# Verification Manual **URL:** \ **Category:** Feature Requests\ **Created:** [December 2, 2023, 4:44am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305 "2023-12-02T04:44:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![m\_farrokh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aca169/32.png) [@m\_farrokh](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/m_farrokh)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2023, 4:44am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305/1 "2023-12-02T04:44:49Z")
Hi PrePoMax is a very easy-to-use FEA package. It gradually finds its place in engineering communities. However, it lacks a verification manual that most of the commercial software has. It would be a good idea to create a verification manual for PrePoMax. The users can effectively contribute to this if there is an organized procedure. ---
**Author:** ![synt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/synt/32/4658_2.png) [@synt](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/synt)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2023, 7:44am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305/2 "2023-12-02T07:44:52Z")
it seems using “Example Problems” terms can be more appropriates. “Verification and Validation” are complex and should be in the solver of CalculiX not the pre-post processor. both of the sentences can be similar when target values are available. However, verification and validation required to clearly explained even for small discrepancy in digit number of results. Expanded beam and shell element in CalculiX can not be verified or validates with classical formulation, but possible to be compared. ---
**Author:** ![FEAnalyst](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/feanalyst/32/688_2.png) [@FEAnalyst](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/FEAnalyst)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2023, 8:30am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305/3 "2023-12-02T08:30:33Z")
The thing is that PrePoMax is just a pre- and postprocessor for CalculiX so such benchmark/verification manuals can make more sense for CalculiX. You can find some example problems here: [GitHub - calculix/CalculiX-Examples: CalculiX examples by Prof. Martin Kraska from Brandenburg University of Applied Sciences. Excellent starting point to master parametric modelling with CGX and CCX.](https://github.com/calculix/CalculiX-Examples) ---
**Author:** ![Matej](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a698b9/32.png) [@Matej](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/Matej)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2023, 10:04am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305/4 "2023-12-02T10:04:06Z")
I agree that PrePoMax is only a pre/post, but there ara also some features that are not directly supported by CalculiX like surface traction load. So maybe a library of simple cases could be prepared. ---
**Author:** ![synt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/synt/32/4658_2.png) [@synt](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/synt)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2023, 1:02pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305/5 "2023-12-02T13:02:24Z")
> [@Matej](#): > > library of simple cases it seems to be right, contributors are less in restriction or limitation. This is needed to place at dedicated Categories. Some recommendation is in availability of both CAD and PMX files to check, study further in mesh, element type and boundary schemes. However, is this not a problem can occur in storage someday? or should it be placed out there such as GitHub. ---
**Author:** ![i\_rokach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cdc98d/32.png) [@i\_rokach](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/i_rokach)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 9:06am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305/6 "2023-12-03T09:06:08Z")
I am afraid it would be quite difficult to create an easy to use library of PMX files just now. At the moment PMX files are not backward compatible. So most files created for version N of the program would not be read properly by the next version. In my opinion it is the main problem of the PrePoMax now. ---
**Author:** ![Matej](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a698b9/32.png) [@Matej](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/Matej)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 6:39pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305/7 "2023-12-03T18:39:33Z")
> [@i\_rokach](#): > > At the moment PMX files are not backward compatible I agree with this. But I am really trying to make old files compatible so I think there are not many problems opening older files in newer versions. ---
**Author:** ![m\_farrokh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aca169/32.png) [@m\_farrokh](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/m_farrokh)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 2:15am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305/8 "2023-12-04T02:15:38Z")
Doing such a thing needs to be organized. For instance, each example should have a specification sheet that includes the problem description, input data, target results, PrePoMax version, etc. ---
**Author:** ![lucas\_bueno](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/lucas_bueno/32/1168_2.png) [@lucas\_bueno](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/lucas_bueno)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 2:19am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305/9 "2023-12-04T02:19:28Z")
> [@Matej](#): > > So maybe a library of simple cases could be prepared. Most of the validations I’ve conducted for CCX (at least one for each type of analysis I needed to work with) used PrePoMax as pre/post processor, except for those requiring 1D beams. If you want to progress with this idea, I would gladly contribute to it. Also, the amazing videos from @FEAnalyst are now the main repository of validation for CCX and PrePoMax for pre/post-processing, it would be very nice to cite them in this library/documentation. ---
**Author:** ![synt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/synt/32/4658_2.png) [@synt](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/synt)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 1:07pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/verification-manual/1305/10 "2023-12-04T13:07:06Z")
there’s good example related for references in [SAP2000 Test Problems](https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/tp/SAP2000) however, even target value is available still not recommended to use “Verification and Validation” terms since it may lead to wrong conclusions. As i know, opensource FE (Non Linear) software is a different cause of no direct connection of tester or user with developer. Validation and verification should provide or responsible by code contributors and mostly available in report document.