck®, is helping engineering groups respond to an avalanche of increasing performance, interdependent complexity, and technical risk in their products, processes, and tools. And this, in the process, makes structural analysis of aerostructures using finite element numerical simulation software more Simple, Accurate, Fast, Efficient, and Reliable for the new and expert user alike.

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

Tags: Aerospace and DefenseFinite Element ModelingNumerical SimulationSimulation Governance
3

You also might be interested in

Happy Holidays from ESRD!

Happy Holidays from ESRD!

Dec 8, 2020

While this past year presented unique challenges and unprecedented disturbances, we hope that you found our customer support, on-demand webinars, web-based training services and overall experience with our team to be refreshingly positive. Click to see a special message from ESRD!

S.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

Mar 26, 2018

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 about the challenges faced by A&D programs. [...]

Hierarchic Approaches to Modeling Fastened Connections Webinar Coming Soon

Hierarchic Approaches to Modeling Fastened Connections Webinar Coming Soon

Jun 12, 2018

There is now only one week until ESRD's June 20th @ 1:00 pm EST webinar titled "Hierarchic Approaches to Modeling Fastened Connections". Register now to learn more and get the meeting details!

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

  • Accelerate StressCheck Productivity with the Latest e-Learning Resources
  • ESRD’s CAE Handbook Now Available via the Altair Partner Alliance
  • StressCheck v11, CAE Handbook v11 and StressCheck Tool Box 5.0 Released!

Quick Links

  • Getting Started
  • Product Updates
  • Software FAQs
  • Demos

Testimonials

  • “StressCheck® is the work horse for NAVAIR Structures’ detailed stress and stress concentration calculations. This software also is the basis for our development of a Structural Analysis Management System.”

    Dr. David John Barrett, Head
    Airframe Technology Branch, NAVAIR

Subscribe to ESRD News & S.A.F.E.R. Simulation

Want to be a part of the discussion? Sign up to receive blog posts and other ESRD updates:

Member Portal

  • Member Login
  • Member Registration

 

Contact Us

© 2021 · 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 Cookie settings.
ACCEPT ALL
Manage consent

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.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.

CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Functional

Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.

Performance

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

Analytics

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

Advertisement

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.

Others

Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.

SAVE & ACCEPT
[contact-form-7 id="885" title="Untitled"]
ESRD, Inc. collects your information for the sole purpose of identifying interest in our products and technologies. The information you provide herein will not be shared with any other organization. Please ensure the fields are up to date and click "Download" to download the software.