Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 years ago
14 juil. 2015, 08:58 UTC−4
Look "flc1hs" or "flc2hs".
Look "flc1hs" or "flc2hs".
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 years ago
14 juil. 2015, 23:49 UTC−4
Thank you very much for the reply, I tried this equation,
0.25*(flc1hs(x^2,-0.5)+flc1hs(y^2,-0.5)) and I am getting this as the initial condition (initial_comsol.jpg).
I want to achieve something like this, (initial_malab.jpg)
Thank you very much for the reply, I tried this equation,
0.25*(flc1hs(x^2,-0.5)+flc1hs(y^2,-0.5)) and I am getting this as the initial condition (initial_comsol.jpg).
I want to achieve something like this, (initial_malab.jpg)
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 years ago
15 juil. 2015, 02:46 UTC−4
What happens if you write
0.4*flc1hs(0.04 - x^2 - y^2, 0.01)?
What happens if you write
0.4*flc1hs(0.04 - x^2 - y^2, 0.01)?
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 years ago
16 juil. 2015, 01:59 UTC−4
yep that worked. I am getting this white border around the initial cell. Do you know why?
yep that worked. I am getting this white border around the initial cell. Do you know why?
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 years ago
16 juil. 2015, 02:13 UTC−4
I do not understand the image. How dense is the mesh around the circle? Please send a height plot.
I do not understand the image. How dense is the mesh around the circle? Please send a height plot.
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 years ago
16 juil. 2015, 02:36 UTC−4
attached are the screenshots of initial stage and after 0.6seconds
attached are the screenshots of initial stage and after 0.6seconds
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 years ago
16 juil. 2015, 03:16 UTC−4
White areas probably represent function values < 0 and also shows your mesh. If you have a time dependent problem the initial steps tend to give negative values as the step function is numerically rather tricky thing to realize. Have you tried flc2hs which has also continuous second derivative? But in principle it appears to work. Defining the second parameter as 0.001 makes the transition range very sharp; values below that I have not found to have any improvement.
White areas probably represent function values < 0 and also shows your mesh. If you have a time dependent problem the initial steps tend to give negative values as the step function is numerically rather tricky thing to realize. Have you tried flc2hs which has also continuous second derivative? But in principle it appears to work. Defining the second parameter as 0.001 makes the transition range very sharp; values below that I have not found to have any improvement.
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 years ago
16 juil. 2015, 03:28 UTC−4
Thank you very much for the quick reply
I tried flc2hs, and I'm getting a similar result. I changed the second parameter to 0.001 and it is the same,
It is like this only for the initial step. at 0.1s onward white boundary is gone
Thank you very much for the quick reply
I tried flc2hs, and I'm getting a similar result. I changed the second parameter to 0.001 and it is the same,
It is like this only for the initial step. at 0.1s onward white boundary is gone
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
8 years ago
3 août 2016, 09:12 UTC−4
You can also trying using logicals.
for instance (x^2 + y^2 > 0.4) will return 1 when true and 0 when false.
You can also trying using logicals.
for instance (x^2 + y^2 > 0.4) will return 1 when true and 0 when false.
Jeff Hiller
COMSOL Employee
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
8 years ago
3 août 2016, 14:57 UTC−4
Hello Ashan,
I get the feeling that this may be a case of the situation that's been discussed in this Discussion Forum before (I cannot find the thread right now) where the user tries to impose a very rapid variation of a quantity at the nodes of a single quadratic element, not realizing that this can cause the quantity to overshoot or undershoot in between the nodes.
E.g. if you imagine a 1D quadratic element covering [-2;2] and you impose at the 3 nodes u(-2)=1, u(0)=0 and u(2)=0, then u will take negative values in [0;2]. This can be counter-intuitive but it's true. If your plot is set up so that only values of u between 0 and 1 are displayed, then you will naturally get a "hole" in your plot, like what your screenshots above show.
The solution is to use a finer mesh, one that uses more than one element to capture the gradient that you're imposing.
Jeff
Hello Ashan,
I get the feeling that this may be a case of the situation that's been discussed in this Discussion Forum before (I cannot find the thread right now) where the user tries to impose a very rapid variation of a quantity at the nodes of a single quadratic element, not realizing that this can cause the quantity to overshoot or undershoot in between the nodes.
E.g. if you imagine a 1D quadratic element covering [-2;2] and you impose at the 3 nodes u(-2)=1, u(0)=0 and u(2)=0, then u will take negative values in [0;2]. This can be counter-intuitive but it's true. If your plot is set up so that only values of u between 0 and 1 are displayed, then you will naturally get a "hole" in your plot, like what your screenshots above show.
The solution is to use a finer mesh, one that uses more than one element to capture the gradient that you're imposing.
Jeff
