Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Topics
Solid Mechanics
Finite Element Method
Abaqus
Jul 7, 2014
Share
2/0
Popular Answers
-Was the number of cutbacks too large? You can increase this also with the solution
controls.
- If your model is plastic, what element type did you use? Hybrid elements may be
better than standard elements.
Next, what is the physical problem:
- Is it a contact issue? If so, there are many things you can try but it is difficult to
advise on this without knowing details.
- Is the problem load-controlled? If so, could you have reached an unstable point
(force maximum, as in necking)?
- Is it a problem of too large plastic strains? Try to see what happens if you use a
simpler material law, for exampl ideally plastic. Does the problem persist?
There are many more things to try, but without seeing the model, it is hard to give
more advice than this.
Jul 9, 2014
Dear Sanjeev,
I did both 3d and 2d axi-symetric analysis. Deformed mesh looks good. nlgeom is on.
I am using power law of plasticity.
Jul 7, 2014
Marcin Gajewski Instytut Badawczy Drg i Mostw / Road and Bridge Research
Institute / Warsaw University of Technology
Seyed,you are right, but the problem is that explicit procedure is not so precise, and
sometimes leads to unphysical solution.
The problems with convergence for elasto-plastic material even with NLGEOM on
are very common. I would suggest:
1) try to change element types and check mesh influence
2) try to use STABILIZE option, but very carefully
3) try RIKS algorithm
4) take care that for very large plastic strain in constitutive model you have always
strain hardening (even very weak but positive)
4) if nothing help, go for explicit algorithm
regards, All
Jul 8, 2014
hardening. Also use the stabilize option with some damping. Try to use very small
increments for load application. Dis[placement controlled load application will be
better than direct force/pressure application.
Jul 16, 2014
The Problem
The question that always arises is: How small do I need to make the elements before I can
trust the solution?
The Consequences
Finer meshes come with a cost however: more calculational time and large memory
requirements (both disk and RAM)! It is desired to find the minimum number of elements
that give you a converged solution.
Beam Models
For beam models, we actually only need to define a single element per line unless we are
applying a distributed load on a given frame member. When point loads are used, specifying
more that one element per line will not change the solution, it will only slow the calculations
down. For simple models it is of no concern, but for a larger model, it is desired to minimize
the number of elements, and thus calculation time and still obtain the desired accuracy.
General Models
In general however, it is necessary to conduct convergence tests on your finite element model
to confirm that a fine enough element discretization has been used. In a solid mechanics
problem, this would be done by creating several models with different mesh sizes and
comparing the resulting deflections and stresses, for example. In general, the stresses will
converge more slowly than the displacement, so it is not sufficient to examine the
displacement convergence.
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
11 Dec 09 14:39
Hi,
I'm working on a solid contact model involving sharp edges and small surfaces. I am trying to
get my results to converge but I can't. I started with a coarse mesh (~8000 tetrahedral quad
elements) and refined the mesh by using smaller global seeds in the area of interest while
maintaining larger elements on the peripheries of the model far from the area of contact. The
maximum stress values increase drastically when I use finer meshes and the values do not
seem to converge. Also when I used smaller elements in the contact area the analysis aborts
because of excessive distortion of some elements. I finally ended up with ~100,000 elements
and the analysis has been running for 36 hours now and I am not even sure if the results will
be accurate.
Is there any way to get around this problem? I thought adaptive remeshing might help but it
did not reach the goal (5% error max stress) after several iterations.
Any suggestions
johnhors (Aerospace) 11 Dec 09 15:46
You will never achieve "mesh convergence" with sharp edges present. Do these sharp edges
really exist?
www.Roshaz.com
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
11 Dec 09 16:32
They do. it's a screw and the threads and tip are sharp. What do you suggest?
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
12 Dec 09 09:32
Here's a screenshot of my mesh.I know it is very coarse, but when I use finer elements the
stresses become unrealistically high. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3769/meshb.jpg
I am sorry for not explaining this. I am not to concerned about the stresses around the threads
since these are stress concentration areas and as I read in other posts the stress will keep
increasing as I use finer elements.
What I'm interested in is the max stress in the material around the screw in general
(neglecting the stresses around the threads). How can I pick the most adequate element size
for this purpose? Can I just create a similar model without the threads and just assume that
the results will be similar?
corus (Mechanical) 14 Dec 09 01:51
I'd spend a little time and try and get a mesh with hex elements, preferably linear elements as
these are more stable. Your model looks axisymmetric too, though I'm not sure that applies to
the loads applied. If it is then use a 2D model. Results wil be much faster. The problem with
quad tet elements is that the mid-side nodes can get distorted and so appear as if they have
excessive distortion and become 'inside-out'.
corus
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
14 Dec 09 08:32
Thank you corus for your reply.
I tried to look up similar problems in the forum and I read somewhere you saying that the
stress values at the corners may be ignored since they are a result of singularities. Let's say I
decide to do this and ignore those values, can I just look at the second stress value in the color
contour for comparison purposes? My main purpose is to see how the length of the screw for
example affects stresses in the nearby area.
The problem is that I already created and modeled many similar models and working on hex
elements or axisymmteric models means I have to start from scracth.
DanStro (Mechanical) 14 Dec 09 08:43
I have worked with people that make scalpels in the past and as sharp as they are there is a
standard radius on the cutting edge (R0.002mm is coming to mind but I am not sure) so while
the vendor of the screw, or even the drawing for the screw, might say that they are sharp in
reality it is not EXACTLY sharp.
So, that being said, you might want to try putting a very small radius on those edges.
From the description of what you are looking for I don't see why a small radius would have a
noticeable effect on the results. Even if you are a little off on the actual value.
corus (Mechanical) 14 Dec 09 09:03
The problem definition seems to be a bit vague and looking at the 2nd contour value isn't
really going to help when your results are mesh dependent. If you've ran a couple of models
with different meshes then pick a location that is close to the area of interest but not affected
by your mesh zize and then compare values at that location with your different scenarios.
I'd still spend half an hour looking at the mesh rather than wait 36 hours plus for results
you're not even going to be confident about. It's also often useful to run simple 2D models
first to get an idea of what is going on before going for the full razzamatazz of 3D models.
Even then after running a 3D model you can then say with some confidence that the results
from a 2D model are good enough for comparative studies. A little extra time at the
beginning can save you a lot more in the end.
corus
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
14 Dec 09 21:28
Corus,
I followed your advice and worked on a simple 2D model that gave me max stress values that
converged easily. Would it be safe to extrapolate from there to the 3D models (i.e use a mesh
density that gives similar max stress values as in the 2D model)?
I know for a fact that yielding will not occur under the conditions I am applying, I just want
to compare different models.
corus (Mechanical) 15 Dec 09 03:14
It would depend if you really need a 3D model that can be more easily described by results
from a 2D model. Do the results from the 2D model compare with the results from the 3D
model away from areas of high stress? From what I've seen of your model the geometry looks
axisymmetric other than the square block. If that is replaced by a cylinder with radius of half
the breadth of the block, are the results generally similar to the 3D model for a coarse mesh?
If so, then you can use the 2D axisymmetric geometry and use a fine mesh at the 'sharp'
corners, except use a small radius, as others have suggested.
corus
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
15 Dec 09 08:18
The model is not axisymmetric because the direction of loading is not.
The only two options I can think of now is either to use a coarse 3D mesh with comparable
values to the ones obtained in the 2D analysis or to use a fine mesh and ignore the peak stress
values. Do you think this would work just for comparison?
I am sorry if I'm repeating myself. I appreciate your help, thanks a lot!
corus (Mechanical) 16 Dec 09 08:59
You can ignore the peak stresses if fatigue is not to be considered. In your case the peak
stresses are due to the singularity caused by the geometry, which you can't capture anyway.
I'd use a mesh that gave results that gave smooth contours in regions of the model I'd be
interested in.
If your job is taking a long time to run and has contact in it, then check the time steps it's
taking as these may be very small. Contact controls can make the job more stable and run
faster. In addition, the use of quadrilateral elements increases the bandwidth of the problem
and hence the run time and memory requirements. If you have contact in the problem then try
and use linear hex elements, but more of them. Contact will converge better, and the job will
run faster.
corus
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
16 Dec 09 10:41
Thanks a lot for your helpful comments. I appreciate it.
loki3000 (Mechanical) 18 Dec 09 08:32
what is that model, if i may ask? what it'll be used for?
CONVERGENCE
Convergence is something that all CFD Engineers talk about, but we must remember that the
way we generally define convergence (by looking at Residual values) is only a small part of
ensuring that we have a valid solution. For a Steady State simulation we need to ensure that
the solution satisfies the following three conditions:
- Residual RMS Error values have reduced to an acceptable value (typically 10-4 or 10-5)
- Monitor points for our values of interest have reached a steady solution
- The domain has imbalances of less than 1%.
Our values of interest are essentially the main outputs from our simulation, so pressure drop,
forces, mass flow etc. We need to make sure that these have converged to a steady value
otherwise if we let the simulation run for an additional 50 iterations then you would have a
different result. Ensuring that these values have reached a steady solution means that you are
basing your decisions on a single repeatable value.
As a rule, we must ensure that prior to starting a simulation we clearly define what our values
of interest are, and we make sure that we monitor these to ensure that they reach a steady
state. As previously highlighted, we also need to make sure that the Residual RMS Error
values are to at least 10-4. Finally, we need to ensure that the overall imbalance in the domain
is less than 1% for all variables.
The way we carry out a mesh independence study is fairly straight forward.
- Step 1
Run the initial simulation on your initial mesh and ensure convergence of residual error to 104
, monitor points are steady, and imbalances below 1%. If not refine the mesh and repeat.
- Step 2
Once you have met the convergence criteria above for your first simulation, refine the mesh
globally so that you have finer cells throughout the domain. Generally we would aim for
around 1.5 times the initial mesh size.
Run the simulation and ensure that the residual error drops below 10-4, that the monitor points
are steady, and that the imbalances are below 1%.
At this point you need to compare the monitor point values from Step 2 against the values
from Step 1. If they are the same (within your own allowable tolerance), then the mesh at
Step 1 was accurate enough to capture the result.
If the value at Step 2 is not within acceptable values of the Step 1 result, then this means that
your solution is changing because of your mesh resolution, and hence the solution is not yet
independent of the mesh. In this case you will need to move to Step 3.
- Step 3
Because your solution is changing with the refinement of mesh, you have not yet achieved a
mesh independent solution. You need to refine the mesh more, and repeat the process until
you have a solution that is independent of the mesh. You should then always use the smallest
mesh that gives you this mesh independent solution (to reduce your simulation run time).
- Example
The best way to check for a mesh independent solution is to plot a graph of the resultant
monitor value vs the number of cells in your simulation. This is illustrated below where we
have three results from our steady monitor points for the average temperature at an outlet.
We can see that with 4 million cells we have a result, which could be "converged" for that
particular mesh, with 10-4 residuals and imbalances below 1%. By increasing the mesh
resolution to 6 million cells, we can see that there has been a jump in the value of interest that
is not within my user specified tolerance (in this example I'll say +/-0.5 degrees).
By increasing the mesh size further we can see that the 8 million cell simulation results in a
value that is within my acceptable range. This indicates that we have reached a solution value
that is independent of the mesh resolution, and for further analysis we can use the 6 million
cell case, as it will give us a result within the user defined tolerance.
It is important that all CFD users follow these steps to ensure that you are reporting accurate
simulation results. Please contact our Support Team if you have any further queries on this
approach.
In the next blogs we will begin to discuss the importance of turbulence model selection.
1.
Al Atresh
1.
LEAP CFD Team
2.
Al Atresh
Regards
CFX user
3.
LEAP CFD Team
2.
Bhawesh
1.
LEAP CFD Team
3.
AURABINDA
1.
LEAP CFD Team
4.
Mira-Lisa
the residual RMS error values? Are those the values for the continuity equation, x-,yand z-velocity, k and epsilon? (when running a k-epsilon turbulence model).
Best Regards,
Mira-Lisa
1.
LEAP CFD Team
2.
Mira-Lisa
5.
Mehdi
1.
LEAP CFD Team
cause convergence issues and it is not able to capture the characteristics of the
phenomena you are studying).
6.
Luis Perez
7.
Ernesto
1.
LEAP CFD Team
your system. If you see that the monitor points have converged, but residuals
are still oscillating due to small local regions of instability, we would likely
accept the solution as a converged result.
8.
Brice
1.
LEAP CFD Team
9.
Dave
Reply
Hi, I am trying to simulate a turbulent flux in a completely open valve, but the
residual of continuity equation does not converge. I have tried changing my model
(initially, I wanted to use the k-omega SST model) and I have found the best solution
with the standard k-omega model. So, I thought that refining the mesh I would find a
better solution! I have tried but the solution found is, actually, even worse!! The other
residuals are in the order of 10-4 10-5, but the residual of continuity passes from
9*10-3 for the coarser mesh, to 5*10-2 for the refined one. The solution presents a
mass imbalance of 10-5 on 50 kg/s. What do you think should I do to obtain a better
solution? can I consider the solution converged even if the RMS of the continuity
equation is so high?
I would love to have any suggestions because I do not know how to proceed.
Thanks
Dave
1.
LEAP CFD Team
10.
Abdalellah
independence study to reach better convergence and after that start mesh
independence study?
I ran the analysis for 3 sec first and then for 8 sec, I realized a bit difference in the
result. Do you think the total physical time will affect the results? if not, can I run the
analysis for 3 sec in the mesh independence study and then generalize it for 8 sec?
Regards
1.
LEAP CFD Team
11.
Mustafa
1.
LEAP CFD Team
12.
Hashim Kareem
1.
LEAP CFD Team
Regards,
LEAP CFD Support
13.
Yogi
1.
LEAP CFD Team
14.
Markus
Reply
Hi LEAP Team,
Thanks for the interesting article.
I have a question concerning mesh independence studies:
As far as I know, a properly done mesh independence study requires a uniform and
consistent refinement of the whole mesh (i.e. every region should be refined by the
same factor and the quality of the mesh should at least remain constant). How can I
achieve a uniform and consistent refinement for a unstructured and non-uniform mesh
(with inflation layers), e.g. in ANSYS Meshing (i.e. how should the meshing
parameters be adjusted in order to achieve a uniform and consistent grid refinement)?
I would really appreciate if you could give me some hints concerning the question
above or refer me to some reference which could help! Thanks in advance!
Regards,
Markus
1.
LEAP CFD Team
15.
George_CFD
We also perform mesh independence studies by refining the mesh from coarse to
medium to fine. However we do not reach a nice convergence of drag and lift as in the
plot you show. Cl for example may increase from coarse to medium and then decrease
to fine mesh.
I have read somewhere that too fine meshes in steady state RANS may lead to
problems.
Could you please comment on this?
Thanks!
1.
LEAP CFD Team