TY - GEN
T1 - Full-field identification methods
T2 - 2016 SEM International Congress and Exposition on Experimental and Applied Mechanics
AU - Ruybalid, A.P.
AU - Hoefnagels, J.P.M.
AU - van der Sluis, O.
AU - Geers, M.G.D.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Full-field identification methods are increasingly used to adequately identify constitutive parameters to describe the mechanical behavior of materials. This research investigates the more recently introduced, one-step method of Integrated Digital Image Correlation (IDIC) with respect to the most commonly used, two-step method of Finite Element Model Updating (FEMU), which uses a subset-based digital image correlation algorithm. To make the comparison as objective as possible, both methods are implemented in the most equivalent manner and use the same FE-model. Various virtual test-cases are studied to assess the performance of both methods when subjected to different error sources: (1) systematic errors, (2) poor initial guesses for the constitutive parameters, (3) image noise, (4) constitutive model errors, and (5) experimental errors. Results show that, despite the mathematical similarity of both methods, IDIC produces less erroneous and more reliable results than FEMU, particularly for more challenging test-cases exhibiting small displacements, complex kinematics, misalignment of the specimen, and image noise.
AB - Full-field identification methods are increasingly used to adequately identify constitutive parameters to describe the mechanical behavior of materials. This research investigates the more recently introduced, one-step method of Integrated Digital Image Correlation (IDIC) with respect to the most commonly used, two-step method of Finite Element Model Updating (FEMU), which uses a subset-based digital image correlation algorithm. To make the comparison as objective as possible, both methods are implemented in the most equivalent manner and use the same FE-model. Various virtual test-cases are studied to assess the performance of both methods when subjected to different error sources: (1) systematic errors, (2) poor initial guesses for the constitutive parameters, (3) image noise, (4) constitutive model errors, and (5) experimental errors. Results show that, despite the mathematical similarity of both methods, IDIC produces less erroneous and more reliable results than FEMU, particularly for more challenging test-cases exhibiting small displacements, complex kinematics, misalignment of the specimen, and image noise.
KW - Finite element model updating
KW - Full-field measurement
KW - Integrated digital image correlation
KW - Inverse methods
KW - Parameter identification
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988697932&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-41600-7_24
DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-41600-7_24
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84988697932
SN - 978-3-319-41599-4
T3 - Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series
SP - 191
EP - 197
BT - Advancement of Optical Methods in Experimental Mechanics, Volume 3
A2 - Yoshida, S.
A2 - Lamberti, L.
A2 - Siammarella, C.
PB - Springer
CY - Dordrecht
Y2 - 6 June 2016 through 9 June 2016
ER -