A systematic comparison between FEBio and PolyFEM for biomechanical systems

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

A systematic comparison between FEBio and PolyFEM for biomechanical systems. / Martin, Liam; Jain, Pranav; Ferguson, Zachary; Gholamalizadeh, Torkan; Moshfeghifar, Faezeh; Erleben, Kenny; Panozzo, Daniele; Abramowitch, Steven; Schneider, Teseo.

In: Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, Vol. 244, 107938, 2024.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Martin, L, Jain, P, Ferguson, Z, Gholamalizadeh, T, Moshfeghifar, F, Erleben, K, Panozzo, D, Abramowitch, S & Schneider, T 2024, 'A systematic comparison between FEBio and PolyFEM for biomechanical systems', Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 244, 107938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107938

APA

Martin, L., Jain, P., Ferguson, Z., Gholamalizadeh, T., Moshfeghifar, F., Erleben, K., Panozzo, D., Abramowitch, S., & Schneider, T. (2024). A systematic comparison between FEBio and PolyFEM for biomechanical systems. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 244, [107938]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107938

Vancouver

Martin L, Jain P, Ferguson Z, Gholamalizadeh T, Moshfeghifar F, Erleben K et al. A systematic comparison between FEBio and PolyFEM for biomechanical systems. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 2024;244. 107938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107938

Author

Martin, Liam ; Jain, Pranav ; Ferguson, Zachary ; Gholamalizadeh, Torkan ; Moshfeghifar, Faezeh ; Erleben, Kenny ; Panozzo, Daniele ; Abramowitch, Steven ; Schneider, Teseo. / A systematic comparison between FEBio and PolyFEM for biomechanical systems. In: Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 2024 ; Vol. 244.

Bibtex

@article{3b74397b05ca4ae8b386cb1f56dc3925,
title = "A systematic comparison between FEBio and PolyFEM for biomechanical systems",
abstract = "Background and Objectives: Finite element simulations are widely employed as a non-invasive and cost-effective approach for predicting outcomes in biomechanical simulations. However, traditional finite element software, primarily designed for engineering materials, often encountered limitations in contact detection and enforcement, leading to simulation failure when dealing with complex biomechanical configurations. Currently, a lot of model tuning is required to get physically accurate finite element simulations without failures. This adds significant human interaction to each iteration of a biomechanical model. This study addressed these issues by introducing PolyFEM, a novel finite element solver that guarantees inversion- and intersection-free solutions with completely automatic collision detection. The objective of this research is to validate PolyFEM's capabilities by comparing its results with those obtained from a well-established finite element solver, FEBio. Methods: To achieve this goal, five comparison scenarios were formulated to assess and validate PolyFEM's performance. The simulations were reproduced using both PolyFEM and FEBio, and the final results were compared. The five comparison scenarios included: (1) reproducing simulations from the FEBio test suite, consisting of static, dynamic, and contact-driven simulations; (2) replicating simulations from the verification paper published alongside the original release of FEBio; (3) a biomechanically based contact problem; (4) creating a custom simulation involving high-energy collisions between soft materials to highlight the difference in collision methods between the two solvers; and (5) performing biomechanical simulations of biting and quasi-stance. Results: We found that PolyFEM was capable of replicating all simulations previously conducted in FEBio. Particularly noteworthy is PolyFEM's superiority in high-energy contact simulations, where FEBio fell short, unable to complete over half of the simulations in Scenario 4. Although some of the simulations required significantly more simulation time in PolyFEM compared to FEBio, it is important to highlight that PolyFEM achieved these results without the need for any additional model tuning or contact declaration. Discussion: Despite being in the early stages of development, PolyFEM currently provides verified solutions for hyperelastic materials that are consistent with FEBio, both in previously published workflows and novel finite element scenarios. PolyFEM exhibited the ability to tackle challenging biomechanical problems where other solvers fell short, thus offering the potential to enhance the accuracy and realism of future finite element analyses.",
keywords = "Benchmark, Contact, Finite element analysis, Finite element verification, Large deformation",
author = "Liam Martin and Pranav Jain and Zachary Ferguson and Torkan Gholamalizadeh and Faezeh Moshfeghifar and Kenny Erleben and Daniele Panozzo and Steven Abramowitch and Teseo Schneider",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 Elsevier B.V.",
year = "2024",
doi = "10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107938",
language = "English",
volume = "244",
journal = "Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine",
issn = "0169-2607",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic comparison between FEBio and PolyFEM for biomechanical systems

AU - Martin, Liam

AU - Jain, Pranav

AU - Ferguson, Zachary

AU - Gholamalizadeh, Torkan

AU - Moshfeghifar, Faezeh

AU - Erleben, Kenny

AU - Panozzo, Daniele

AU - Abramowitch, Steven

AU - Schneider, Teseo

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 Elsevier B.V.

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - Background and Objectives: Finite element simulations are widely employed as a non-invasive and cost-effective approach for predicting outcomes in biomechanical simulations. However, traditional finite element software, primarily designed for engineering materials, often encountered limitations in contact detection and enforcement, leading to simulation failure when dealing with complex biomechanical configurations. Currently, a lot of model tuning is required to get physically accurate finite element simulations without failures. This adds significant human interaction to each iteration of a biomechanical model. This study addressed these issues by introducing PolyFEM, a novel finite element solver that guarantees inversion- and intersection-free solutions with completely automatic collision detection. The objective of this research is to validate PolyFEM's capabilities by comparing its results with those obtained from a well-established finite element solver, FEBio. Methods: To achieve this goal, five comparison scenarios were formulated to assess and validate PolyFEM's performance. The simulations were reproduced using both PolyFEM and FEBio, and the final results were compared. The five comparison scenarios included: (1) reproducing simulations from the FEBio test suite, consisting of static, dynamic, and contact-driven simulations; (2) replicating simulations from the verification paper published alongside the original release of FEBio; (3) a biomechanically based contact problem; (4) creating a custom simulation involving high-energy collisions between soft materials to highlight the difference in collision methods between the two solvers; and (5) performing biomechanical simulations of biting and quasi-stance. Results: We found that PolyFEM was capable of replicating all simulations previously conducted in FEBio. Particularly noteworthy is PolyFEM's superiority in high-energy contact simulations, where FEBio fell short, unable to complete over half of the simulations in Scenario 4. Although some of the simulations required significantly more simulation time in PolyFEM compared to FEBio, it is important to highlight that PolyFEM achieved these results without the need for any additional model tuning or contact declaration. Discussion: Despite being in the early stages of development, PolyFEM currently provides verified solutions for hyperelastic materials that are consistent with FEBio, both in previously published workflows and novel finite element scenarios. PolyFEM exhibited the ability to tackle challenging biomechanical problems where other solvers fell short, thus offering the potential to enhance the accuracy and realism of future finite element analyses.

AB - Background and Objectives: Finite element simulations are widely employed as a non-invasive and cost-effective approach for predicting outcomes in biomechanical simulations. However, traditional finite element software, primarily designed for engineering materials, often encountered limitations in contact detection and enforcement, leading to simulation failure when dealing with complex biomechanical configurations. Currently, a lot of model tuning is required to get physically accurate finite element simulations without failures. This adds significant human interaction to each iteration of a biomechanical model. This study addressed these issues by introducing PolyFEM, a novel finite element solver that guarantees inversion- and intersection-free solutions with completely automatic collision detection. The objective of this research is to validate PolyFEM's capabilities by comparing its results with those obtained from a well-established finite element solver, FEBio. Methods: To achieve this goal, five comparison scenarios were formulated to assess and validate PolyFEM's performance. The simulations were reproduced using both PolyFEM and FEBio, and the final results were compared. The five comparison scenarios included: (1) reproducing simulations from the FEBio test suite, consisting of static, dynamic, and contact-driven simulations; (2) replicating simulations from the verification paper published alongside the original release of FEBio; (3) a biomechanically based contact problem; (4) creating a custom simulation involving high-energy collisions between soft materials to highlight the difference in collision methods between the two solvers; and (5) performing biomechanical simulations of biting and quasi-stance. Results: We found that PolyFEM was capable of replicating all simulations previously conducted in FEBio. Particularly noteworthy is PolyFEM's superiority in high-energy contact simulations, where FEBio fell short, unable to complete over half of the simulations in Scenario 4. Although some of the simulations required significantly more simulation time in PolyFEM compared to FEBio, it is important to highlight that PolyFEM achieved these results without the need for any additional model tuning or contact declaration. Discussion: Despite being in the early stages of development, PolyFEM currently provides verified solutions for hyperelastic materials that are consistent with FEBio, both in previously published workflows and novel finite element scenarios. PolyFEM exhibited the ability to tackle challenging biomechanical problems where other solvers fell short, thus offering the potential to enhance the accuracy and realism of future finite element analyses.

KW - Benchmark

KW - Contact

KW - Finite element analysis

KW - Finite element verification

KW - Large deformation

U2 - 10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107938

DO - 10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107938

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 38056313

AN - SCOPUS:85179006682

VL - 244

JO - Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

JF - Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

SN - 0169-2607

M1 - 107938

ER -

ID: 383885994