×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Goodness of fit between test and reference data

Goodness of fit between test and reference data

Goodness of fit between test and reference data

(OP)
Hi,

I have experimental data that i obtained from a uniaxial test, load vs. extension. I have also created a FEA model and simulated this test which gave me another set of load vs. extension data. I wanted to perform some sort of goodness of fit test to have a quantitative value that could be used to describe how similar the two curves were. I have tried obtaining the R2 value using the coefficient of determinates but the value is far larger than 1 for some of the samples where the curves are completely off set, and when using the pearsons coefficient of correlation method i get R2 values that are .98 for samples were the curves are completely off set. Is there any reason that I am getting such strange values. Is there a better way of going about comparing two data sets?

File Attachment:
I have attached a excel file with one of my samples
The curve for the fea results was completely offset from the actual data
the R2 value obtained using the cofficient of determinate was -15.94
and the R2 value using the pearson's coefficient of correlation was 0.96

RE: Goodness of fit between test and reference data

Hi Hummad,

As far as I recall, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient describes the strength of the assumed linear dependence between two random variables. If you use the Pearson coefficient to calculate the assumed linear dependence between your experimental load and your FEA load [which you can calculate in excel using the function PEARSON(DATASET A,DATASET B)] you get a value of 0.98.

This value of 0.98 is telling you that there is a very strong positive linear dependence between your experimental load and your FEA load. Or in other words, as your experimental load increases, your FEA load increases in an almost perfectly linear manner. If you plot the experimental load against the FEA load in a scatter plot you will see that this makes perfect sense.

I am not sure exactly how you would measure the goodness of fit of two different curves. Maybe you could calculate the absolute difference between the experimental load and the FEA load at a fixed number (or all) of the displacements and then average these values?

Or maybe you will find a more elegant solution online.

Best of luck,
Dave

RE: Goodness of fit between test and reference data

both methods are not good to check if your data sets are the same
the reason pearson's R2 value is close to one is because there is an almost linear relationship between your experiment & FEA (it's the R2 of a trendline of experiment vs FEA).

Just use sum of squares or something similar.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources