Discussion Closed This discussion was created more than 6 months ago and has been closed. To start a new discussion with a link back to this one, click here.
calculating the spring constant of a rectangular cantilever
Posted 22 sept. 2011, 07:23 UTC−4 Modeling Tools & Definitions, Parameters, Variables, & Functions, Structural Mechanics 2 Replies
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Hello,
i'm currently simulating a cantilver used in atomic force microscopes. I'm then calculating the spring constant of a cantilever using Hooke's law and the z-displacement caused by a load.
There is a another well established method to calculate the spring constant k of rectangular cantilevers based on the Young's modulus and the geometry (see e.g. Chen, Yeh, Tai, Anal. Chem. 79, 1333, 2007):
k = ( E * w * t^3) / (4 * L^3)
E: Young's modulus E=78.7GPa
t: thickness t=0.41mm
w: width w=0.24mm
L: length L=2.94mm
Pluging the values mentioned above in the formula you get k=12807 N/m.
Modelling a cantilever of the same properties using Hooke's law and the z-displacement i get k=12669 N/m.
So both methods yield consistent numerical values.
Unfortunately when i double the width i get:
k=25614 N/m using the geometrical method
k=22190 N/m using Comsol
This is a way bigger mismatch than before, which i'm unable to explain physically.
Therefore i'm asking for your help. Since i'm started using Comsol only a few weeks ago, i might used odd parameters or forgot to take something important into account. Basically i think my inexperience with Comsol is causing this mismatch.
I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look into it.
Because the file sizes are too big to attach i uploaded them here:
rapidshare.com/files/3857110085/cantilever.rar
The .rar contains both cantilever (width 0.24mm and 0.48mm)
I'm sorry for making you download them, but if you need another hoster or if you'd like me to send them to you via email, please let me know.
Kind regards
i'm currently simulating a cantilver used in atomic force microscopes. I'm then calculating the spring constant of a cantilever using Hooke's law and the z-displacement caused by a load.
There is a another well established method to calculate the spring constant k of rectangular cantilevers based on the Young's modulus and the geometry (see e.g. Chen, Yeh, Tai, Anal. Chem. 79, 1333, 2007):
k = ( E * w * t^3) / (4 * L^3)
E: Young's modulus E=78.7GPa
t: thickness t=0.41mm
w: width w=0.24mm
L: length L=2.94mm
Pluging the values mentioned above in the formula you get k=12807 N/m.
Modelling a cantilever of the same properties using Hooke's law and the z-displacement i get k=12669 N/m.
So both methods yield consistent numerical values.
Unfortunately when i double the width i get:
k=25614 N/m using the geometrical method
k=22190 N/m using Comsol
This is a way bigger mismatch than before, which i'm unable to explain physically.
Therefore i'm asking for your help. Since i'm started using Comsol only a few weeks ago, i might used odd parameters or forgot to take something important into account. Basically i think my inexperience with Comsol is causing this mismatch.
I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look into it.
Because the file sizes are too big to attach i uploaded them here:
rapidshare.com/files/3857110085/cantilever.rar
The .rar contains both cantilever (width 0.24mm and 0.48mm)
I'm sorry for making you download them, but if you need another hoster or if you'd like me to send them to you via email, please let me know.
Kind regards
2 Replies Last Post 23 sept. 2011, 10:13 UTC−4
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi
first to upload files, it's worth to clear the solution and the mesh, the file is then much smaller and we can always rerun it ;)
2) the difference might come from the mesh you are using, you should always check the sensitivity to the mesh, i.e. double the mesh density and confirm that the solution changes only a little (for me typically < 5%)
--
Good luck
Ivar
first to upload files, it's worth to clear the solution and the mesh, the file is then much smaller and we can always rerun it ;)
2) the difference might come from the mesh you are using, you should always check the sensitivity to the mesh, i.e. double the mesh density and confirm that the solution changes only a little (for me typically < 5%)
--
Good luck
Ivar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Also, go back and check the assumptions of your formula. I believe that the formula you're using assumes that the width of the beam is small relative to the length. A length/width ratio greater than 10 is a typical rule of thumb, which you exceed when you increase the width of your beam. COMSOL may be providing the more accurate solution here, but you may want to look up the correct formula to check.
Additionally, watch how large of a displacement that you're applying in your simulation, as the formula is only valid for small displacements.
~John
Additionally, watch how large of a displacement that you're applying in your simulation, as the formula is only valid for small displacements.
~John