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.

Ultrasonic reflections of neural dust

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Hello all,

I am trying to model the operation of neural dust, as described by Dongjin Seo et al: Neural Dust

I've set up my model with 3 components: ultrasonic transmitter, propagating medium and simplified neural dust mote, and ultrasonic reciever. I am basing my transmitter and receiver off of the COMSOL tutorial for the ultrasonic flowmeter. The tutorial points out that to couple ultrasound with the piezoelectric transducers they had to use separate studies as a workaround. The reason they had to do this is because the convected wave equation is modeled by the DG method, while the piezoelectric is modeled by the FEM method, and the two cannot be directly coupled. The separation into several studies is fine for the transmitter and receiver interfaces, and honestly preferable because it descretizes my individual study steps. However, at the mote reflection interface I'm not sure that I can separate the two studies, because the reflections depend directly on the piezoelectric characteristics of the mote at the time the ultrasound hits. I was wondering if the COMSOL community had any insight into how I could work around this. Could I manually make both models work in the DG method? Or is there another way I can model reflections? Any advice you may have would be very helpful.

Thanks, Stephen


1 Reply Last Post 26 avr. 2019, 13:52 UTC−4
Edgar J. Kaiser Certified Consultant

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 6 years ago 26 avr. 2019, 13:52 UTC−4

Stephen,

I had a similar issue. It is not possible to realize a 2-way coupling between a DG domain and a solid domain, due to the different numerical approaches. I also tried a manual coupling and failed. Comsol say they are addressing this but without announcing it for a future version.

My workaround is to model the propagating medium with pressure acoustics. The new boundary mode in acoustics is possible as well, not sure if it was already available in 5.3. For my task the boundary mode was more expensive than the FE mode in pressure acoustics.

Cheers Edgar

-------------------
Edgar J. Kaiser
emPhys Physical Technology
www.emphys.com
Stephen, I had a similar issue. It is not possible to realize a 2-way coupling between a DG domain and a solid domain, due to the different numerical approaches. I also tried a manual coupling and failed. Comsol say they are addressing this but without announcing it for a future version. My workaround is to model the propagating medium with pressure acoustics. The new boundary mode in acoustics is possible as well, not sure if it was already available in 5.3. For my task the boundary mode was more expensive than the FE mode in pressure acoustics. Cheers Edgar

Note that while COMSOL employees may participate in the discussion forum, COMSOL® software users who are on-subscription should submit their questions via the Support Center for a more comprehensive response from the Technical Support team.