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.
Discrepancy in Integration methods (MEF, Frequency Domain, 3D)
Posted 13 mai 2015, 14:14 UTC−4 Low-Frequency Electromagnetics, Mesh, Modeling Tools & Definitions, Parameters, Variables, & Functions 2 Replies
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Hello,
I am struggling with the desceprancing result of two different methods to calculate an Integral of the current density.
1) Red surface in file:
Integral via Postprocess by defining a parameterized surface and afterwards integration
2) Blue surface in file (Clearly bigger than the red surface):
Integral via "Model Coupling" over a given geometry boundary " intop1(mef.nz*mef.Jz)"
The result of the second method (blue surface) has to be bigger. This is due to the fact, that the blue surface is way bigger than the red one PLUS "mef.Jz" being greater than 0 in every point of the surface (Surface plot in file). Unfortunately, this is not the result.... (254-i1.2 vs 227+i23)
Also Interesting:
I compared the average values of "mef.Jz" on the surface and in the whole domain. The discrepancy is ~sqrt(2), although it should be kind of the same...
Do you guys have an idea where this difference comes from?
Thanks in Advance
I am struggling with the desceprancing result of two different methods to calculate an Integral of the current density.
1) Red surface in file:
Integral via Postprocess by defining a parameterized surface and afterwards integration
2) Blue surface in file (Clearly bigger than the red surface):
Integral via "Model Coupling" over a given geometry boundary " intop1(mef.nz*mef.Jz)"
The result of the second method (blue surface) has to be bigger. This is due to the fact, that the blue surface is way bigger than the red one PLUS "mef.Jz" being greater than 0 in every point of the surface (Surface plot in file). Unfortunately, this is not the result.... (254-i1.2 vs 227+i23)
Also Interesting:
I compared the average values of "mef.Jz" on the surface and in the whole domain. The discrepancy is ~sqrt(2), although it should be kind of the same...
Do you guys have an idea where this difference comes from?
Thanks in Advance
Attachments:
2 Replies Last Post 17 mai 2015, 02:35 UTC−4
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 years ago
no one? : (
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 years ago
Hi
certainly there are people out here, but your observations are puzzling, and not easy for us to check, perhaps if you made a simple "neutral" model and shared it it would be easier, or use support, but them too would need a model to understand
--
Good luck
Ivar
certainly there are people out here, but your observations are puzzling, and not easy for us to check, perhaps if you made a simple "neutral" model and shared it it would be easier, or use support, but them too would need a model to understand
--
Good luck
Ivar