It is now commonplace for engineers to build mathematical models of the systems they are designing, building, or testing. And, it is nearly universally accepted that phenomenological models of physical systems must be validated prior to use for prediction in consequential scenarios. Yet, there are certain situations in which testing only or no testing and no modeling may be economically viable alternatives to modeling and its associated testing. This paper develops an economic framework within which benefit–cost can be evaluated for modeling and model validation relative to other options. The development is presented in terms of a challenge problem. As a result, we provide a numerical example that quantifies when modeling, calibration, and validation yield higher benefit–cost than a testing only or no modeling and no testing option.
In this discussion paper, we explore different ways to assess the value of verification and validation (V&V) of engineering models. We first present a literature review on the value of V&V and then use value chains and decision trees to show how value can be assessed from a decision maker's perspective. In this context, the value is what the decision maker is willing to pay for V&V analysis with the understanding that the V&V results are uncertain. As a result, the 2014 Sandia V&V Challenge Workshop is used to illustrate these ideas.
Accurate material models are fundamental to predictive structural finite element models. Because potting foams are routinely used to mitigate shock and vibration of encapsulated components in electro/mechanical systems, accurate material models of foams are needed. A linear-viscoelastic foam constitutive model has been developed to represent the foam's stiffness and damping throughout an application space defined by temperature, strain rate or frequency and strain level. Validation of this linear-viscoelastic model, which is integrated into the Salinas structural dynamics code, is being achieved by modeling and testing a series of structural geometries of increasing complexity that have been designed to ensure sensitivity to material parameters. Both experimental and analytical uncertainties are being quantified to ensure the fair assessment of model validity. Quantitative model validation metrics are being developed to provide a means of comparison for analytical model predictions to observations made in the experiments. This paper is one of several recent papers documenting the validation process for simple to complex structures with foam encapsulated components. This paper specifically focuses on model validation over a wide temperature range and using a simple dumbbell structure for modal testing and simulation. Material variations of density and modulus have been included. A double blind validation process is described that brings together test data with model predictions.
A detailed model validation study has been initiated to assess model predictions of foam encapsulated components. A bottom-up experimental approach has been used to first characterize the foam material, and then characterize foam/component interaction within increasingly complex systems. This paper presents a summary of the model validation approach at component and benchmark levels and details specific issues identified at the subsystem validation level. Specifically, manufacturing process issues were identified in the hardware which precluded continued validation. A summary of the modal data is given and the issues relating to the manufacturing process are discussed.