4.6 Article

The sensitivity of biological finite element models to the resolution of surface geometry: a case study of crocodilian crania

期刊

PEERJ
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.988

关键词

Finite element analysis; Biomechanics; Resolution; Skull; Sensitivity

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant
  2. Australian Research Fellowship
  3. Joyce W. Vickery Scientific Research Fund
  4. Museum Victoria 1854 student scholarship
  5. Monash University internal funding
  6. Division Of Earth Sciences
  7. Directorate For Geosciences [1258878] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reliability of finite element analysis (FEA) in biomechanical investigations depends upon understanding the influence of model assumptions. In producing finite element models, surface mesh resolution is influenced by the resolution of input geometry, and influences the resolution of the ensuing solid mesh used for numerical analysis. Despite a large number of studies incorporating sensitivity studies of the effects of solid mesh resolution there has not yet been any investigation into the effect of surface mesh resolution upon results in a comparative context. Here we use a dataset of crocodile crania to examine the effects of surface resolution on FEA results in a comparative context. Seven high-resolution surface meshes were each down-sampled to varying degrees while keeping the resulting number of solid elements constant. These models were then subjected to bite and shake load cases using finite element analysis. The results show that incremental decreases in surface resolution can result in fluctuations in strain magnitudes, but that it is possible to obtain stable results using lower resolution surface in a comparative FEA study. As surface mesh resolution links input geometry with the resulting solid mesh, the implication of these results is that low resolution input geometry and solid meshes may provide valid results in a comparative context.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据