Calibration Issues

[shazryz]

Hi there, I've performed quite a number of analysis using the DICe and I found that all of my results are not in mm despite calibrating it in mm. I followed the tutorial video on how the calibration was changed to mm by changing the default 1.0 to 7.0. I did the same change from 1.0 to 18.0 as my calibration was made by 18mm spacing board. The values I got from the test files are way too big compared to other software I have tested. Is it wrong to just change the 1.0 to 18.0 on the patern spacing?

[dicengine]

That should be all that’s needed. Are you referring to the model coordinates field when you say the values are not as expected? Which “values” are you referring to?

On May 23, 2019, at 9:46 AM, shazryz notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

Hi there, I've performed quite a number of analysis using the DICe and I found that all of my results are not in mm despite calibrating it in mm. I followed the tutorial video on how the calibration was changed to mm by changing the default 1.0 to 7.0. I did the same change from 1.0 to 18.0 as my calibration was made by 18mm spacing board. The values I got from the test files are way too big compared to other software I have tested. Is it wrong to just change the 1.0 to 18.0 on the patern spacing?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/dicengine/dice/issues/122?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADT7TOUJ36ZMR4RDY4CT6ULPW235HA5CNFSM4HPHZQY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4GVP7FVA, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADT7TOXJG2NDIVUBP7TDZJDPW235HANCNFSM4HPHZQYQ.

[shazryz]

The model displacement, strain, and stress. The stress value and the visuals on Paraview just look wrong when compared to a tested software I have.

On Tue., May 28, 2019, 5:34 a.m. Digital Image Correlation Engine (DICe), < notifications@github.com> wrote:

That should be all that’s needed. Are you referring to the model coordinates field when you say the values are not as expected? Which “values” are you referring to?

On May 23, 2019, at 9:46 AM, shazryz <notifications@github.com<mailto: notifications@github.com>> wrote:

Hi there, I've performed quite a number of analysis using the DICe and I found that all of my results are not in mm despite calibrating it in mm. I followed the tutorial video on how the calibration was changed to mm by changing the default 1.0 to 7.0. I did the same change from 1.0 to 18.0 as my calibration was made by 18mm spacing board. The values I got from the test files are way too big compared to other software I have tested. Is it wrong to just change the 1.0 to 18.0 on the patern spacing?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub< https://github.com/dicengine/dice/issues/122?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADT7TOUJ36ZMR4RDY4CT6ULPW235HA5CNFSM4HPHZQY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4GVP7FVA>, or mute the thread< https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADT7TOXJG2NDIVUBP7TDZJDPW235HANCNFSM4HPHZQYQ>.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dicengine/dice/issues/122?email_source=notifications&email_token=AMCSMI7YGMREGRIQ4QAI4TTPXUKDBA5CNFSM4HPHZQY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWL2TRY#issuecomment-496478663, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMCSMI5Y36X7JIJQ7B45G7DPXUKDBANCNFSM4HPHZQYQ .

[dicengine]

That’s odd since Stress is not computed in DICe. For the strain field, are you using a similar strain window size? Have you done a parameter study to see how strain window size and subset size/spacing affects the results? When you say that the “visuals on Paraview look wrong” can you be more precise? I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this.

On May 28, 2019, at 5:36 AM, shazryz notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

The model displacement, strain, and stress. The stress value and the visuals on Paraview just look wrong when compared to a tested software I have.

On Tue., May 28, 2019, 5:34 a.m. Digital Image Correlation Engine (DICe), < notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

That should be all that’s needed. Are you referring to the model coordinates field when you say the values are not as expected? Which “values” are you referring to?

On May 23, 2019, at 9:46 AM, shazryz notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com<mailto: notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com>> wrote:

Hi there, I've performed quite a number of analysis using the DICe and I found that all of my results are not in mm despite calibrating it in mm. I followed the tutorial video on how the calibration was changed to mm by changing the default 1.0 to 7.0. I did the same change from 1.0 to 18.0 as my calibration was made by 18mm spacing board. The values I got from the test files are way too big compared to other software I have tested. Is it wrong to just change the 1.0 to 18.0 on the patern spacing?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub< https://github.com/dicengine/dice/issues/122?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADT7TOUJ36ZMR4RDY4CT6ULPW235HA5CNFSM4HPHZQY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4GVP7FVA>, or mute the thread< https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADT7TOXJG2NDIVUBP7TDZJDPW235HANCNFSM4HPHZQYQ>.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dicengine/dice/issues/122?email_source=notifications&email_token=AMCSMI7YGMREGRIQ4QAI4TTPXUKDBA5CNFSM4HPHZQY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWL2TRY#issuecomment-496478663, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMCSMI5Y36X7JIJQ7B45G7DPXUKDBANCNFSM4HPHZQYQ .

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/dicengine/dice/issues/122?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADT7TOXMQWEV5LFZILR72H3PXUKLXA5CNFSM4HPHZQY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWL2ZGA#issuecomment-496479384, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADT7TOV2Q4SL66SUSEUAXH3PXUKLXANCNFSM4HPHZQYQ.

[shazryz]

Hi, The stress is just something that's included in the Paraview. I thought the sigma represents the stress of the sample. Attached is a portion of the text file for the final deformed image, when I calibrated it with 18 mm spacing. [image: image.png] Below is the U-direction (measured with respect to x-axis) displacement obtained from another DIC software. From the results the text results from DICe, the numbers in the files cant be represent into a single number for each step as shown below, and requires more analysis. Is there a feature on DICe that I'm not seeing? [image: image.png]

On Tue., May 28, 2019, 5:40 a.m. Digital Image Correlation Engine (DICe), < notifications@github.com> wrote:

That’s odd since Stress is not computed in DICe. For the strain field, are you using a similar strain window size? Have you done a parameter study to see how strain window size and subset size/spacing affects the results? When you say that the “visuals on Paraview look wrong” can you be more precise? I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this.

On May 28, 2019, at 5:36 AM, shazryz <notifications@github.com<mailto: notifications@github.com>> wrote:

The model displacement, strain, and stress. The stress value and the visuals on Paraview just look wrong when compared to a tested software I have.

On Tue., May 28, 2019, 5:34 a.m. Digital Image Correlation Engine (DICe), < notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

That should be all that’s needed. Are you referring to the model coordinates field when you say the values are not as expected? Which “values” are you referring to?

On May 23, 2019, at 9:46 AM, shazryz <notifications@github.com<mailto: notifications@github.com><mailto: notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com>> wrote:

Hi there, I've performed quite a number of analysis using the DICe and I found that all of my results are not in mm despite calibrating it in mm. I followed the tutorial video on how the calibration was changed to mm by changing the default 1.0 to 7.0. I did the same change from 1.0 to 18.0 as my calibration was made by 18mm spacing board. The values I got from the test files are way too big compared to other software I have tested. Is it wrong to just change the 1.0 to 18.0 on the patern spacing?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<

https://github.com/dicengine/dice/issues/122?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADT7TOUJ36ZMR4RDY4CT6ULPW235HA5CNFSM4HPHZQY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4GVP7FVA>,

or mute the thread<

https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADT7TOXJG2NDIVUBP7TDZJDPW235HANCNFSM4HPHZQYQ>.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/dicengine/dice/issues/122?email_source=notifications&email_token=AMCSMI7YGMREGRIQ4QAI4TTPXUKDBA5CNFSM4HPHZQY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWL2TRY#issuecomment-496478663>,

or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMCSMI5Y36X7JIJQ7B45G7DPXUKDBANCNFSM4HPHZQYQ>

.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub< https://github.com/dicengine/dice/issues/122?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADT7TOXMQWEV5LFZILR72H3PXUKLXA5CNFSM4HPHZQY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWL2ZGA#issuecomment-496479384>, or mute the thread< https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADT7TOV2Q4SL66SUSEUAXH3PXUKLXANCNFSM4HPHZQYQ>.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dicengine/dice/issues/122?email_source=notifications&email_token=AMCSMI2XYVOUTI2OCUQWXWTPXUKZ5A5CNFSM4HPHZQY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWL3D6A#issuecomment-496480760, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMCSMI3D3FUE4SCHRUE5BBLPXUKZ5ANCNFSM4HPHZQYQ .

[dicengine]

Sigma is the displacement uncertainty, not stress. The images you tried to attach didn't come through for some reason.

[shazryz]

[dicengine]

I'm not sure I understand the issue that you are seeing, but for one thing the figure you're plotting looks like the displacement for a single subset vs. the frame number. The results files for DICe above show the displacements for all subsets at a single frame. I'm not sure why you are trying to compare these two.

[shazryz]

I am aware of that. However, the plot above is taken from a subset which covered the entire surface of the sample. If I were to plot the same with the DICe data, there is not an option for me to actually extract a single data from the thousand of subsets from the individual text file generated after the DICe analysis completed.

[dicengine]

Take a look at the ParaView documentation. It explains how you can plot a single point as you mention above (it's easiest to load the exodus file from DICe in ParaView to do this vs. the text output files)