NAFEMS logo

home about membership events nwc09 publications resources regional groups technical groups media & news projects contact us
home > publications > benchmark magazine > article archive > benchmark october 2005

publications
browse and buy
benchmark magazine
article archive
article submission
advertising guidelines
subscribe now
 
international journal of cfd case studies
'magazin'
e-library
invitations to tender
forthcoming publications
publication reviews
glossary of benchmarks

BENCHmark October 2005

20 Years of Progress

One of the early-day pioneers of NAFEMS visited our East Kilbride offices recently. During our discussions he mischievously suggested that all the problems that NAFEMS had been set up to deal with had now been solved.

Perhaps he has a point? Users of any mainstream software package no longer spend much time worrying if the element formulation is correct, or if the software has been verified to run on their precise combination of hardware and operating system.

In a similar vein, another “wise man” who has spent much of his career involved with FEA explained how he felt that FEA technology has now become mature, and almost all the major leaps in capabilities have already all but been accomplished.

Whilst acknowledging that many of the problems of years past have indeed been solved, and that the use of FEA and CFD in some sectors has achieved a degree of maturity, I cannot agree with either of the points of view that I had heard.

Is it yet possible to take a CAD model, in a few simple steps define how the item will be used, and then expect a reliable answer about whether it is fit for its intended purpose? For some specific applications with customised software, and for some single components, the answer is (arguably) a tentative “yes”. For a general assembly of components, the argument becomes far more difficult. (And most engineers that any such analysis requires a knowledgable and suitable educated user). Can complete systems be assessed in this way? What about accurate predictions of real failure modes? Or designs which are truly “optimised” taking account of the myriad of issues influencing practical designs? And, underpinning all of this, how can engineers be really confident that their predictions represent reality?

Tim MorrisNo, I would have to say that whilst a number of chapters have now been completed in the evolution of FEA, CFD and similar techniques, I for one don’t believe that the rate of progress has even begun to slow down, yet alone reached a plateau where the majority of problems have been answered. As an industry we are still in our youthful phase, with much still to learn, experience to gain and questions still to be answered. In amongst this, the role for NAFEMS must surely be crystal clear.

Tim Morris Chief Executive
October 2005

 

Knowledge Base 009 -

Analysis of Fabricated Structures

 

Acoustic Matrix Methods for Woofers, Tweeters, Horns and Small Transducers

Multiphysics Brings Business Benefits in Audio Device Technology

 

Low Speed Stone Impacts on Automotive Windscreens

Designing for Reliability

 

FENet - A Summary

 

A Summary of the Recently Completed European Project Co-ordinated by NAFEMS

 

Optimization of a Segment of the Main Mirror for the “OWL” Telescope

ESO is undertaking the design of a giant, next generation telescope, which brings with it the need for optimisation to make mass production viable.

 

CAD Based Optimization of Chromium Plating Processes for Complex Parts

Numerical Methods for Electochemical Applications

 

Anne Creechan

 

After more than 20 Years at the heart of NAFEMS, Anne moves on.

Members Login

username

password

forgot password >


Shopping Basket

Description Qty Item Price

your basket is empty



BENCHmark July 2008BENCHmark July 2008

BENCHmark April 2008BENCHmark April 2008

BENCHmark January 2008BENCHmark January 2008

BENCHmark October 2007BENCHmark October 2007

BENCHmark July 2007BENCHmark July 2007

BENCHmark April 2007BENCHmark April 2007

BENCHmark January 2007BENCHmark January 2007

BENCHmark October 2006BENCHmark October 2006

BENCHmark July 2006BENCHmark July 2006

BENCHmark April 2006BENCHmark April 2006

BENCHmark January 2006BENCHmark January 2006

BENCHmark October 2005BENCHmark October 2005

BENCHmark July 2005BENCHmark July 2005

BENCHmark April 2005BENCHmark April 2005

BENCHmark January 2005BENCHmark January 2005

BENCHmark October 2004 BENCHmark October 2004

BENCHmark July 2004BENCHmark July 2004

BENCHmark April 2004BENCHmark April 2004

BENCHmark January 2004BENCHmark January 2004