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.
Error "Could not resolve subdomain relations"
Posted 27 juil. 2010, 10:08 UTC−4 3 Replies
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Hello,
I am trying to find the eigenvalues of a wave propagating along a single NANO-wire (basically a Sommerfeld wave but on a nanowire). It's a 2D perpendicular wave , mode analysis problem .
I realize that the error that I am receiving, "Could not resolve subdomain relations", is due to a too big of a ratio between the biggest and smallest feature which causes an error in the mesh.
But, I NEED to be able to overcome this error someway.
I want to be able to increase the size of the bounding box as much as possible, because it seems that the size of it is affecting the result!
please, how to overcome this error. There MUST be a way.
Regards,
Mil
I am trying to find the eigenvalues of a wave propagating along a single NANO-wire (basically a Sommerfeld wave but on a nanowire). It's a 2D perpendicular wave , mode analysis problem .
I realize that the error that I am receiving, "Could not resolve subdomain relations", is due to a too big of a ratio between the biggest and smallest feature which causes an error in the mesh.
But, I NEED to be able to overcome this error someway.
I want to be able to increase the size of the bounding box as much as possible, because it seems that the size of it is affecting the result!
please, how to overcome this error. There MUST be a way.
Regards,
Mil
3 Replies Last Post 28 juil. 2010, 10:08 UTC−4
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi
do not ask more from physics that it can give you, it's useless ;) but if its really "just a mesh ratio issue, I believe you can get around, if the physics does not have to steep gradients (that must be resolved via a dense mesh) by subdividing your volume with a few interiour boundaries such that in each segment has at most 1:1000 or 1:10'000 in mesh size ratio. But it's a try and fail or win approach. There are a few older threads discussion on the forum about large mesh variations
--
Good luck
Ivar
do not ask more from physics that it can give you, it's useless ;) but if its really "just a mesh ratio issue, I believe you can get around, if the physics does not have to steep gradients (that must be resolved via a dense mesh) by subdividing your volume with a few interiour boundaries such that in each segment has at most 1:1000 or 1:10'000 in mesh size ratio. But it's a try and fail or win approach. There are a few older threads discussion on the forum about large mesh variations
--
Good luck
Ivar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
OK thanks I see what you mean.
On another thing of the same issue, the nano-cylinder seems to be approximated by a 4 points polygon. Is there a way I can increase that ?
Thanks,
Mil
On another thing of the same issue, the nano-cylinder seems to be approximated by a 4 points polygon. Is there a way I can increase that ?
Thanks,
Mil
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi
well is it the mesh or the graphics display density ? that is your concern as your graphics card would also have issues to solve too large differences in size, it's also "mesh based", if its the mesh try refining it again (just locally)
--
Good luck
Ivar
well is it the mesh or the graphics display density ? that is your concern as your graphics card would also have issues to solve too large differences in size, it's also "mesh based", if its the mesh try refining it again (just locally)
--
Good luck
Ivar