Simulation use in Roadside Safety Applications NCHRP 22-24 DEFINITIONS AND PROCEDURES
Worcester Polytechnic Institute Battelle Memorial Institute Politecnico di Milano FEA IN ROADSIDE HARDWARE DESIGN Specialty codes prior to 1990 (i.e., NARD, Guard, BarrierVII, etc.) Shift to DYNA/LSDYNA in mid-1990s Today Almost exclusively LSDYNA Used in nearly all new product developments Requests for approval now coming based partly or entirely on LSDYNA results. Decision-makers need a way to judge good from bad results. Who do you trust? How do you make an acceptance decision based on simulations? MOTIVATION We have formal standards on how to perform and evaluate full-scale crash tests. Decision makers want a formal standard on how to perform and evaluate FEA simulations used in the approval process. NCHRP 22-24 was initiated to develop these procedures. Develop a procedure and format for validation and verification report for simulations that can be used like a crash test report. OBJECTIVE to develop guidelines for verification and validation of detailed finite element analysis for crash simulations of roadside safety features. The focus of these guidelines will be on establishing accuracy, credibility, and confidence in the results of crash test simulations intended (1) to support policy decisions and (2) to be used for approval of design modifications to roadside safety devices that were originally approved with full-scale crash testing. These are domain-specific guides with more step-by-step procedures and defined metrics. These are general purpose, broad- based guides that out-line general procedures and provide terminology definitions. They are not step-by-step guides. Existing V&V Procedures
NASA DoD AIAA Sandia Los Almos LLNL ASME FHWA/NARD FAA FRA Several organizations have developed V&V procedures in recent years.
ASME Guide draws on all the above guides in developing its recommendations.
Lockhead
EU (rail) Chrysler ASME V&V 10-2006 History 1999 An ad hoc verification & validation specialty committee was formed under the auspices of the United States Association for Computational Mechanics (USACM).
2001 ASME approved the committees charter: To develop standards for assessing the correctness and credibility of modeling and simulation in computational solid mechanics.
Committee was assigned the title and designation of the ASME Committee for Verification & Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics (PTC 60). 2006 ASME published the Guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics. ASME V&V 10-2006. 2007 Developing a series of best practices guides
10 ASME V&V 10-2006 Committee Members M. C. Anderson, Los Alamos National Laboratory J. A. Cafeo, General Motors Corporation R. L. Crane, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers S. W. Doebling, Los Alamos National Laboratory J. H. Fortna, ANSYS M. E. Giltrud, Defense Threat Deduction Agency J. K. Gran, SRI International T. K. Hasselman, Acta Inc. H. M. Kim, Boeing R. W. Logan, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory H. U. Mair, Institute for Defense Analyses A. K. Noor, Old Dominion University W. L. Oberkampf, Sandia National Laboratories J. T. Oden, University of Texas D. K. Pace, Consultant T. Paez, Sandia National Laboratories A. B. Pifko, Consultant L. Proctor, MSC Software J. N. Reddy, Texas A & M University P. J. Roache, Consultant L. E. Schwer, Schwer Engineering P. E. Senseny, Consultant M. S. Shephard, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute D. A. Simons, Northrop Grumman B. H. Thacker, Southwest Research Institute T. G. Trucano, Sandia National Laboratories R. J. Yang, Ford Motor Company Y. Zhao, St. Jude Medical
The committee derives its authority from the diversity of its membership and consensus of opinion. ASME V&V 10-2006 The Guide does provide a: Framework and process for V&V activities. Standard definitions for V&V terms. The Guide does not provide: A step-by-step procedure for V&V. Specific recommendation for metrics. ASME V&V 10-2006 Some Definitions
Validation -- The process of determining the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model. Model results are compared to physical experiments. Verification -- The process of determining that a computational model accurately represents the underlying mathematical model and its solution. Model results are compared to known mathematical solution. Calibration -- The process of adjusting physical modeling parameters in the computational model to improve agreement with experimental data. Physical experiments used to estimate model parameters. ASME V&V 10-2006 Validation
The process of determining the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model.
ASME V&V 10-2006 Verification
The process of determining that a computational model accurately represents the underlying mathematical model and its solution. ASME V&V 10-2006 Calibration
The process of adjusting physical modeling parameters in the computational model to improve agreement with experimental data. The airplane is manufactured by Karel Klenor - KLN, Choce, the firm is one of the biggest producers of composites in the Czech Republic www.kln.cz We need to know the wing tip deflection of the ABC experimental aircraft under a distributed load of X Newtons/meter, in this case the reality of interest is the aircraft wing. Before we begin to develop a model, a reality of interest is identified (i.e., what is the physical system to be modeled). ASME V&V 10-2006 Model Development
Conceptual Model the collection of assumptions and descriptions of physical processes representing the solid mechanics behavior of the reality of interest from which the mathematical model and validation experiments can be constructed. ASME V&V 10-2006 Model Development
Mathematical Model The mathematical equations, boundary values, initial conditions, and modeling data needed to describe the conceptual model. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 0 0 0 EI x y w x x L y y y L y L (
'' '' = < < ' '' ''' = = = = ASME V&V 10-2006 Model Development
Computational Model The numerical implementation of the mathematical model, usually in the form of numerical discretization, solution algorithm, and convergence criteria. Commercial Software ASME V&V 10-2006 Model Development
ASME V&V 10-2006 V&V Process
Verification ASME V&V 10-2006 V&V Process
Validation Verification ASME V&V 10-2006 V&V Process
25 The goal of the validation process is to assess the predictive capability of the model by comparing the predictive results of the model with validation experiments. Three key elements of Validation: 1. Precision Testing 2. Uncertainty Quantification 3. Comparative Metrics ASME V&V 10-2006 Validation Process
ASME V&V 10-2006 Comments on the V&V Process
The V&V process diagram is valid not only for whole models but for components, assemblies, parts, etc. While most roadside safety work uses LSDYNA, this process and definitions are applicable to any numerical simulation software (e.g., MADYMO, BVII, HVOSM, HVE, etc.). We can not usually do code verification we do not generally have access to the code. Counter example: Yvonne Murrays soil and timber models for LSDYNA. We can do calculation verification this is another word for benchmarking. Example: do different versions of LSDYNA produce the same result? Do different computational platforms produce the same result? Notice the comparison is quantitative. Qualitative validation is not really validation because it is subjective. Recommendation The project team recommends that we adopt the ASME V&V 10-2006 Guide as a basis for the basic V&V process and definition of terms because The 22-24 panel definitions are more or less consistent with the ASME definitions and The ASME definitions have been adopted by a broad cross-section of the computational solid mechanics community and ... The ASME process includes all the essential pieces needed in computation roadside safety. Discussion?
Hierarchical Modelling The ultimate goal is to use a validated model to extrapolate results to an untested situation. We need to have confidence in the model before we can use it to predict untested situations. Hierarchical Modelling
Vehicle assembly
Barrier assembly
Whole model level
Top Rail assembly Middle Rail assembly Rubrail part P ost part
Assembly Level
Guardrail part Spacer part Blockout part Stiffner part s Main - rail part Posts part s