Enhancing Transparency and Reproducibility in Finite Element Analysis through Comprehensive Reporting Parameters A Review

Abstract

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) serves as a valuable tool, offering an approximate resolution to partial differential equations, finding extensive utility in structural analysis and design. Intrinsic nature of approximation in FEA underscores the indispensability of meticulous documentation to inspire confidence in the derived outcomes. While comprehensive guidelines for model development abound, there exists a conspicuous absence of a standardized framework explicitly addressing reporting and communication facets of FE studies. Dearth of consistent documentation standards imparts a veneer of opacity to reported FE studies, hindering the requisite transparency essential for objective evaluation. In case, FE analyst remains oblivious to limitations inherent in FE model and simulation platform, reviewers and end-users consequently remain uninformed. Evaluation and refinement of FE models can only be realized when a complete and coherent documentation of simulation studies is at hand. This paper endeavours to present pertinent reporting parameters crucial for a comprehensive understanding and reproducibility of FE studies. Encompassing aspects such as analysis description, model identification, structural modeling, discretization schemes, solver settings, and post-processing details, these reporting parameters aim to furnish a holistic view of simulation process. Furthermore, the manuscript explores realms of sensitivity analysis, verification, and validation (V & V) as indispensable components to fully establish predictive performance of FE models. This paper concludes by advocating for the widespread dissemination of finite element models, affording prospective users the chance to scrutinize and improve upon these models. Illustrated through a case study involving an FE model of a wing rib, the presented reporting parameters establish a foundation for assessing overall quality and scientific rigour of simulation studies. They contribute to the establishment of accountability, reproducibility, and usability in the realm of FEA. Acknowledging dynamic nature of modeling and simulation techniques, these parameters are recognized as subject to evolution. Additionally, it is suggested that any supplementary parameters influencing accuracy of FE models should be duly incorporated for a more nuanced and exhaustive evaluation.

Keywords

• Finite Elements Analysis
• Reporting Parameters
• Meshing
• Pre-processing
• Post Processing
• Solver Setting
• Sensitivity Analysis
• Verification
• Validation

References

1. [1] S. David Müzel, E. P. Bonhin, N. M. Guimarães, and E. S. Guidi, ‘‘Application of the finite element method in the analysis of composite materials: A review,’’ Polymers, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 818, 2020.
2. [2] L. Sabat and C. K. Kundu, ‘‘History of finite element method: a review,’’ Recent Developments in Sustainable Infrastructure: Select Proceedings of ICRDSI 2019, vol. 3, no. 121, p. 395, 2020.
3. [3] H.-H. Lee, Finite element simulations with ANSYS Workbench 21. SDC publications, 2021.
4. [4] T. Chandrupatla and A. Belegundu, Introduction to finite elements in engineering. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
5. [5] K. N. B. R. U. A. Mastoi S., Mugheri A. B. M. and M. R. B., ‘‘Solution accuracy of finite element grids,’’ International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, vol. 4, no. 17, p. 1127, 2021.
6. [6] A. M. Law, ‘‘How to build valid and credible simulation models,’’ in 2022 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), p. 128, IEEE, 2022.
7. [7] D. Arndt,W. Bangerth, D. Davydov, T. Heister, L. Heltai, M. Kronbichler, M. Maier, J.-P. Pelteret, B. Turcksin, and D.Wells, ‘‘The deal. ii finite element library: Design, features, and insights,’’ Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 3, no. 128, p. 128, 2021.
8. [8] K. Srinivas and S. Motera, ‘‘Verifications and validations in finite element analysis (fea),’’ Ahmedabad: Advanced Scientific and Engineering Services (AdvanSES), vol. 3, no. 128, p. 407, 2020.

9. [9] P. M. Kurowski, Finite element analysis for design engineers. SAE International, 2022.
10. [10] M. Zaheer, P. Lindh, L. Aarniovuori, and J. Pyrhönen, ‘‘Comparison of commercial and open-source fem software: A case study,’’ IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 56, no. 6, p. 6411, 2020.
11. [11] I. Magomedov and Z. Sebaeva, ‘‘Comparative study of finite element analysis software packages,’’ in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1515, p. 73, IOP Publishing, 2020.
12. [12] D. Marinkovic and M. Zehn, ‘‘Survey of finite element method-based real-time simulations,’’ Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 14, p. 2775, 2019.
13. [13] S. Chakraverty, N. Mahato, P. Karunakar, and T. D. Rao, Advanced numerical and semi-analytical methods for differential equations. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
14. [14] I. Erhunmwun and U. Ikponmwosa, ‘‘Review on finite element method,’’ Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 999, 2018.
15. [15] T. Stolarski, Y. Nakasone, and S. Yoshimoto, Engineering analysis with ANSYS software. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2018.
16. [16] I. Koutromanos, Fundamentals of finite element analysis: Linear finite element analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
17. [17] R. Basu, K. Kirkhope, and J. Srinivasan, ‘‘Guideline for evaluation of finite elements and results.,’’ Miitary Systems Engineering, p. 64, 2018.
18. [18] M.Kuzin, P.Vovk, and O.Kuzin, ‘‘Mathematical modelling and mechanics approaches in investigation of structural failure causes,’’ inMATECWeb of Conferences, vol. 390, p. 04010, EDP Sciences, 2024.
19. [19] S. Georgescu, P. Chow, and H. Okuda, ‘‘Gpu acceleration for fem-based structural analysis,’’ Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, vol. 20, no. 11, p. 111, 2019.
20. [20] J. Schröder, T.Wick, S. Reese, P. Wriggers, R. Müller, S. Kollmannsberger, M. Kästner, A. Schwarz, M. Igelbüscher, N. Viebahn, et al., ‘‘A selection of benchmark problems in solid mechanics and applied mathematics,’’ Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, vol. 28, p. 713, 2021.
21. [21] A. Mar and M. Hicks, ‘‘A benchmark computational study of finite element error estimation,’’ International journal for numerical methods in engineering, vol. 39, no. 23, p. 3969, 2018.
22. [22] V. Saravanan, M. Ramachandran, and C. Raja, ‘‘A study on aircraft structure and application of static force,’’ REST Journal on Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 1, 2022.
23. [23] C. Zhao, A. Alimardani Lavasan, and T. Schanz, ‘‘Application of submodeling technique in numerical modeling of mechanized tunnel excavation,’’ International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 17, p. 75, 2019.
24. [24] M. W. Sracic and W. J. Elke, ‘‘Effect of boundary conditions on finite element submodeling,’’ in Nonlinear Dynamics, Volume 1: Proceedings of the 36th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics 2018, p. 163, Springer, 2019.
25. [25] A. H. Bhutta, ‘‘Appropriate boundary condition for finite element analysis of structural members isolated from global model.,’’ NED University Journal of Research, vol. 18, no. 3, 2021.
26. [26] D. Venkatkumar and D. Ravindran, ‘‘Effect of boundary conditions on residual stresses and distortion in 316 stainless steel butt welded plate,’’ High Temperature Materials and Processes, vol. 38, no. 2019, p. 827, 2019.
27. [27] F. Guarracino, A.Walker, and A. Giordano, ‘‘Effects of boundary conditions on testing of pipes and finite element modelling,’’ International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, vol. 86, no. 2-3, p. 196, 2019.
28. [28] R. Omar, M. A. Rani, and M. Yunus, ‘‘Representation of bolted joints in a structure using finite element modelling and model updating,’’ Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Sciences, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 7141, 2020.
29. [29] T. Liu, Q. Zhao, Y. Cao, and J. Yang, ‘‘A generic approach for analysis of mechanical assembly,’’ Precision Engineering, vol. 54, p. 361, 2020.
30. [30] S. Ereiz, I. Duvnjak, and J. F. Jiménez-Alonso, ‘‘Review of finite element model updating methods for structural applications,’’ in Structures, vol. 41, p. 684, Elsevier, 2022.
31. [31] A. Ruggiero, R. D’Amato, and S. Affatato, ‘‘Comparison of meshing strategies in thr finite element modelling,’’ Materials, vol. 12, no. 14, p. 2332, 2020.
32. [32] M. S. Petrov and T. D. Todorov, ‘‘Properties of the multidimensional finite elements,’’ Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 391, no. 125, p. 695, 2021.
33. [33] A. Nemade and A. Shikalgar, ‘‘The mesh quality significance in finite element analysis,’’ J. Mech. Civ. Eng, vol. 17, p. 44, 2020.
34. [34] K. Jalammanavar, N. Pujar, and R. V. Raj, ‘‘Finite element study on mesh discretization error estimation for ansys workbench,’’ in 2018 International conference on computational techniques, electronics and mechanical systems (CTEMS), p. 344, IEEE, 2021.
35. [35] H. A. Carson, A. C. Huang, M. C. Galbraith, S. R. Allmaras, and D. L. Darmofal, ‘‘Mesh optimization via error sampling and synthesis: An update,’’ in AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, p. 87, 2020.
36. [36] W. Kwok and Z. Chen, ‘‘A simple and effective mesh quality metric for hexahedral and wedge elements.,’’ in IMR, p. 325, Citeseer, 2020.
37. [37] J. Svetlichny, ‘‘Overview of ansys meshing preprocessor capabilities to create high quality meshes,’’ Open Information and Computer Integrated Technologies, no. 95, p. 83, 2022.
38. [38] C. Oefner, S. Herrmann, M. Kebbach, H.-E. Lange, D. Kluess, and M. Woiczinski, ‘‘Reporting checklist for verification and validation of finite element analysis in orthopedic and trauma biomechanics,’’ Medical Engineering & Physics, vol. 92, p. 25, 2021.
39. [39] M. G. Faes, M. Daub, S. Marelli, E. Patelli, and M. Beer, ‘‘Engineering analysis with probability boxes: A review on computational methods,’’ Structural Safety, vol. 93, no. 102, p. 92, 2021.