Accelerate Solid Mechanics simulation (elasticPlasticSolidFoam)
Hello everybody,
i've tried to accelerate my OpenFOAM Simulation/SolidMechanics/elasticPlasticSolidFoam (foam-extend-3.1). Therefore I use the Debugging mode from OpenFOAM and run my Simulation in parallel. At first, everything run smoothly but after I've changed one Parameter at the DU file (First order Derivation of Displacement): from: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would be very grateful for any help. David |
Accelerate Solid Mechanics simulation (elasticPlasticSolidFoam)
1 Attachment(s)
Hello everybody,
i've tried to accelerate my OpenFOAM Simulation/SolidMechanics/elasticPlasticSolidFoam (foam-extend-3.1). Therefore I use the Debugging mode from OpenFOAM and run my Simulation in parallel. I got this result per 1 outer Iteration (with 4 parallel Intel processors i7 4790k Quad Core) http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/att...1&d=1429283151 My question is, did anybody know how to accelerate the solidMechanics Simulation? If I were right, the calculation calculateDivDSigmaExp.H take the most CPU-Time and maybe not been parallelized, if not, do anyone know how to parallelize it? I would be thankful for any help David |
Hi David,
For this warning: Code:
FOAM Warning : If you really do want to use the rigidMaster option, then I would recommend trying a lower penaltyScale value and/or more contact under-relaxation; this should help. As regards calculateDivSigmaExp.H, yes the parallelisation of calculateDivSigmaExp.H is handled automagically by OpenFOAM: each proc performs the explicit field operations (fvc:: operations) just for its own cells and then there is some parallel transfer at the procToProc boundaries. I suppose it is not very surprising that calculateDivSigmaExp.H takes a lot of time, though I am surprised that the DUEqn.solve() is so small; is this the case when you run more outer iterations? Best, Philip |
Accelerate Solid Mechanics simulation (elasticPlasticSolidFoam)
1 Attachment(s)
Hi Philip,
thank you very much for your answer and suggestion. I've tried a lower penalty scale till 1e-2, but the warning still came. What do you mean by "more contact under-relaxation", which parameter are they, in DU file or fvSolution file? I also realised, that the warning come also because of the mesh of my geometries. I have two different mesh on two diferrent solid bodies. The top body is like a spitz of a cantilever beam and has a tetahedra mesh and commuted with the command "polyDualMesh 85 -overwrite" into polyhedra. The pad in the bottom, which been penetrated by the spitz of the beam has a hexahedral mesh. If I do checkMesh, the mesh of the top body has a problem with the maxSkewness > 4 and if I corrected it, also with a roughly mesh, then the checkMesh would say ok, because maxSkewnesS is < 4. But then I would get more warning from the solid contact. With a more fine mesh, I would get fewer warning, but also still some of them, if the beam penetrate the pad more than 20 nanometer (about more then 0.2% of the epsilon, out from the elastic deformation and the beginning of the plastic deformation). So, maybe you have more solution for the problem above? According to the accelaration and your question: Quote:
http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/att...1&d=1430401739 Quote:
I would be very grateful for your answer and help. David |
Hi David,
I am facing a similar problem with this warning. Did you finally find a solution to avoid it? Thanks in advance |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:35. |