Search NASA⌕ Search
Home/Archive/DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI · 2585614

A comparative study of calibration techniques for finite strain elastoplasticity: Numerically-exact sensitivities for FEMU and VFM

Kumar, Sanjeev [Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States)]·Seidl, Daniel Thomas [Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)] (ORCID:0000000245792676)·Granzow, Brian Neal [Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)] (ORCID:0000000284523129)·Yang, Jin [Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States)] (ORCID:000000025967980X)·Fuhg, Jan Niklas [Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States)] (ORCID:0000000259863770)
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Accurate identification of material parameters is crucial for predictive modeling in computational mechanics. Here, the two primary approaches in the experimental mechanics community for calibration from full-field digital image correlation data are known as finite element model updating (FEMU) and the virtual fields method (VFM). In VFM, the objective function is a squared mismatch between internal and external virtual work or power. In FEMU, the objective function quantifies the weighted mismatch between model predictions and corresponding experimentally measured quantities of interest. It is minimized by iteratively updating the parameters of an FE model. While FEMU is seen as more flexible, VFM is commonly used instead of FEMU due to its considerably greater computational expense. However, comparisons between the two methods usually involve approximations of gradients or sensitivities with finite difference schemes, thereby making direct assessments difficult. Hence, in this study, we compare VFM and FEMU in the context of numerically-exact sensitivities obtained through local sensitivity analyses and the application of automatic differentiation software. To this end, we conduct a series of test cases to assess both methods under practical challenges using a finite strain elastoplasticity model.

Explore related subjects

Automatic differentiationFinite element model updatingFinite strain elastoplasticityPDE-constrained optimizationVirtual fields method

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kumar, Sanjeev [Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States)], Seidl, Daniel Thomas [Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)] (ORCID:0000000245792676), Granzow, Brian Neal [Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)] (ORCID:0000000284523129), Yang, Jin [Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States)] (ORCID:000000025967980X), Fuhg, Jan Niklas [Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States)] (ORCID:0000000259863770). 2025-06-26. A comparative study of calibration techniques for finite strain elastoplasticity: Numerically-exact sensitivities for FEMU and VFM. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2025.118159

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

DOE OSTI2025

Degrees of rate control and AutoDiff-driven direct sensitivity analysis in heterogeneous catalysis

Despite the wide application and benefits of the degree of rate control (DRC) analysis, several details remain argued, particularly about the conservation of DRCs at transient (TR) and steady-state (SS) conditions, especially for complex reaction networks. This work argues that previous proofs about the conservation properties of DRCs have been incomplete, and we provide new mathematical proofs at TR and SS conditions. In addition, we use both analytical (automatic differentiation) and numerical (finite difference) approaches to compute DRCs for the case study of ethane hydrogenolysis (EH) over Pt(111). This work confirms that at both TR and SS conditions, the sum of all DRCs, i.e., sum of the degrees of kinetic (DKRC) and thermodynamic rate control (DTRC), is conserved at zero. At SS conditions, the sum of DKRC is conserved at 1 while the sum of DTRC is conserved at −1. In corroboration of previous works, we show that the DTRC for any adsorbate at SS is equal to the product of the species coverage and a constant. In contrast, at TR conditions, the individual sums of both DTRC and DKRC are not conserved and can be any real number, with potential implications for the novel field of dynamic catalysis. Finally, we show that the conventional finite difference (FD) approach, only useful at SS, is prone to inaccuracy and very sensitive to the value of the differential change applied. The optimal differential value also varies significantly with system and rate definition. Consequently, we describe and illustrate in this work the application of the automatic differentiation (AD) approach for the more accurate determination of DRCs at both TR and SS conditions.

Automatic differentiation↗