16 October 2018 at 17 h 43 min #12232EleonoraParticipant
- University of Verona
Hi SOFA community!
I know that some people have tried to validate some SOFA implementations during the past years, but the works remained isolated and not shared within the community.
It would be nice to collect the attempts that people have made in this direction, so that we could benefit from each others works, and align our efforts for further validation.
For example, I am interested in the validation of force field implementations, and I would be happy to contribute for this.
I would suggest to collect any work you are aware of/interested in or any comments below.
Eleonora17 October 2018 at 11 h 39 min #12235IgorParticipant
I have done some work on validation: basically comparing several forcefields in SOFA w.r.t. a real experiment with a phantom and simulation in Abaqus and FEBio.
I’ve created several slides which I put online:
In any case, the validation was quite preliminary, done only for 1 scenario (cylinder under gravity) and the comparison was done only using the resulting geometry. Anyway, there were already numerous interesting findings concerning forcefields, solvers and other SOFA components.
The bottom line was that I reproduced, with quite a small error, the deformation of the real cylinder and those computed by in Abaqus and FEBio. At the same time, it was possible only with a careful choice of SOFA components.
I’d be happy to share more details if people are interested.
ip20 December 2018 at 10 h 06 min #12631Damien MarchalParticipant
- CNRS/Defrost Team
Despite I have no time to contribute on such topic I found it very interesting. Thanks for the slides.
Regards.5 June 2019 at 15 h 15 min #13577NouraParticipant
It is always an interesting topic.
In a simple simulation scenario, I applied a linear tensile force on a deformable object in the direction of its main axis. Using a Neo-Hookean behavior model, I noticed that the deformation is influenced by the number and size of elements (tetrahedrons).
However, it is possible to control the resolution of simple geometries if there is a ground truth to compare to, but it becomes a challenge in case of small detailed shapes with the absence of a ground truth.
Any observations regarding the choice of the resolution would be appreciated!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.