# Validation against ISO 10211-2017 **URL:** \ **Category:** General Questions\ **Created:** [May 9, 2026, 7:59am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3467 "2026-05-09T07:59:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 16
**Author:** ![CosmoKramer](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/cosmokramer/32/6636_2.png) [@CosmoKramer](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/CosmoKramer)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2026, 9:59am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3467/16 "2026-05-12T09:59:08Z")
> [@MisiaKu](#): > > The mesh in the models you shared is too fine. I opened the first model. The FEM mesh should be as coarse as possible to demonstrate the maximum error of the results. The point isn’t to demonstrate maximum error. It’s to see if the software could get results that fall within the allowed margin of error. This was only possible through a mesh size of 5 mm. > [@MisiaKu](#): > > Proving minimal error and maximum accuracy is unnecessary, because in real engineering work nobody has that much time. Excessive mesh refinement makes it more difficult to identify errors: This isn’t ‘real engineering work’. It’s a standard that has to be followed if we were to say that PrePoMax/CalculiX is validated against ISO 10211-2017. Plus when you want to use a software for engineering/academic work, it has to be validated against some standard. COMSOL, HEAT2&3, Mecway, SimScale, QuickField, FEMAP, and WUFI all use ISO 10211. You should aim for a scientific balance between accuracy and time/resources. Saying “I don’t have time” isn’t good practice, and a lot of engineering catastrophes happened because people were trying to save time/resources --- _[View the full topic](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/validation-against-iso-10211-2017/3467)._