2007
DOI: 10.1080/10255840601160484
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Verification, validation and sensitivity studies in computational biomechanics

Abstract: Computational techniques and software for the analysis of problems in mechanics have naturally moved from their origins in the traditional engineering disciplines to the study of cell, tissue and organ biomechanics. Increasingly complex models have been developed to describe and predict the mechanical behavior of such biological systems. While the availability of advanced computational tools has led to exciting research advances in the field, the utility of these models is often the subject of criticism due to… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
149
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 205 publications
(150 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
(107 reference statements)
1
149
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The local properties can be computed with specimen-specific computational models, such as the finite element (FE) approach based on clinical (Dall' Ara et al, 2012, 2013a or preclinical high-resolution (Levchuk et al, 2014;Lu et al, 2017) images. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the models have to be rigorously validated (Anderson et al, 2007;Jones and Wilcox, 2008) for prediction of both apparent (Schileo et al, 2008;Wolfram et al, 2010;Zysset et al, 2013;Schwiedrzik et al, 2016) and local (Zauel et al, 2006;Chen et al, 2017;Costa et al, 2017;Gustafson et al, 2017) properties before their application.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The local properties can be computed with specimen-specific computational models, such as the finite element (FE) approach based on clinical (Dall' Ara et al, 2012, 2013a or preclinical high-resolution (Levchuk et al, 2014;Lu et al, 2017) images. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the models have to be rigorously validated (Anderson et al, 2007;Jones and Wilcox, 2008) for prediction of both apparent (Schileo et al, 2008;Wolfram et al, 2010;Zysset et al, 2013;Schwiedrzik et al, 2016) and local (Zauel et al, 2006;Chen et al, 2017;Costa et al, 2017;Gustafson et al, 2017) properties before their application.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To identify the optimal material model for bone and account for the intrinsic inter-and intra-patient variability, the design of proper experiments with the aim of 1) better characterizing bone material properties, and 2) providing a validation benchmark for numerical investigations [12]- [14] is required. Depending on the specific aim, such experimental tests can be performed at different timeand length-scales.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the current study, we used the same loading conditions as the majority of similar studies, why it is not possible to compare our results to Kim et al [18] The outer geometry of the bone was subject specific, but the thickness of the cortical bone was estimated in this study. Both Dalstra et al [29] and Anderson et al [30] combined an experimental study with a FE model of the pelvis modeled with either mean or position dependent cortical bone thickness [5,6]. For predicting von Mises stress in the cortical bone, a FE model with position-dependent cortical thickness performed better, though not significantly [6].…”
Section: Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%