> ... to calibrate/verfify CFD and FEA models rather
> than to predict stuff in actual operation -
> now this is smart
Seems a little like the tail wagging the dog, huh?
There is a certain logic to it, though. I've been
thru a few interior monument analysis and testing
programs. ~If~ we could show reasonable correlation
we could (and it was usually the case) show the
majority of the installations good by analysis and
forgo testing for those units.
Analysis modeling is so saturated with simplifications
and idealizations it's more of a black art than science,
at least at my level of comprehension and application.
I've no idea how the 'real guys' do it. Guess your
comments are indicative; there's still a ways to go.
> than to predict stuff in actual operation -
> now this is smart
Seems a little like the tail wagging the dog, huh?
There is a certain logic to it, though. I've been
thru a few interior monument analysis and testing
programs. ~If~ we could show reasonable correlation
we could (and it was usually the case) show the
majority of the installations good by analysis and
forgo testing for those units.
Analysis modeling is so saturated with simplifications
and idealizations it's more of a black art than science,
at least at my level of comprehension and application.
I've no idea how the 'real guys' do it. Guess your
comments are indicative; there's still a ways to go.