reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
(OP)
Hi all,
So far, in my analysis carrier, I was redesigning components to a bench mark design using deflection or frequency as a critieria, But not for the stress values. Now, I need to find the highest torque a particular gear box can with stand. I understand , "Entire carriers are based on gear designs..."
I understand stresses due to FEA are dependent upon the loads, constriants, materail properties, geometry and their variations, singularties etc,...
With the analysis we did, I many times saw, stresses on FEA analysis above the yeild strength by 2~5 times.
I may need to fine tune my analysis to get better results by looking more closely at the application.
My understanding is people tweak their FEA models, by corelating them to the test results and then with experience and comparision with test data, they start comparing their designs.
This question keeps on bugging me all the time, what ever components I analyse. How close are my FEA results to reality...
With out testing,
how do we determine, which analysis will predict the failure stresses correctly. linear, non linear material or contact analysis etc..
Assume that we did the best FEA analysis with out testing the product and send a report saying the componet will with stand this much of loading.....
What will be the realiability of such statment based upon FEA results. how far can we depend on FEA.
What should be our approach when we need to design for failure using FEA. .
Regards
Kamalakar.
So far, in my analysis carrier, I was redesigning components to a bench mark design using deflection or frequency as a critieria, But not for the stress values. Now, I need to find the highest torque a particular gear box can with stand. I understand , "Entire carriers are based on gear designs..."
I understand stresses due to FEA are dependent upon the loads, constriants, materail properties, geometry and their variations, singularties etc,...
With the analysis we did, I many times saw, stresses on FEA analysis above the yeild strength by 2~5 times.
I may need to fine tune my analysis to get better results by looking more closely at the application.
My understanding is people tweak their FEA models, by corelating them to the test results and then with experience and comparision with test data, they start comparing their designs.
This question keeps on bugging me all the time, what ever components I analyse. How close are my FEA results to reality...
With out testing,
how do we determine, which analysis will predict the failure stresses correctly. linear, non linear material or contact analysis etc..
Assume that we did the best FEA analysis with out testing the product and send a report saying the componet will with stand this much of loading.....
What will be the realiability of such statment based upon FEA results. how far can we depend on FEA.
What should be our approach when we need to design for failure using FEA. .
Regards
Kamalakar.





RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
Competence I'd define as the amount of experience that the person has. Verification as the analytical means by which you checked the results. The methods by which you assess your results is normally defined by the design by analysis rules you have followed in the appropriate design standard.
It would also be wise to validate your results by measurements but this is not always necessary (or possible) if the verification process has been rigorous enough to give confidence in your results.
corus
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
The test to test repeatability of those loads is around 20%.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
corus
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
I also many times wondered "how much" a calculation can approach reality, be it done by FEA or not. In fact, many times we speak about "analytical formulations" as the best way, when possible, to perform calculations, as opposed to "numerical approaches" such as FEM, FDM, CFD, etc...
But we forget (or want to forget?) that even the best analytical formulations are nothing but based upon abstraction models which can approach reality more or less, it depends.
The same is for FEM: the more complex your analysis, the more adherent is the abstraction model with the reality, the more close are the results to the test ones. When possible. In fact, why would you perform a time- and resource-consuming ultra-detailed FE analysis, if you'd better directly test the specimen or, worse, if you doubt that the numerical model would be in any case inadequate? Design time-saving, of course, but if you are totally in doubt about the principle, then forget about FE, forget about analytics, forget about formulas, forget everything, and convert from engineer to test-specialist!!! Make prototypes of everything at every design step, and you're done!
Well, I "extremized" the terms of the question, of course, but when I see simulation results which are not "physical", then it's up to me to filter them out (i.e. decide reasonably if and to what : why these results are there where they are? Which assumption was I undertaking when building and solving my model? Which "real-life" effect was I neglecting? Which "collateral" effects were instead introduced into the simulation model, due to the way it was built up? Am I completely aware of them, i.e. have I completely understood the theory of FE which applies to the simulation I am doing? And so on...
It may not be completely surprising that Greg Locock gets simulation results which are 30% in error w.r.t. "reality": this can happen, if his application field involves phenomena which are hardly covered by FE algorithms. On the opposite, in my own field, numerical prediction have many times proved to give errors far within 10% error (and, sometimes, even around 1%...) w.r.t. test data (when it was possible to do testing!).
But, when you get high uncertainties: why would you completely disregard FEM, if it allows you to discern between design variants even with the given uncertainty?
Regards
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
There are some techniques, however, to boost your confidence. We do mesh convergence studies to make sure that a more refined mesh doesn't change our answers by more than about 10%. We look for areas where the gradient is greater than 10% of the overall stress scale in a single element and determine if 1) it is an area of concern, and 2) if the stress is a geometric issue, or an actual, realistic stress problem. This is where the engineer comes out in us...
We also rely on our "gut feel" as to whether the software is producing reasonable answers and we perform simple models that we can hand calculate the answers, gain confidence in the more simplistic models and use that information to make certain we are using the right element formulations, load applications, boundary conditions, etc.
Garland
Garland E. Borowski, PE
Borowski Engineering & Analytical Services, Inc.
Lower Alabama SolidWorks Users Group
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
Regards
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
If the displacement and strain are 'small' and the strain gage is in a uniform strain field, shouldn't you be able to calibrate the resistance effect you are citing, vonlueke?
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
As far as thermal effects, generally strain gages must be either thermally compensated (by adding a chunk of wire or other resistance device with the same tempco and approx. resistance as the gage into the circuit, and then assuming the temperature diff. between wire and gage is negligible); or by keeping the gage and substrate (test article) at a constant, uniform temperature, and using the manufacturer's published temp-vs.-resistance charts to correct the reading. The calibration chain in both sequences is pretty convoluted.
The precision of a typical strain gage measurement can approach one percent or less, but that requires a lot of control of the variables mentioned above. Even the best designed strain gage installations (pressure transducers), the ones reporting 0.25% accuracy, are not accurate to better than +/-1% "out of the box", they always have a bit of zero shift - we always calibrate the transducers using a deadweight tester before installing them, and periodically thereafter. For "in-the-field" measurements using bonded gages, or measurements taken from operating machinery, I would be happy to be within 5-10% of an analytical prediction, and usually that is "good enough" to prove or disprove a failure theory.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
http://www.dataq.com/applicat/articles/an23.htm
http://bits.me.berkeley.edu/beam/sg_7.html
to name a couple
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
What I am trying to point out is that there is no good way to calibrate a strain gage used in load testing: i.e. I am going to bond a gage onto a structure, whose strain vs. load characteristic is not known, or not known very well. I want to know that the gage I am bonding is going to give me an output (e.g. a resistance change that is proportional to strain as in/in X 10-6, or microstrain) that is accurate to within some percentage. The only way to know what the proportionality factor truly is for a given gage is to bond it to a structure, and load the structure. This usually results in the inability to re-use the gage, and in no way could the gage be re-used without recalibration. So: for measuring unknown strains on a not-well-modelled structure undergoing load testing, your measured strain accuracy is only as good as the manufacturer's lot testing and quality control, and your results will vary from ideal by a value that (hopefully) the gage manufacturer can tell you.
Read here: http://www.omega.com/techref/strain-gage.html
where it states: "In a stress analysis application, the entire gage installation cannot be calibrated as can some pressure transducers. Therefore, it is important to examine potential error sources prior to taking data." It then goes on to list (some) of those error sources. Notably absent from their list is what the "nonlinearity" effect due to large strains is caused by, and what hysteresis effects can occur if large + strain is followed by large - strain on a repetetive basis over many cycles (e.g. a vibration test).
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
I do feel that for predicting failure/ life of product using FEA CAN be 100 % accurate, provided the Analyst know what he is doing and why he is doing and what he expects out of FEA.
Among many, I will recommend new starters to go through
Dermotmonaghan.com, chalice-Enginnering web pages to learn about Practical FE Analysis.
I feel personally that, if after getting results on FEA, if company wants to make prototpe and test or any kind of measurement to verify FEA Results, Its Ridiculous and pitty on the part of the company.
After purchasing Analysis software worth sufficient odd amount, if one need to validate its results with again huge amount of money. It won't sound good.
I feel personally that nowadays Analysis have forgotten that the basic and pre-requirement for FE Analysis is sound basic understanding of Physics, Mechanics and Strength of Materials along with the sufficient knowledge of Finite Element Method basic theory.
As a rule of thumb, its always better to start the project with question, Do I aspect out Analysis. On what basis I will accept whether results are correct or wrong?
My Own Physophy, FEA always gives correct results for the data/(input) you supplied to software.
Thus it i always necessary to understand physical significance of Boundary conditions and Forces we are inputting.
Hope it sounds ok.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
salilkrishnarao: You made some good points, but I don't feel testing is a pity after getting FEA results, due especially to the uncertainty of modeling accurate boundary conditions in certain assemblies in certain projects.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
During my starting carreer in FEA, I too use to feel the same that , To validate FE Results we need Testing and some other way. But things have changed lot, I had interactions with testing majors in country and worldwide.
It was pitty to feel on them when they replied that to check load flow path/gradient flowpath they have apply strain gauges everywhere and then confirm the gradient flow path of deflection and the stresses. I personally felt that testing peoples don't have that good understanding of physics of structure and its response to various loading condition. Ok Then FE Analyst can good testing expert.
But then Question come! Thus Budget Justified?
Cost of Analysis software is awesome and then the really high end FE Analyst salaries are generally on sky.
With that can company Justify the cost of testing along with FE Analysis. Can the Design Hours and cost justified?
I don't feel that I became God Father in the field of Analysis. But I use to do the validation in Analysis itself.
General Sources of errors:
1. Meshing ( But considering that one can do that with good Homework, It can be achived 100% good mesh. Also choce of Elements with respect to loading patern and Geometry need to accounted)
2. Boundary Conditions & Loading: You are true. Mojor sorce of erros comes here.
I will try to take my Office time to cover this,
there are 1000 ways you can apply bounday conditions, but what is correct depends upon your judgement, which again comes from sound understanding of Components behaviour under loading which comes from sound basic knowledge of physics, Mechanics and mainly Strength of Materials.
If one is not sure that his bounday conditions and loads may be in-appropriate, one can list down on papers serially
diiferent boundary conditions and loads which one may feel that may be applicable.
Work out on anlysis with all different bounday conditions and loads and write down all the results under different conditions.
Then comes which one is correct?
So Finally answer is DESIGN INTEND. It means how your part is design. For what your part is designed. How it is supposed to behave and which boundary conditions do you feel giving results matching with the DESIGN INTEND.
I feel that that's the way I do Validation of FEA results.
Again Global major organisation, generally asks FEA vendors what results do they feel that, they are going to give solution to them , before assigning project to consultants.
Thats the test of consultant's capablities.
I can write thiusands words, but other wise my company will thrown out me.
salil
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
diiferent boundary conditions and loads which one may feel that may be applicable.
Work out on anlysis with all different bounday conditions and loads and write down all the results under different conditions."
This statement is very worrying! A load is a boundary condition. For static components the analyst must be able to sketch a free body diagram, label ALL the applied loads and check for a balance of forces and moments. Otherwise the analyst should not be running FEA !
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
Johnhors, I agree. But what Salilkrishnarao wanted to say is most probably another thing.
Say, you have a scenario where it is unclear, at the first sight, which FE boundary conditions pattern (restraints + loads + ...) would be the most APPROPRIATE (I would like to use this term) in order to figure out the "real" behaviour of the analyzed part. Let's say, in addition, that all these patterns are globally equilibrated and compatible. But let's say you still can't forecast which one is "the best". Said like that, it may sound ridiculous. In fact, it partially is. But sometimes in order to appreciate how much you are approaching the reality, you might have to run analyses with different BC patterns, because the system response itself could guide you discerning which abstraction model is most appropriate. You will say: "and how would you know which response is absurd and which is not?"; perfectly right: here comes experience and knowledge of the "real" parts. That means also: here comes previous testing of homologous components in similar situations.
I think that's what Salil wanted to say, not that the "analyst" should or could run randomly a bunch of simulations with casual BC in order to see what happens. This last method would rather be applied by a well-instructed monkey...
Regards
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
At risk of getting on my soapbox again! How many software demos/tutorials/novice users have you seen where loading is applied at one end of part and the other end is fully fixed? Thus transforming the part into a cantilever (a mathematical entity that doesn't exist) and a wholly inappropriate behaivour results. Ideally supports/restraints should be kept to a minimum, as an over restrained model produces fictitious results.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
Johnhors, you hit good points in my opinion. I agree that an important part of the success of a simulation model is to place the "bounding limits" where they are appropriate. My working field is very far from yours and rarely we encounter situations where the matrix of a "superelement" must be known in order to get valuable results from the components interested by the analysis. But, we encounter something similar when a part is supported entirely by others (which, in their turn, can be considered "fixed" to the ground, i.e. fully restrained in some points/edges/faces) and we don't want or can't afford including them in the analysis altogether: it's a case where idealized restraints would be extremely inappropriate: we can't leave the part unrestrained or it will experience FBM; we can't fix-restrain it because it would be unrealistic. Sometimes, calculating the equivalent stiffnesses of these supporting parts, for the DOFs of interest, can be very long and difficult (sometimes we have chains of components involving three or four "levels" of this kind of abstraction, and the parts themselves are too complicated to be analyzed altogether, or sometimes the interaction between the parts forms a "loop" so you have to guess and iterate...), but it is also a part of the work that I personally love, I find it extremely interesting. Maybe I'm mad...
Regards
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
So, I've got say that this thread gives me the creeps.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
GregLocock, I don't understand your grief: your situation is the same for everybody (have you ever seen what a penstock breakdown can do? I had the opportunity to see...), and it seems to me that no one here said that it is suitable to run uncorrelated FEA models (b.t.w., what do you mean by "uncorrelated"?). OK, I write this because I feel I could have been misunderstood.
You mean that you've never come across the question "and now, what BCs do I put to capture AT BEST the real phenomenon?" ? If no, there are only two cases:
1- you're lucky
2- you're very experienced;
having read other posts of yours, I am sure of the second hypothesis, but then it's the same thing that several persons herein have said in other terms... Where the point open by the Original Poster was: can FEA really capture the "reality"?
IMHO, the vast majority of the posters have said "Yes it can, but it depends upon you to properly set up your analysis: you're here for that." ALways IMHO, we could also stop this thread, as you say.
As a last thing: where I can easily have been misunderstood: when I said "...you have to guess and iterate", I meant: when you can't forecast the complete behaviour of a very complex structure (some of those I deal with would require a Cray to be analyzed "in one pass", and I think you also experience this situation, due to your workfield), formed by parts whose behaviour under a WELL-DEFINED loadcase depends upon the behaviour of other parts under THE SAME WELL-DEFINED loadcase, then I think you can operate just like the iterative solvers do: 1st hypothetical BCs on the "seed" part -> calculate response of the "seed" part -> calculate interaction with other parts -> calculate response of these parts -> update BCs on the "seed" part -> calculate response -> calculate interaction -> and so on, until two successive responses differ less than a WELL-DEFINED criterium. Or you also can use sub-modeling, or compute superelements, or... etc... Do you disagree? I would be interested to know your opinion.
Best regards
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
There is a software package that you may want to look at. It balances the loads on a model automatically so that a few minor boundary conditions well away from any point of interest is sufficient restraint.
www.roshaz.com
It has its limitations, but for the price, it's powerful. Not sure if maybe I misunderstood your modeling methods of progressive local models, but this package sounds like it could be useful.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
Borowski Engineering & Analytical Services, Inc.
Lower Alabama SolidWorks Users Group
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
Gbor - thanks, I'll give a look as soon as I have time. Maybe it could be useful for some of the "progressive modeling" situations.
GregLocock - title is "reliability of FEA without testing", if I put on my glasses well
Anyway, I'm a bit disappointed: even if I may have expressed idiot statements, I was waiting for a constructive comment and not for an ironic question...
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
"I seem to remember that Boeing 767 was the first civil airplane to come to final prototype assembling without any intermediate simulacra... So the "total abstract" design is perhaps not so impossible..." ... i think that has more to do with 3D CAD design than with stress analysis by FE.
also the B767 was rigorous tested as a structure before entering service.
my 2c worth ... it's the engineer behind the FEA who adds the intelligence to the result. with knowledge and experience, a competent engineer can model a structure and reach conclusions about its strength. otherwise, you can replace your expensive FEA package with a much cheaper random number generator, or a drawing package that allows you to colour in the spaces !
RE: reliability of FEA stresses with out testing.
As regards Boeing, well, "maybe" I exaggerated a bit... I would rather have spoken of examples taken from my own field (yes, though "injury-critical", some components are NEVER tested before they come into service, simply because... it's impossible !), but refering to Boeing was more impressive
Regards