Jeff Hiller
COMSOL Employee
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
7 years ago
23 oct. 2017, 16:33 UTC−4
Sounds like ill-conditioning.
See my post in this thread, and the blog post I point to there:
https://www.comsol.com/forum/thread/141001/current-between-to-dissimilar-contacts?last=2017-04-07T13:54:13Z
Best,
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hiller
Sounds like ill-conditioning.
See my post in this thread, and the blog post I point to there:
https://www.comsol.com/forum/thread/141001/current-between-to-dissimilar-contacts?last=2017-04-07T13:54:13Z
Best,
Jeff
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
7 years ago
23 oct. 2017, 17:35 UTC−4
Sounds like ill-conditioning.
See my post in this thread, and the blog post I point to there:
https://www.comsol.com/forum/thread/141001/current-between-to-dissimilar-contacts?last=2017-04-07T13:54:13Z
Best,
Jeff
Dear Jeff,
I have visited what you have kindly suggested. Thank you, the information has been helpful.
However, I have been using the Direct solver (left in default settings) for the entire duration of my simulations.
In order to illustrate the issue, I would like to bring the attention to COMSOL's superconducting wire example model (https://www.comsol.com/model/superconducting-wire-689). In this model, the resistivity of air is set to 1e2, while the true resistivity of air is more than a dozen of orders of magnitude larger. Setting the value to 1e6 already increases the computational time to impractical lenghts and at 1e13 the simulation produces the error I have quoted in my original post. (NB, the superconductor can be replaced with any material, with the same effect; in fact my investigations suggest that the Magnetic Field Formulation module cannot handle small conductivities, e.g. traditional insulators, regardless of whether there are any domains with large conductivities or not).
Hence, my question is, why does that happen?
>Sounds like ill-conditioning.
>See my post in this thread, and the blog post I point to there:
>https://www.comsol.com/forum/thread/141001/current-between-to-dissimilar-contacts?last=2017-04-07T13:54:13Z
>
>Best,
>
>Jeff
Dear Jeff,
I have visited what you have kindly suggested. Thank you, the information has been helpful.
However, I have been using the Direct solver (left in default settings) for the entire duration of my simulations.
In order to illustrate the issue, I would like to bring the attention to COMSOL's superconducting wire example model (https://www.comsol.com/model/superconducting-wire-689). In this model, the resistivity of air is set to 1e2, while the true resistivity of air is more than a dozen of orders of magnitude larger. Setting the value to 1e6 already increases the computational time to impractical lenghts and at 1e13 the simulation produces the error I have quoted in my original post. (NB, the superconductor can be replaced with any material, with the same effect; in fact my investigations suggest that the Magnetic Field Formulation module cannot handle small conductivities, e.g. traditional insulators, regardless of whether there are any domains with large conductivities or not).
Hence, my question is, why does that happen?
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
7 years ago
15 déc. 2017, 09:28 UTC−5
What relationship are you using to simulate the SC?
What relationship are you using to simulate the SC?
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
7 years ago
15 déc. 2017, 14:28 UTC−5
What relationship are you using to simulate the SC?
It is the E-J power law.
However, my point is that the MFH module (as well as it's general form PDE equivalent) just cannot handle very high resistivities; does not have anything to do with superconductivity as I have tested it on several different cases.
>What relationship are you using to simulate the SC?
It is the E-J power law.
However, my point is that the MFH module (as well as it's general form PDE equivalent) just cannot handle very high resistivities; does not have anything to do with superconductivity as I have tested it on several different cases.