Department of Archaeology, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
J Biomech. 2012 May 11;45(8):1498-506. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.02.009. Epub 2012 Feb 28.
The techniques used to validate finite element (FE) models against experimental results have changed little during the last decades, even though the traditional approach of using single point measurements from strain gauges has major limitations: the strain distribution across the surface is not captured and the accurate determination of strain gauge positions on the model surface is difficult if the 3D surface topography of the bone surface is not measured. The full-field strain measurement technique of digital speckle pattern interferometry (DSPI) can overcome these problems, but the potential of this technique has not yet been fully exploited in validation studies. Here we explore new ways of quantifying and visualising the variation in strain magnitudes and orientations within and between repeated DSPI measurements as well as between the DSPI measurements and FEA results. We show that our approach provides a much more comprehensive and accurate validation than traditional methods. The measurement repeatability and the correspondence between measured and predicted strains vary to a great degree within and between measurement areas. The two models used in this study predict the measured strain directions and magnitudes surprisingly well considering that homogeneous and isotropic mechanical properties were assigned to the models. However, the full-field comparisons also reveal some discrepancies between measured and predicted strains that are most probably caused by inaccuracies in the models' geometries and the degree of simplification of the modelled material properties.
几十年来,尽管传统的使用应变计单点测量来验证有限元(FE)模型的方法存在重大局限性,但验证 FE 模型的技术几乎没有变化:应变分布无法在表面上捕获,如果没有测量骨骼表面的 3D 表面形貌,则很难准确确定模型表面上应变计的位置。数字散斑干涉测量技术(DSPI)的全场应变测量技术可以克服这些问题,但该技术在验证研究中的潜力尚未得到充分利用。在这里,我们探索了新的方法来量化和可视化在重复的 DSPI 测量以及 DSPI 测量与 FEA 结果之间的应变幅度和方向的变化。我们表明,我们的方法提供了比传统方法更全面和准确的验证。在测量区域内和之间,测量重复性以及测量应变与预测应变之间的对应关系差异很大。考虑到模型分配了均匀各向同性的力学性能,本研究中使用的两个模型对测量应变方向和幅度的预测非常准确。然而,全场比较还揭示了一些测量应变与预测应变之间的差异,这些差异很可能是由于模型的几何形状不准确和建模材料性能的简化程度造成的。