# Comparing results of a real experiment, FEA software, and IDEA StatiCa

$$Thanks to the close cooperation with the University of Technology in Brno and the company PEEM, we got a chance to validate and verify the application IDEA StatiCa Detail using the unique CSFM calculation method (Compatible Stress Field Method) with a real experiment.The experiment has been performed on the reinforced corbel strengthened by unbonded tendons. The analysis results such as stress in the concrete, the stress in the reinforcement, and deflection have been compared with the experiment outputs.And, we did not stop just by that. The results have been additionally verified in the commercial software midas FEA as well, using the smeared crack model. Stress in reinforcements (IDEA StatiCa Detail – CSFM)All three verification approaches reported very similar values in all monitored parameters. Also, the visual outputs of both software – IDEA StatiCa Detail and MIDAS FEA proved their calculation methods provide very comparable results. But, there is one important difference in comparison of all analysis types we should mention. While the analysis of all mentioned parameters took several hours in FEA software and a couple of days of experiments and measuring in the laboratory, we got almost precisely comparable results in just a few minutes with IDEA StatiCa.Interested in details of this experiment and comparison? Read the full Research paper related to this experiment: Verification and validation of corbels strengthened by unbonded tendons and bars We would like to challenge all our users – put our software to the test, compare our results with your hand calculations or other software analysis, and share with us your comparisons, results, and findings. We are keen to hear from you, how IDEA StatiCa worked for you, what differences or similarities you found. And of course, if there is a feature or function you are missing in IDEA StatiCa, we are eager to hear it.$$