-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 105
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
perpendicular-flap: Results for CalculiX differ from FEniCS and Deal.II #176
Comments
Some important points to note for this results mismatch:
|
Since the issue is still open, I'll chime in. It might be worth trying with incompatible mode eight-node brick elements (C3D8I), which are implemented in CalculiX (https://petegustafson.com/CalculiX/ccx_2.15/doc/ccx/node29.html). Quoting: the incompatible mode eight-node brick element is an improved version of the C3D8-element. In particular, shear locking is removed and volumetric locking is much reduced. (...) The C3D8I element should be used in all instances in which linear elements are subject to bending. EDIT: I decided to try it out, using the -CalculiX 2.16 with C3D8 elements (this is the figure provided in Benjamin's As can be seen, results obtained using C3D8I elements are almost the same as those obtained with FEniCS. I have not tried with deal.II. Minor note: apart from changing Hope this helps. Andrés |
Hi @AndresPedemonteFIUBA, thanks for the great input! The experiments really look promising. Could you directly apply the necessary modifications in the tutorial case and open a pull request? Did you have to modify the CalculiX adapter or did it work out-of-the-box? Also related: We published a preprint for the preCICE reference paper in the meantime. In Fig.21, you can see a gap between CalculiX and other structure solvers. Ideally we could close this gap by applying your suggestions. |
@BenjaminRodenberg: I just opened the pull request, #250, with a minor explanation of the changes. It works out-of-the-box, no modification of the CCX adapter is required. Apart from the test with I don't have any of the other structural solvers built, so perhaps someone who has could go ahead and compare the new CCX results with them. Andrés |
We can close this now, right? Looking also at the figure at the bottom of https://precice.org/tutorials-perpendicular-flap.html, I am not sure what more we can do, it looks reasonably close to me. I am closing, if anyone disagrees, please reopen. |
Problem & some Background
We observed a mismatch between results of the perpendicual flap case when preparing this publication. In the end we used the Deal.II - SU2 and FEniCS - SU2 cases in the publication. They show good agreement. CalculiX - SU2 disagrees with these cases. Our current explanation for this behavior is that the CalculiX case uses
C3D8
elements, which should not be used according to the CalculiX documentation (see "...the locking phenomena observed in the C3D8 element...").Solution
From my current point we should therefore use the "right" elements for CalculiX (no idea which elements are the right ones). Note that this will also require modifications of the calculix-adapter, since up to my knowledge currently only
C3D8
andC3D8R
elements work (please correct me, if I'm wrong).Additional Material
For debugging this case we developed a
fluid-fake
solver that I would like to share in this issue (see fluid-fake.zip). This allows to replace the fluid solver with a simple constant force for quicker debugging. I'm plotting the tip displacement over time. Already this simple setup can be used to show the mismatch of CalculiX and the other two solvers:Code Versions
tutorials
:a166efadfe7dbd3231e14897dcbeecebb90ea97e
fenicsprecice
:v1.0.1
precice
:v2.2.0
pyprecice
:v2.2.0.1
calculix-adapter
:4635aa87439d154269d7f6141e8684a733f3e68f
dealii-adapter
:f9c2c65eead05ecea1c2f7a1c7ff48fe5942f930
dealii
:v9.2.0
calculix
: did not check this, but I think it should be2.16
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: