Automating Code Checking in Structural Engineering Projects

An FEA run ends with a field of stresses and displacements. That field, on its own, says nothing about whether the structure passes code. To reach a verdict, the engineer converts solver output into dimensionless utilization ratios and compares them against the governing standard. For every member, every panel, every weld, every bolt. Under every structural engineering design load combination.

This step is the code check, and it usually happens by hand, outside the modeling environment, in spreadsheets or standalone documents. What follows is why manual code checking becomes the bottleneck of an analysis project, and which parts of it actually lend themselves to automation.

Why the code check sits apart from the structural engineering solver

The solver produces a field of results whose reliability depends on the mesh, the boundary conditions, and the post-processing method. Nowhere in that field is a code verdict. Turning stress into a utilization ratio is itself a structural engineering procedure, tied to a specific standard.

What gets checked depends on the element type. Members need stability and the combined action of axial force with bending. Shell fields need plate buckling. Connections need weld strength, bolt checks, and fatigue. Eurocode 3 splits these requirements across parts: EN 1993-1-1 covers general member rules, EN 1993-1-5 handles plate buckling, EN 1993-1-8 covers joints, and EN 1993-1-9 covers fatigue. AISC 360 folds the same logic into interaction equations for combined loading. Every check resolves to a single number, a utilization ratio that must stay at or below unity.

Where manual checking falls short

• Start with volume. A Eurocode-based project generates hundreds of load combinations, and for a linear buckling analysis, the count often runs past 600. No one can inspect each by hand, so engineers fall back on envelopes. An envelope hides local critical zones. An HEA 280 beam passes strength under every individual load, yet the combination of wind and crane load drives its utilization to 1.18 for buckling in the YZ plane. Without scanning the full set, that case goes unnoticed.
• Then there is the broken link to the model. A structural engineering spreadsheet export captures one moment in time. Change the geometry or the boundary conditions, and the check data is instantly stale, with decisions running on numbers that no longer hold. Classification societies require traceability: a report has to show that the code formula was applied correctly, and nested Excel macros do not meet that bar.
• The third problem is error accumulation. Independent industry estimates put the manual error rate at one to three percent per calculation, and across hundreds of checks, that fraction compounds. A single plate buckling check to EN 1993-1-5 takes four separate steps: pull the right stress field, identify the panel boundary conditions, find the buckling coefficient, and compute the reduction factor. Repeat for every panel under every governing combination.
• Finally, documentation. The report is a legal document for certification. Assembled by hand, screenshots go out of date, tables are rebuilt from scratch each iteration, and errors in stress categorization send the report back for revision. Two or three revision cycles add weeks to the schedule.

What automation takes on

Structural engineering automated code checking breaks into three technical stages.

• The first is element recognition. Topology algorithms cluster nodes and finite elements back into engineering entities. Collinear elements merge into a single member, so buckling length is computed over the whole member, exactly as Eurocode 3 and AISC 360 require. Shell fields between stiffeners become panels, each with its dimensions, thickness, and stress state. Connection nodes get flagged for fatigue assessment. Group the elements wrong, and the utilization ratios lose all meaning, no matter how accurate the formulas are.
• Load combinations come next. For linear analyses, combinations can be generated by linear superposition without rerunning the solver. An envelope scan across thousands of combinations extracts the governing case for each element. An unlikely scenario, north wind on an empty tank with seismic action, gets identified as critical wherever it actually governs, and no one has to guess the right set of combinations in advance.
• The last stage covers code logic and reporting. Digitized formulas stay traceable from the FEA input (axial and bending stress pulled from the results) through to the structural engineering utilization ratio and the code clause behind it. FEA software such as SDC Verifier runs all three stages automatically, and the report regenerates whenever the model changes: element context, governing load, the formula with real numbers, and the verdict. The check itself runs either in SDC Verifier standalone  with a built-in Nastran solver or as an extension for Ansys Mechanical, Femap, or Simcenter 3D, working from the same analysis model.

The same engine covers different industries: offshore, maritime, heavy lifting, energy, and oil & gas. For example, weld fatigue on an offshore platform runs on S-N curves and hot spot stress, the service life of a crane bridge on the loading spectra of EN 13001-3-1, and deck plate buckling on DNV-RP-C201, apart from the other 60+ standards.

From a failed structural engineering check to section sizing

A failed check rarely ends the work. A ratio above unity means the element has to change, and this is where automation moves from checking to sizing. Plate thickness, weld type, or cross-section profile are iterated until the ratio drops below unity, with minimum weight as the objective. The link to the model keeps the loop short: after a section change, recognition and checks run again, with no manual rebuild from scratch. Automation reaches past verification into the design process itself, cutting the number of iterations between analyst and designer.

What stays with the engineer

Automation removes the data transfer and the arithmetic. It does not remove the responsibility. The numerical result belongs to the engineer. The software vendor does not answer for it. Switching a model from linear-elastic to plastic is one click in the interface, but behind that click sits a different mathematical model with different assumptions.

The tool will compute ratios against whatever code and edition it is given. Choosing the standard, its current edition (EN 1993-1-9 was revised in 2025, DNV-RP-C203 was updated in October 2024), and interpreting the boundary conditions remain engineering decisions. Automation compresses the check cycle and strips out manual transfer errors, but a person still sets the method.

What the structural engineering project gains

The main effect is a shift in where time goes. With element recognition, combination scanning, and report assembly automated, the engineer spends hours on analysis decisions instead of moving numbers into tables. A cycle that once turned a model edit into weeks of report rework comes down to a rerun that takes minutes.

The second effect is traceability. Every utilization ratio ties back to a load combination and a code clause, so third-party review by a classification society moves faster, and the report itself defends the design in legal terms.

The market reflects the shift. Mordor Intelligence values the FEA software segment at USD 7.82 billion in 2026, growing at roughly 13,5% a year, with structural analysis holding more than half of it.

The end goal of the code check does not move: show that the structure meets the codes, and back it with a document that survives independent review. Automation lowers the cost and time of getting there, while the method and the responsibility stay with the engineer.