Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Mar 26, 2014, 11:42 p.m. EDT
I found that by adding the Identity pair with "Electric Potential" in the Electromechanics->Pairs->Electrical, the solver could work well. But I just defined the value of electric potential as "V". But the top plate was not deflected so much, although the applied voltage is far above the pull-in voltage.
Any suggestion is appreciated!
I found that by adding the Identity pair with "Electric Potential" in the Electromechanics->Pairs->Electrical, the solver could work well. But I just defined the value of electric potential as "V". But the top plate was not deflected so much, although the applied voltage is far above the pull-in voltage.
Any suggestion is appreciated!
Nagi Elabbasi
Facebook Reality Labs
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Apr 2, 2014, 9:19 a.m. EDT
I suggest you check two things: (i) the force generated from the electric field in COMSOL and compare it to the theoretical value for force between parallel plates, and (ii) the deflection of the plate in a structural-only stationary analysis due to the same force.
Nagi Elabbasi
Veryst Engineering
I suggest you check two things: (i) the force generated from the electric field in COMSOL and compare it to the theoretical value for force between parallel plates, and (ii) the deflection of the plate in a structural-only stationary analysis due to the same force.
Nagi Elabbasi
Veryst Engineering
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Apr 3, 2014, 4:53 a.m. EDT
Hi, Nagi,
Thank you for your suggestions. Strangely, there is no electrostatic force (zero) betweent the plate. But the electric field value is effective. And the global derived values, such as the total electric energy, the electric potential, the terminal charge and the capacitance are right.
However, if I modified the geometry form from "Assembly" to "Union", the electrostatic force value is OK (non zero). I don't know what BC should be set in the assembly mode.
Hi, Nagi,
Thank you for your suggestions. Strangely, there is no electrostatic force (zero) betweent the plate. But the electric field value is effective. And the global derived values, such as the total electric energy, the electric potential, the terminal charge and the capacitance are right.
However, if I modified the geometry form from "Assembly" to "Union", the electrostatic force value is OK (non zero). I don't know what BC should be set in the assembly mode.
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Apr 4, 2014, 3:03 a.m. EDT
The electric potentials over the indentity pair are plotted. To my surprise, even though this pair is defined as electric potential pair in BC with the same value of 'V', the values are out of phase!!!
And I also attached a 2D surface plot of potential and a arrow plot of electric field. It seems that there is no problem for the overall polarity of potential.
The electric potentials over the indentity pair are plotted. To my surprise, even though this pair is defined as electric potential pair in BC with the same value of 'V', the values are out of phase!!!
And I also attached a 2D surface plot of potential and a arrow plot of electric field. It seems that there is no problem for the overall polarity of potential.
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Apr 4, 2014, 3:15 a.m. EDT
And the electric potential along the axial is attached. The plot shows that there is no invert polarity in the range.
And the electric potential along the axial is attached. The plot shows that there is no invert polarity in the range.
Nagi Elabbasi
Facebook Reality Labs
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Apr 6, 2014, 2:17 p.m. EDT
Hi Yu, it’s hard to follow the problem without a model. If you post a model maybe someone from the Forum can take a look. Regarding the out-of-phase electric potential graphs you posted, they are not out-of-phase. The x-axis on the graph is arc-length and one seems to be measured relative to the right end and the other relative to the left end. Replacing arc-length with the axial (X?) coordinate should fix it.
Nagi Elabbasi
Veryst Engineering
Hi Yu, it’s hard to follow the problem without a model. If you post a model maybe someone from the Forum can take a look. Regarding the out-of-phase electric potential graphs you posted, they are not out-of-phase. The x-axis on the graph is arc-length and one seems to be measured relative to the right end and the other relative to the left end. Replacing arc-length with the axial (X?) coordinate should fix it.
Nagi Elabbasi
Veryst Engineering
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Apr 9, 2014, 5:23 a.m. EDT
Hi, Nagi
Thank your for your assistance! I have modified the x-axis, as a result, the potentials are in phase as you said.
I also tried a simplifed model in es physis, the result is same. There is no electrostatic force value in the assembly geometry mode. If the geometry is changed into union mode, the force value is available.
These two models are attached for your reference. Thanks again!
Hi, Nagi
Thank your for your assistance! I have modified the x-axis, as a result, the potentials are in phase as you said.
I also tried a simplifed model in es physis, the result is same. There is no electrostatic force value in the assembly geometry mode. If the geometry is changed into union mode, the force value is available.
These two models are attached for your reference. Thanks again!