Serving the Numerical Simulation community since 1989 
Anyone who relies on information generated through numerical simulation must know the difference between calibration and tuning, and understand the interactions between finite element modeling and finite element analysis. This blog post covers the main points.
Some years ago, I attended a meeting of senior engineers at a Fortune 100 company. The topic of discussion was: What should be done about the significant discrepancies between outcomes predicted by finite element models and those observed in physical tests? The chief engineer, who called the meeting, vented his frustration, declaring he was tired of hearing that the finite element mesh was the problem. He no longer believed the predictions from finite element modeling and had lost confidence in the engineers who produced those results. How could this have been prevented?
In one of my conference presentations, I discussed variational crimes, noting that using point forces and point constraints in finite element analysis serves as examples of such crimes. In the question-and-answer session, I was asked: “If using point constraints is a variational crime, then how is it possible that the structure designed to refloat the Costa Concordia was full of those crimes and yet it worked just fine.” This question presented an opportunity for me to explain that finite element modeling (FEM) and finite element analysis (FEA) are complementary methods when analysts correctly understand their respective domains of application and use them accordingly. However, problems arise when FEM is used outside its scope, which is an all too frequent error.
We at ESRD preach and practice solution verification. We believe that reporting data computed by an approximate method is incomplete without providing an estimate of the size of the relative error. This simple and self-evident statement tends to trigger fierce resistance from those who were schooled in the use of legacy finite element modeling tools. But why?
In a letter published in Science in 1963, Bernard K. Forscher used the metaphor of building edifices to represent the construction of scientific models, also called laws. These models explain observed phenomena and make predictions beyond the observations made.
Building models consistent with the science of numerical simulation should never be confused with finite element modeling, an activity rooted in pre-1970s thinking. We should keep Forscher’s metaphor in mind when evaluating claims about the benefits AI integration is expected to bring to numerical simulation.
The term “simulation” is often used interchangeably with “finite element modeling” in the engineering literature and marketing materials. It is important to understand the difference between the two.
The development of the finite element method (FEM) consists of two main branches: the art of finite element modeling and the science of finite element analysis. Learn why in this blog.
How can the vision for expanding the use of numerical simulation by persons who do not have expertise in finite element analysis (FEA) be safely realized? The solution lies in the establishment of Simulation Governance through the development and dissemination of expert-designed Engineering Simulation Apps. Read more[…]
While the idea of simulation governance may be easy to understand, the challenges of two potential bottlenecks must be addressed before it can adopted by engineering management. Read Dr. Barna Szabo’s latest S.A.F.E.R. simulation post to learn more.
In this fourth of our multi-part series on “S.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry”, we will explore the topic of Simulation Governance, and why both simulation users and their managers on A&D programs should care. […]
© 2026 · Engineering Software Research & Development, Inc. | Terms & Conditions | Privacy & Cookie Policy | Software License Agreement | Software Maintenance and Technical Support Policy