Skip to content
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

Change C3D8 elements to C3D8I elements in perpendicular-flap solid-calculix #250

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 29, 2022

Conversation

AndresPedemonteFIUBA
Copy link
Contributor

This modifies the CalculiX case for the perpendicular-flap tutorial to use incompatible mode eight-node brick elements (C3D8I) instead of basic linear fully integrated eight-node brick elements (C3D8).

C3D8 elements are prone to shear-locking, resulting in the structure appearing to be much stiffer than it actually is. Quoting the CCX manual:

Other elements frequently exhibit unsatisfactory behavior in certain instances,
e.g. the C3D8 element in bending states.

the element tends to be to too stiff in bending

C3D8I elements are much better for this case, where the flap bends:

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.

This "fix" just requires chaning TYPE=C3D8 to TYPE=C3D8I in all.msh and adding the DIRECT parameter to the *DYNAMIC keyword in flap.inp. This last addition is necessary to avoid CalculiX's automatic incrementation kicking in and changing the timestep size.

The change should help bring the results obtained with CalculiX more in line with those obtained with other structural solvers (FEniCS, deal.II) for this case. See #176.

Andrés

Added `DIRECT` parameter to `*DYNAMIC* keyword.
@BenjaminRodenberg
Copy link
Member

I will take care of reviewing this PR and also check how these changes affect the results presented in the reference paper (see Fig 21).

Copy link
Member

@BenjaminRodenberg BenjaminRodenberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I applied the suggested changes and reran the examples presented in the preprint for the preCICE reference paper. The results are much better with the suggested C3D8I elements and in good agreement with the other available solid solvers FEniCS and Deal.II:
plot
I used the preCICE vm version that is based on https://github.com/precice/tutorials/releases/tag/v202104.1.0, namely precice/vm@66ee0cd.

@AndresPedemonteFIUBA thank you again for this contribution and your help!

@BenjaminRodenberg
Copy link
Member

Merging this PR closes #176.

@BenjaminRodenberg BenjaminRodenberg merged commit e9f0dfa into precice:develop Jan 29, 2022
BenjaminRodenberg added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2022
@BenjaminRodenberg
Copy link
Member

@AndresPedemonteFIUBA We would like to use the updated results in our paper and also point to this PR. If you want, we can also mention your github or real name. Can you write me a email to benjamin.rodenberg@in.tum.de, in case you want to be mentioned personally? If not, we can also refer to this PR without mentioning you personally.

@MakisH MakisH added this to the v202104.2.0 milestone Feb 9, 2022
@precice-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

This pull request has been mentioned on preCICE Forum on Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://precice.discourse.group/t/turek-hron-fsi-with-openfoam-and-calculix/1001/5

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
No open projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

perpendicular-flap: Results for CalculiX differ from FEniCS and Deal.II
4 participants