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.
Regular Meshing
Posted 16 nov. 2012, 10:44 UTC−5 2 Replies
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Hi all,
I've been asked to create a regular mapped mesh for a cube which has faces of 10 by 10 square areas throughout the whole of the cube. I'm applying a magnetic field to the cube and I wanted to get an average magnetic flux value for each of those individual squares on each face. Is it possible to get the values from the mesh results? Otherwise I was going to export a regular grid of 10 x, y and z values and attempt to get the data using matlab. I know it would also be possible if I physically drew the 10 by 10 squares on my cube then exported the average flux values for each individual face. However that is very time consuming. I was wondering if there were any tools in COMSOL that could solve the issue? Many thanks for your consideration.
Philip
I've been asked to create a regular mapped mesh for a cube which has faces of 10 by 10 square areas throughout the whole of the cube. I'm applying a magnetic field to the cube and I wanted to get an average magnetic flux value for each of those individual squares on each face. Is it possible to get the values from the mesh results? Otherwise I was going to export a regular grid of 10 x, y and z values and attempt to get the data using matlab. I know it would also be possible if I physically drew the 10 by 10 squares on my cube then exported the average flux values for each individual face. However that is very time consuming. I was wondering if there were any tools in COMSOL that could solve the issue? Many thanks for your consideration.
Philip
2 Replies Last Post 19 nov. 2012, 06:23 UTC−5
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi
I would say that is a classical FEM study, in COMSOL you talk rather about a result field (vector or scalar) over a domain. So indeed I believe you would need to cheat COMSOL and define a mapping of points and extract the data like that.
I do not believe it's the best exercice for COMSOL (but there might be some good reasons) but it's a typical one for a classical FEM solver, where everything is "on the mesh". My experience is that this is not the best way to understand the beauty of COMSOL
--
Good luck
Ivar
I would say that is a classical FEM study, in COMSOL you talk rather about a result field (vector or scalar) over a domain. So indeed I believe you would need to cheat COMSOL and define a mapping of points and extract the data like that.
I do not believe it's the best exercice for COMSOL (but there might be some good reasons) but it's a typical one for a classical FEM solver, where everything is "on the mesh". My experience is that this is not the best way to understand the beauty of COMSOL
--
Good luck
Ivar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi,
Thanks for your help Ivar. I think that is what I am going to do. I have been having some problems also with the meshing. As I said i have made the area i want to get results out of in a regular mapped mesh. Then i have meshed the remaining with a tetrahedral mesh. When I try to run the model it comes up with an error: "solving for a subset of solution components is not supported for this element". I've tried lots of different things but can't get it to work. Could you possibly help me with this error?
Many thanks,
Philip
Thanks for your help Ivar. I think that is what I am going to do. I have been having some problems also with the meshing. As I said i have made the area i want to get results out of in a regular mapped mesh. Then i have meshed the remaining with a tetrahedral mesh. When I try to run the model it comes up with an error: "solving for a subset of solution components is not supported for this element". I've tried lots of different things but can't get it to work. Could you possibly help me with this error?
Many thanks,
Philip