# Validation against ISO 10211-2017 **URL:** \ **Category:** Examples/Tutorials\ **Created:** [May 12, 2026, 6:45pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3942 "2026-05-12T18:45:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CosmoKramer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@CosmoKramer](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/CosmoKramer)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2026, 6:45pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3942/1 "2026-05-12T18:45:22Z")
Hey folks – wanted to alert you to a thread I started on the [PrePoMax discourse](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3467/16) about validating CalculiX against ISO 10211. TLDR: It passed all test cases, so now we can say that CalculiX is validated against ISO 10211-2017. Other programmes that passed the standard include: COMSOL, HEAT2&3, Mecway, SimScale, QuickField, FEMAP, and WUFI. ---
**Author:** ![Calc\_em](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Calc\_em](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Calc_em)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2026, 6:50pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3942/2 "2026-05-12T18:50:08Z")
@Durbul and @dhondt Perhaps this could be added to the documentation or website ? Most FEM solvers have published validation/benchmark problems. To share the files, we would likely need to reduce the mesh size to the necessary minimum (using quads and hexahedrons), extract input decks and clean them up. ---
**Author:** ![Durbul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8dc957/32.png) [@Durbul](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Durbul)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2026, 6:52am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3942/3 "2026-05-13T06:52:41Z")
Thanks for setting up these validation examples and sharing the results. It’s good to hear that all test cases could be passed. ---
**Author:** ![rsmith](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/calculix.discourse.group/rsmith/32/1684_2.png) [@rsmith](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/rsmith)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2026, 6:00pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3942/4 "2026-05-13T18:00:43Z")
Is there a related standard for mechanical static analysis that you know of? There is the “Benchmark of LS-DYNA for Off-Shore Applications according to DNV Recommended Practice C208”. I tried Example 1 from that report and got similar results as reported. There is also [https://www.simscale.com/docs/validation-cases/](https://www.simscale.com/docs/validation-cases/). I’ve done the following tests from that: - Fixed beam under gravitational load (Case B and D) - Circular shaft under torque load - I-beam under remote load - Elastoplastic notched plate All of the results showed good agreement with the reference solutions. ---
**Author:** ![Calc\_em](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Calc\_em](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Calc_em)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2026, 6:19pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3942/5 "2026-05-13T18:19:06Z")
> [@rsmith](#): > > Is there a related standard for mechanical static analysis that you know of? NAFEMS benchmarks are the most common. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/1X/585101882c755739879976b8eb290d82b0d084ef.png) [@system](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2026, 5:07pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3942/6 "2026-06-08T17:07:05Z")
---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/1X/585101882c755739879976b8eb290d82b0d084ef.png) [@system](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2026, 5:56pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3942/7 "2026-06-08T17:56:10Z")