20/03/2023
We’ve seen how FEA can be used to validate components by checking the magnitudes of internal stresses, but what happens as the scope of analysis increases? As engineers, we have to understand how to use tools both effectively and responsibly. One way to achieve this is to test with a varied range of techniques—for example, by complementing computational methods with real-world testing.
With our global FEA model, we faced some unique obstacles inherent to the scale of our analysis and the resources available.
As we saw last week, the mesh presents an important tradeoff to consider: a finer mesh provides more accurate and detailed results in a high-quality model, but mesh refinement eventually becomes unfeasible or even impossible with the time, RAM, and computational power available for a project. Likewise, real-world complexities like plasticity are demanding to model, and it takes extensive experience and a solid grasp of the theory to judge when they can just be simplified away.
Beyond the strictly technical, working in a sixty person team can make coordination a challenge. Managing data on the weight, geometry, and materials used across over 300 components in a constantly evolving assembly is a daunting task that relies on effective communication between everyone involved. To make sure we’re always on the same page, we prepare internal presentations to report on parameters and outcomes so we can act on suggestions.
The limitations of the global model can’t be avoided, so we’ve kept them in mind while interpreting the results. Stress plots have helped us to check Vulcan for weak points that we can iteratively improve, but they’re only one tool among many.
And with the process now complete, we’re proud to say that we’ve come away from it feeling confident and reassured!