Thermal stress prediction with elasticThermalSolidFoam - No contribution to UEqn?
1 Attachment(s)
Hello all,
I'm trying to predict thermal stresses in a polymer that cures in a mold. At the same time I model the same problem with FEM (Abaqus) in order to compare the results. In order to simplify my problem, I started with a cube with 20x20x20 elements and 0.1m edge length. Only thermal expansion is taken into account at the moment. In the source code of the solver one can find the following lines: Code:
divSigmaExp = fvc::div Does anyone have an idea what is wrong here? I've attached the case to this post. Thanks in advance for any help! Alex |
Hi,
I found a bug that was introduced in $FOAM_SRC/solidModels/constitutiveModel/tractionBoundaryGradient/tractionBoundaryGradient.C in foam-extend-3.1: Change this line: Quote:
Quote:
I tried your case and it seems to work now. One comment on your case: in general I have found that the solution tolerance for U should typically be at least 1e-6, in the solidMechanics dict in system/fvSolution: Quote:
Philip EDIT: Ah I see you already found this problem and reported it: http://sourceforge.net/p/openfoam-ex...ndrelease/258/ |
1 Attachment(s)
Hi Philip,
thanks for your answer. Your right, it works now, at least for the isotropic case =) I also added TEqn to your orthotropic solver (elasticOrthoSolidFoam) and modified divSigmaExp like this: Code:
if(divSigmaExpMethod == "standard") However, the solver doesn't converge. I attached the case to this post. Do you have an idea what could be the problem here? Quote:
Have a nice weekend! Alex |
I will have a look at the addition of an orthotropic thermal term.
Quote:
Philip |
Hi Philip,
I'm facing another problem with the thermal part of the solver. If there is only very small change in temperature within the domain, the TEqn doesn't converge even after 10000 iterations. However, if temperature changes occur, it converges really fast. Did you also observe this behavior? Is there a reason why TEqn is first solved and then T (not TEqn) is relaxed? I looked into the fluid solver codes and they always relax TEqn first and then solve it. However, modifying the solver that way doesn't help so it has to be something else. Thanks, Alex |
Yes I've noticed this too.
A very small amount of equation under-relaxation will fix this. Put this line after the TEqn is created (and before it is solved): Code:
TEqn.relax(TEqnRelaxFac); Code:
scalar TEqnRelaxFac = -1; Code:
relaxationFactors Philip |
Hi Philip,
thanks, will give it a try :) Is it possible to under-relaxate UEqn/DUEqn too or would that introduce some error? In CFD it's applied to both p and U so maybe this could be of advantage here too. Regards, Alex |
Quote:
Typically only a very small amount is needed, between 0.99 and 0.999 often works well. Philip |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:24. |