Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Apr 10, 2011, 1:22 p.m. EDT
I haven't looked at your file yet, but did you define the Contact pair between the right boundaries. By the looks of it the contact isn't defined properly and the bodies are penetrating into each other, hence causing the mesh to deform too much
I haven't looked at your file yet, but did you define the Contact pair between the right boundaries. By the looks of it the contact isn't defined properly and the bodies are penetrating into each other, hence causing the mesh to deform too much
Ivar KJELBERG
COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Apr 10, 2011, 5:56 p.m. EDT
Hi
Normally you apply a displacement or a force on one of the solid bodies, and prescribe the displacements of the ALE to follow the u,v of the deformed solids.
You are imposing a displacement on part of the ALE, on top of the contact. And do not forget that the symmetry condition in the solids must also have an equivalent in the ALE (there is no symmetry, you must block the x motion in the symmetry plane in your case
Check out a few of the examples of large deformations and contacts in the model library. Then I'm sure you will get the BC better defined
By the way, why not drop the ALE to start with and look at the deformation with a scale of "1". I do not really see why you need it, at least until you get your contact case running. Another hint use small steps such as a range(0,0.1,10)
--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi
Normally you apply a displacement or a force on one of the solid bodies, and prescribe the displacements of the ALE to follow the u,v of the deformed solids.
You are imposing a displacement on part of the ALE, on top of the contact. And do not forget that the symmetry condition in the solids must also have an equivalent in the ALE (there is no symmetry, you must block the x motion in the symmetry plane in your case
Check out a few of the examples of large deformations and contacts in the model library. Then I'm sure you will get the BC better defined
By the way, why not drop the ALE to start with and look at the deformation with a scale of "1". I do not really see why you need it, at least until you get your contact case running. Another hint use small steps such as a range(0,0.1,10)
--
Good luck
Ivar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Apr 12, 2011, 5:49 a.m. EDT
Thank You Ivar,
do you know if, in order to find it´s better to use a small range step?
Did COMSOL use, to find out the solution at steo i, the solution at the step i-1 ?
Thank You Ivar,
do you know if, in order to find it´s better to use a small range step?
Did COMSOL use, to find out the solution at steo i, the solution at the step i-1 ?
Ivar KJELBERG
COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Apr 12, 2011, 9:08 a.m. EDT
Hi
its always better to use "small" steps to allow the solver to follow its optimum, but not smaller than required, that means that sometimes 1 step is enough ;)
--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi
its always better to use "small" steps to allow the solver to follow its optimum, but not smaller than required, that means that sometimes 1 step is enough ;)
--
Good luck
Ivar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Oct 12, 2011, 1:58 p.m. EDT
Can anybody send me a very basic implementation of ALE like shrinking of a circle or square with time. I am trying to implement ALE without any physics (for simplification). But I am not seeing the desired result. I just get back the initial geometry. I don't know what mistake I am making.
Thanks
Sanket
Can anybody send me a very basic implementation of ALE like shrinking of a circle or square with time. I am trying to implement ALE without any physics (for simplification). But I am not seeing the desired result. I just get back the initial geometry. I don't know what mistake I am making.
Thanks
Sanket
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
May 9, 2012, 9:01 a.m. EDT
Hello Giulio,
I tried to run your .mph file but i don't see any convergence problems ! ! ! Are you worried because the total displacement computed of 0.01 [µm] is much bigger than the prescribed one of 4.10^-7 x 1[nm]???
According to what Ivar told you, what kind of changes did you make to make it work better? could you upload the final file please?
Best regards,
Hello Giulio,
I tried to run your .mph file but i don't see any convergence problems ! ! ! Are you worried because the total displacement computed of 0.01 [µm] is much bigger than the prescribed one of 4.10^-7 x 1[nm]???
According to what Ivar told you, what kind of changes did you make to make it work better? could you upload the final file please?
Best regards,