Computer-generated results in structural analysis need careful interpretation and validation. Engineers must use visualization techniques like stress contours and deformation plots to identify critical areas and assess structural behavior. These tools transform complex data into understandable visual representations.

Validation involves error estimation, comparison with hand calculations, and experimental verification. Engineers must document the entire analysis process, including model details, results, and key findings. This ensures transparency, reproducibility, and reliable decision-making in structural design and assessment.

Visualization and Interpretation

Post-Processing and Graphical Representations

• Post-processing transforms raw numerical data into visual representations
• Stress contours display stress distribution across structural elements using color gradients
  • Red often indicates high stress areas
  • Blue typically represents low stress regions
• Deformation plots illustrate how structures change shape under applied loads
  • Exaggerated deformations help identify critical areas
  • Animated deformation plots show progression of structural behavior over time
• Result interpretation requires understanding of structural behavior and analysis methods
  • Identify areas of concern (high stress concentrations, excessive deformations)
  • Compare results to design criteria and safety factors

Advanced Visualization Techniques

• Vector plots display direction and magnitude of forces or displacements
• Isosurfaces represent 3D regions of constant stress or strain values
• Time-history plots show how specific parameters change over time during dynamic analyses
• Cross-sectional views reveal internal stress distributions in 3D models
• Particle tracing visualizes fluid flow patterns in fluid-structure interaction analyses

Validation and Verification

Error Estimation and Accuracy Assessment

• Error estimation quantifies the reliability of computational results
• Sources of error include:
  • Discretization errors from finite element mesh
  • Numerical errors from solving equations
  • Modeling errors from simplifications and assumptions
• Convergence studies assess how results change with mesh refinement
• Sensitivity analyses determine the impact of input parameter variations on results

Comparison with Hand Calculations

• Hand calculations for simple cases validate computer-generated results
• Simplified models (beams, trusses) allow quick verification of key parameters
• Compare computer results with theoretical solutions for standard problems
• Identify discrepancies between hand calculations and computer results
  • Investigate sources of differences (modeling assumptions, boundary conditions)

Experimental Verification

• Physical testing provides real-world data to compare with computational results
• Strain gauge measurements validate stress predictions
• Deflection measurements verify deformation analysis
• Modal testing confirms natural frequencies and mode shapes
• Photoelasticity experiments visualize stress distributions for comparison
• Scale model testing allows verification of complex structures

Documentation

Comprehensive Reporting and Record-Keeping

• Document all aspects of the analysis process for transparency and reproducibility
• Include detailed model descriptions:
  • Geometry, material properties, boundary conditions
  • Loading scenarios and analysis types
  • Mesh details and element types
• Present results clearly with appropriate visualizations
  • Include legends, scales, and units for all plots
  • Provide context for interpreting results
• Discuss assumptions, limitations, and potential sources of error
• Compare results with design criteria and code requirements
• Summarize key findings and recommendations
• Maintain version control for model files and analysis scripts
• Archive input data, results, and reports for future reference