Solution + experimental benchmarks · evidence release 2

Benchmark Guide

7 executable engineering studies now include 3 comparisons with real measurements from DOI-linked primary papers. Every study retains its model declaration, discretization history, fixed acceptance rule, provenance, limitations, and unedited outcome.

7total studies
4solution benchmarks
3experimental benchmarks
7 PASS / 0 FAILrecorded outcomes
Evidence boundary: All recorded studies currently meet their predeclared screening thresholds. The empirical cases do not establish physical validation: their primary sources lack a complete combined uncertainty basis, and this repository did not independently preregister the comparisons before accessing the data. Physical validation therefore remains NOT_ESTABLISHED.

How to read this guide

Reference

Solution targets come from public standard reproductions or a DOI-linked benchmark paper. Experimental targets come from two CC BY primary papers and one versioned CC BY dataset; source values and hashes are recorded under benchmarks/data/.

Numerics

Every run records formulation, mesh, computed response, target, error, discrete equation residual, and environment in benchmarks/results.json.

Decision

Only the named selected run determines PASS/FAIL. Coarser runs expose discretization behavior; they are not averaged into a favorable result. No benchmark earns physical-validation credit.

NAFEMS T3 — one-dimensional transient heat transfer

PASS

BMK-NAFEMS-T3 · solution benchmark · transient heat conduction

External target reproduction and spatial-convergence study. Reference: The Standard NAFEMS Benchmarks, TNSB Rev. 3 (October 1990), T3.

Model

0.1 m bar; 0.01 m by 0.01 m cross-section

k=35 W/(m degC), rho=7200 kg/m^3, cp=440.5 J/(kg degC)

T(0,t)=0; T(0.1,t)=100 sin(pi t/40) degC; lateral adiabatic

Acceptance

20 field_line2 elements, dt=0.05 s

absolute relative error in the published target quantity; threshold 2%. The selected discrete equation residual must also be at most 1.0e-08.

Project qualification threshold fixed at 2% before execution; tighter than the 3.0% error reported for Abaqus's fine linear-element result on the public source page.

Reference target

T(0.08 m, 32 s) = 36.60 degC

The original NAFEMS target is cited through the publicly accessible Abaqus reproduction; the proprietary NAFEMS source was not consulted.

DiscretizationComputedTargetMax/reference errorEquation residual
element=field_line2, elements=5, nodes=6, characteristic size m=0.0240.9965736.612%1.036677e-13
element=field_line2, elements=10, nodes=11, characteristic size m=0.0137.4481236.62.32%9.848766e-14
element=field_line2, elements=20, nodes=21, characteristic size m=0.00536.7969136.60.538%9.442162e-14

Known deviations and limits

NAFEMS FV16 — cantilevered thin square plate

PASS

BMK-NAFEMS-FV16 · solution benchmark · plate free vibration

External six-mode frequency comparison and mesh study. Reference: The Standard NAFEMS Benchmarks, TNSB Rev. 3 (October 1990), FV16.

Model

10 m by 10 m square plate, thickness 0.05 m

E=200 GPa, nu=0.3, rho=8000 kg/m^3

Along x=0: transverse displacement uz=0 and rotation about y, ry=0; membrane DOFs are absent from the plate formulation.

Acceptance

12 by 12 MITC4 mesh

maximum absolute relative error across modes 1 through 6; threshold 5%. The selected discrete equation residual must also be at most 1.0e-08.

A 5% envelope was fixed before execution for all six modes; individual published Abaqus variants exceed this on higher modes, so failures are retained rather than mode-selected away.

Reference target

f1..f6 = [0.421, 1.029, 2.582, 3.306, 3.753, 6.555] Hz

The original NAFEMS targets are cited through the public Abaqus reproduction.

DiscretizationComputedTargetMax/reference errorEquation residual
element=mitc4, elements=16, nodes=25, divisions per side=40.421756, 1.04514, 2.93961, 3.59581, 4.21423, 7.510040.421, 1.029, 2.582, 3.306, 3.753, 6.55514.6%6.375112e-13
element=mitc4, elements=64, nodes=81, divisions per side=80.419062, 1.02976, 2.65639, 3.35688, 3.84666, 6.777140.421, 1.029, 2.582, 3.306, 3.753, 6.5553.39%2.135346e-13
element=mitc4, elements=144, nodes=169, divisions per side=120.418462, 1.02668, 2.6041, 3.31121, 3.77971, 6.635640.421, 1.029, 2.582, 3.306, 3.753, 6.5551.23%1.641217e-13

Known deviations and limits

NAFEMS FV52 — simply supported solid square plate

PASS

BMK-NAFEMS-FV52 · solution benchmark · three-dimensional solid free vibration

External seven-mode solid-element comparison. Reference: The Standard NAFEMS Benchmarks, TNSB Rev. 3 (October 1990), FV52.

Model

10 m by 10 m square solid plate, thickness 1.0 m

E=200 GPa, nu=0.3, rho=8000 kg/m^3

uz=0 on all four bottom-face edges (z=-0.5 m), matching the published problem statement

Acceptance

10 by 10 by 1 hex8i mesh (finest of the 6/8/10 convergence series)

maximum absolute relative error across the first seven elastic modes; threshold 10%. The selected discrete equation residual must also be at most 1.0e-08.

A 10% all-mode envelope was fixed before execution. The formulation now matches the published incompatible-mode elements; the finest mesh in the fixed convergence series meets the envelope. Neither the targets nor the threshold were changed.

Reference target

elastic modes = [44.092, 106.66, 106.66, 156.23, 193.58, 200.13, 200.13] Hz after three RBMs

The original NAFEMS targets are cited through the public Abaqus reproduction.

DiscretizationComputedTargetMax/reference errorEquation residual
element=hex8i, elements=36, nodes=98, in plane divisions=6, through thickness divisions=146.6384, 121.701, 121.701, 188.665, 199.221, 212.108, 212.10844.092, 106.66, 106.66, 156.23, 193.58, 200.13, 200.1320.8%9.203206e-16
element=hex8i, elements=64, nodes=162, in plane divisions=8, through thickness divisions=145.6326, 115.038, 115.038, 176.386, 196.773, 209.566, 209.56644.092, 106.66, 106.66, 156.23, 193.58, 200.13, 200.1312.9%1.416452e-15
element=hex8i, elements=100, nodes=242, in plane divisions=10, through thickness divisions=145.1277, 112.059, 112.059, 170.997, 195.635, 208.341, 208.34144.092, 106.66, 106.66, 156.23, 193.58, 200.13, 200.139.45%2.177294e-15
Closed gap. The earlier FAIL came from the fully integrated trilinear hex8, which locks in bending. Replacing it with the incompatible-mode hex8i brick — the same formulation as the reference Abaqus C3D8I result, independently verified by a distorted-mesh constant-strain patch test (~1e-13) and a slender cantilever recovering Euler-beam tip deflection to 0.3% — brings the worst mode within the unchanged 10% envelope at the finest mesh of the fixed 6/8/10 convergence series (20.8% → 12.9% → 9.5%). No target and no tolerance were changed.

Known deviations and limits

Scordelis–Lo cylindrical roof

PASS

BMK-MH-SCORD-LO · solution benchmark · thin-shell membrane/bending coupling

Published shell benchmark and mesh-convergence study. Reference: R. H. MacNeal and R. L. Harder, A Proposed Standard Set of Problems to Test Finite Element Accuracy, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 1 (1985) 3–20, Scordelis–Lo roof.

Model

quarter model; R=25, L=50, t=0.25, 40 degree half-angle

E=4.32e8, nu=0

symmetry and rigid-diaphragm constraints used by the established quarter-model benchmark

Acceptance

12 by 12 quarter mesh

absolute relative error in free-edge displacement; threshold 2%. The selected discrete equation residual must also be at most 1.0e-08.

The pre-existing project qualification threshold is 2%; this study exposes the full 4/8/12 mesh history rather than only the accepted endpoint.

Reference target

free-edge vertical displacement = 0.3024

Direct DOI-linked publication.

DiscretizationComputedTargetMax/reference errorEquation residual
element=shell4, elements=16, nodes=25, quarter mesh=4 by 40.29810370.30241.42%1.293113e-12
element=shell4, elements=64, nodes=81, quarter mesh=8 by 80.2991830.30241.06%6.034572e-12
element=shell4, elements=144, nodes=169, quarter mesh=12 by 120.30133980.30240.351%1.657247e-11

Known deviations and limits

Loh et al. cantilevers - static-to-dynamic cross-response

PASS

BMK-EXP-LOH-DIC-CANTILEVER · experimental benchmark · cantilever structural dynamics

Predict measured modal frequency using modulus inferred from the paper's separate static-deflection response. Reference: Loh et al., An Integrated Approach for the Determination of Young's Modulus of a Cantilever Beam Using Finite Element Analysis and the Digital Image Correlation (DIC) Technique, Electronics 11 (2022) 2826, Table 4, steel/aluminum/brass.

Model

three 600 mm effective-length rectangular cantilevers, 19 mm wide and 3.3 mm thick

Table 4 static moduli Es=[175.5, 66.7, 82.0] GPa and densities=[8195, 2700, 8170] kg/m^3

ideal fixed clamp at x=0; free at x=0.600 m

Acceptance

16 beam2d elements per specimen

maximum absolute relative error across all three measured first frequencies; threshold 8%. The selected discrete equation residual must also be at most 1.0e-08.

An 8% all-material engineering-screening envelope was fixed before executing the engine. It was not derived from the computed errors and is not a formal uncertainty bound.

Reference target

measured f1 = [7.0, 7.2, 4.8] Hz

Geometry, densities, static-test moduli, and measured frequencies are transcribed from the DOI-linked paper; the paper is CC BY 4.0.

DiscretizationComputedTargetMax/reference errorEquation residual
element=beam2d, elements per specimen=4, nodes per specimen=56.85283, 7.36015, 4.691397, 7.2, 4.82.26%2.444871e-17
element=beam2d, elements per specimen=8, nodes per specimen=96.85262, 7.35993, 4.691257, 7.2, 4.82.27%1.09006e-17
element=beam2d, elements per specimen=16, nodes per specimen=176.85261, 7.35991, 4.691247, 7.2, 4.82.27%1.126368e-16
Experimental benchmark, not physical validation. This study compares the engine with measurements, but receives no physical-validation credit because the source and protocol do not meet every uncertainty, independence, and preregistration control in the validation gate.

Known deviations and limits

Turkay single-profile wood cantilever modes

PASS

BMK-EXP-TURKAY-WOOD-MODES · experimental benchmark · orthotropic beam structural dynamics

Compare an uncalibrated literature-property beam model with five measured modes. Reference: Turkay, Determination of Dynamic Characteristics of Composite Cantilever Beams Using Experimental and Analytical Methods, Buildings 15 (2025) 1608, single-profile wood specimen W, Tables 3 and 5.

Model

1.00 m long rectangular wood profile, 30 mm wide by 10 mm high

longitudinal E1=10,100 MPa and density=600 kg/m^3 from the paper's initial analytical model

ideal fixed clamp at one end; free at the other

Acceptance

20 beam2d elements

maximum absolute relative error across measured modes 1 through 5; threshold 10%. The selected discrete equation residual must also be at most 1.0e-08.

A 10% five-mode engineering-screening envelope was fixed before engine execution to accommodate the explicitly unmodeled connection and orthotropic/shear detail. It is not a measurement-uncertainty interval.

Reference target

measured modes 1-5 = [6.410, 41.090, 114.700, 221.100, 353.600] Hz

Dimensions, literature properties, test method, and modal frequencies are transcribed from the CC BY 4.0 primary paper.

DiscretizationComputedTargetMax/reference errorEquation residual
element=beam2d, elements=5, nodes=66.62783, 41.5561, 116.718, 230.574, 382.6966.41, 41.09, 114.7, 221.1, 353.68.23%2.614341e-17
element=beam2d, elements=10, nodes=116.62774, 41.5367, 116.33, 228.119, 377.6886.41, 41.09, 114.7, 221.1, 353.66.81%3.075201e-17
element=beam2d, elements=20, nodes=216.62774, 41.5354, 116.302, 227.916, 376.8026.41, 41.09, 114.7, 221.1, 353.66.56%1.088192e-16
Experimental benchmark, not physical validation. This study compares the engine with measurements, but receives no physical-validation credit because the source and protocol do not meet every uncertainty, independence, and preregistration control in the validation gate.

Known deviations and limits

Tomanek and Stutts Al6061 transient cooling - held-out repeats

PASS

BMK-EXP-TOMANEK-AL6061 · experimental benchmark · transient heat conduction with lateral convection

Apply run-1 fitted properties unchanged to two held-out physical repeats and predict 3,010 temperature observations. Reference: Tomanek and Stutts, Data on the Validation to Determine the Material Thermal Properties Estimation Via a One-Dimensional Transient Convection Model, Data in Brief 40 (2022) 107632, Al6061-T6, nominal 100 C tests 100al1/2/3.

Model

150 mm long, 3.175 mm diameter Al6061-T6 cylindrical rod

rho=2767.99 kg/m^3, cp=896 J/(kg K), and run-1 fitted k=148.7127419669693 W/(m K)

measured TC1 history prescribed at x=0; distributed lateral Robin convection h=139.008276375768 W/(m^2 K) to zero excess temperature; adiabatic far end

Acceptance

60 field_line2 elements, dt=1 s, 301 samples per repeat

maximum relative L2 history error across TC2-TC6 in each of two held-out repeats; threshold 10%. The selected discrete equation residual must also be at most 1.0e-08.

A 10% per-sensor held-out history envelope was fixed before engine execution. It is a screening criterion, not a combined experimental/model uncertainty interval.

Reference target

TC2-TC6 excess-temperature histories, t=0..300 s, in 100al2 and 100al3

The CC BY 4.0 Mendeley dataset supplies the raw CSV files and the official workbook supplies the run-1 fitted h and k. The curated held-out CSV is SHA-256 checked at runtime.

DiscretizationComputedTargetMax/reference errorEquation residual
element=field_line2, elements=15, nodes=16, dt s=1.057.672, 40.8424, 28.9324, 20.4968, 14.5249, 58.8936, 41.6963, 29.5258, 20.9151, 14.8259.39, 42.08, 30.35, 22.07, 14.2, 60.63, 42.95, 31.02, 22.56, 14.597.64%9.012978e-12
element=field_line2, elements=30, nodes=31, dt s=1.057.7528, 40.9502, 29.044, 20.6028, 14.6189, 58.9648, 41.803, 29.6413, 21.0235, 14.91659.39, 42.08, 30.35, 22.07, 14.2, 60.63, 42.95, 31.02, 22.56, 14.597.14%2.474939e-11
element=field_line2, elements=60, nodes=61, dt s=1.057.7729, 40.9766, 29.0718, 20.629, 14.6422, 58.982, 41.8295, 29.6698, 21.0504, 14.939859.39, 42.08, 30.35, 22.07, 14.2, 60.63, 42.95, 31.02, 22.56, 14.597.02%4.851276e-11
Experimental benchmark, not physical validation. This study compares the engine with measurements, but receives no physical-validation credit because the source and protocol do not meet every uncertainty, independence, and preregistration control in the validation gate.

Known deviations and limits

Reproduce

python -m benchmarks.suite

The command intentionally exits nonzero while any selected qualification study fails. For report generation after a known failure, the JSON result is still written first.