Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Code_Aster forums / Same Calculation, Different r... http://www.code-aster.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?i...

Index User list Search Register Login

Home page Presentation Documentation Forum Download Support

Code_Aster forums
Welcome on the forums. Please post in English or French.

You are not logged in. You won't be able to post until you register and log in using the top-right bar.

Pages: 1 Index » Code_Aster usage » Same Calculation, Different results.


2008-07-08 15:47:01 #1

BL Hello
Member
Registered: 2008-03-13 I am comparing the results of MECA_STATIQUE command with the results of DYNA_NON_LINE command
Posts: 97 on the same model. I seek to independently verify the results are the same when performed with static forces
calculated by the dynamic solver and performed completely statically. MECA solves quickly and produces
results that appear physically correct. DYNA when run for an extended time produces oscillations between
the initial state and the static solution found by MECA. These oscillations are periodic and do NOT stabilize
over time. This result is clearly NOT a physical result for a statically applied pressure. The solution should
stabilize over time.

I have reviewed the documentation but I cannot find the cause of my error. I assume that this is my own
error as a user, but I cannot find the error.

Might an option exist to cause the dynamic solution of DYNA_NON_LINE to stabilize in the case of little to no
change?

Offline

2008-07-09 08:32:27 #2

1 de 3 10/08/10 10:52
Code_Aster forums / Same Calculation, Different r... http://www.code-aster.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?i...

Ect Hello,
Member
From: Switzerland Oscillations can be the result of a stepped load, the fact that it does not stabilize is ok as long as there is no
Registered: 2008-05-15 damping specified.
Posts: 61
Try to apply a ramped, or better, a smooth stepped load with something like this:

LstTmps=DEFI_LIST_REEL(DEBUT=0.0,
INTERVALLE=_F(JUSQU_A=1.0,
NOMBRE=put_your_number_of_increment_here,),);

Rampe=DEFI_FONCTION(NOM_PARA='INST',
VALE=(0.0,0.0, 1.0,1.0,),
PROL_DROITE='CONSTANT',
PROL_GAUCHE='CONSTANT',
INTERPOL='LIN',);

# Smooth step for time ranging from 0 to 1s


FONC = FORMULE(NOM_PARA='INST', VALE ='(1.0+sin(3.14159*(INST-0.5)))/2.0',);
SStep=CALC_FONC_INTERP(FONCTION=FONC,
LIST_PARA=LstTmps,
NOM_PARA='INST',);

and

SOLUTION=DYNA_NON_LINE(MODELE=MODELE,
EXCIT=( _F(CHARGE=CHARGE,
FONC_MULT=Rampe,), # Rampe or SStep

this should minimize the ringing.

In addition you can add some Rayleigh damping via the material's BETA and ALPHA parameters (beware,
code_aster's beta is mass damping, alpha is stiffness) or numerical damping with the HHT solver by adding:

SCHEMA_TEMPS=_F(SCHEMA='HHT',ALPHA=-0.3,FORMULATION='DEPLACEMENT',MODI_EQUI='OUI',),

in your DYNA_NON_LINE definition. Rayleigh damping should be better here since it will also damp low
frequencies.

Offline

2008-07-09 14:32:58 #3

BL Thank you for your advice.


Member
Registered: 2008-03-13 I have attempted both the solver and the material parameters. Both cases appear to be stabilizing.
Posts: 97

Offline

2008-07-10 16:43:21 #4

BL I have been reading about Rayleigh damping. From what I have read, the coefficeints are geometery related
Member and set empirically to return a correct solution. But in Aster they are defined with the material. Are these
Registered: 2008-03-13 parameters truly material dependent? Or are they defined in DEFI_MATERIAU to allow different materials to
Posts: 97 be damped with different constants?

Offline

2008-07-11 09:37:14 #5

2 de 3 10/08/10 10:52
Code_Aster forums / Same Calculation, Different r... http://www.code-aster.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?i...

Ect You're right, Rayleigh damping is only an "equivalent" viscous damping meant to approximate material
Member damping. Usually you make two measurements of the damping factor (Xi) at two frequencies, and infers
From: Switzerland alpha and beta by resolving:
Registered: 2008-05-15
Posts: 61 Xi1=alpha*omega1*0.5+beta*0.5/omega1
Xi2=alpha*omega2*0.5+beta*0.5/omega2

This way you have a correct damping for the frequency range between omega1 and omega2, but usually
wrong outside (lo and hi freqs overdamping, not really a problem for most calculations).

So yes, it's fully material related, but the approximated damping is build from stiffness and mass elementary
matrices:

[C]=beta*[M]+alpha*[K]

And yes, Aster let you define different coefficients to allow different materials to be damped with different
constants.

Offline

Pages: 1 Index » Code_Aster usage » Same Calculation, Different results.

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson

3 de 3 10/08/10 10:52