Rory,
Thanks for the link. It explains much.
It seems that "Verification & Validation" are two relatively new buzzwords that entered the Engineering arena in the last generation or so (~20+ years) with the increased use of Computer Aided Engineering. Given that much of the use of CAE these days, such as, say, the space-frame designs in FS/FSAE, is such a debacle, it is no surprise to see these buzzwords being so abused.
The linked document, the work of ~30 experts for over five years (!), shows just how far standards have fallen. Some brief examples.
1. Title has "Guide for [V&V]..." in bold large font, with "Overview" in a lighter font, making it less obvious that the document is only a summary.
2. My quick scan of the Overview found quite a few obvious typos, which is hardly encouraging for a document purporting to "... help establish confidence in the results of complex numerical simulations." and to "... develop standards for assessing the correctness and credibility of ...".
3. Even though this "Overview" is apparently fully half the length of the actual "Guide" itself, and that it says
"The [Guide...] ends with a Glossary, which perhaps should be reviewed before venturing into the main body of the text. The Glossary section is viewed as a significant contribution to the effort to standardize the V&V language so all interested participants are conversing in a meaningful manner.",
the Overview itself contains NO Glossary!
What has modern society got against CLEAR DEFINITIONS!!!
Well, here is a clue. A bit further into the Overview we find this pearl.
"Much of V&V is not a ‘hard’ science, which is the bread-and-butter of most of computational mechanics, but more a ‘soft’ science like the philosophy of science, where differing points of view have merit, and need not be evaluated as either right or wrong."
Aaaarggghhh....!!!!!
More of the "There are no right or wrongs, everyone's opinion is equally valid, so all the kiddies get a gold-star..." CODSWALLOP that the education system has been peddling for at least two generations now.
No wonder so few FS teams can build "...a small car that carries one person 30 kilometres...".
~~~o0o~~~
Which gets us back to Danny's "hand calc", which is in no way a "validation" of anything, even by the sloppy definition given by the ASME (p7 of above Overview). It is more like the spiel given by the soap salesman who tells us "...it is guaranteed to wash up to 95% brighter...".
And back to Danny's much repeated claim that the Chassis-Sim computer simulation was "..crucial in making the decision...", when the same result came out of a "hand calc".
~~~o0o~~~
Ahh, standards! Spiralling down the S-bend at an ever faster rate...
Z
 |
|
|
Reply With Quote