comparison of virtual fields method, parallel network material model and finite element updating for material parameter determination

Clicks: 4
ID: 200356
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #198 of 821 articles by views in BMC Bioinformatics

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 821 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Extracting material parameters from test specimens is very intensive in terms of cost and time, especially for viscoelastic material models, where the parameters are dependent of time (frequency), temperature and environmental conditions. Therefore, three different methods for extracting these parameters were tested. Firstly, digital image correlation combined with virtual fields method, secondly, a parallel network material model and thirdly, finite element updating. These three methods are shown and the results are compared in terms of accuracy and experimental effort.
Reference Key
dirisamer2016actacomparison Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Florian Dirisamer;Umut D. Çakmak;Imre Kállai;Martín Machado;Zoltán Major
Journal BMC Bioinformatics
Year 2016
DOI
10.14311/APP.2017.7.0007
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.