Dear all,
A colleague and I have coupled FEBio with an in-house compressible flow solver (Dirichlet-Neumann weakly coupled). We set up a "2D" case of a Mooney-Rivlin Material with parameters taken from Maas et al. validation paper (https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4005694) and imposed a pressure load at the interface. At atmospheric pressure FEBio computes velocity of the order of 1E-2 < v < 1E-1 m/s or higher. We also ran the same case with an isotropic elastic solid with parameters corresponding to aluminum and observed the same behavior. Moreover, looking at the stress field it looks like we're just solving for noise.
NB : we're solving with timesteps of the order of 1E-10 < dt < 1E-9 since we are restricted by the acoustic CFL in the fluid.
Are those velocities a numerical artifact ? If so how can I set up the case properly ?
Please find the FEBio case enclosed.
If you have any indications feel free to ask me.
Thanks a lot,
Armand.
A colleague and I have coupled FEBio with an in-house compressible flow solver (Dirichlet-Neumann weakly coupled). We set up a "2D" case of a Mooney-Rivlin Material with parameters taken from Maas et al. validation paper (https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4005694) and imposed a pressure load at the interface. At atmospheric pressure FEBio computes velocity of the order of 1E-2 < v < 1E-1 m/s or higher. We also ran the same case with an isotropic elastic solid with parameters corresponding to aluminum and observed the same behavior. Moreover, looking at the stress field it looks like we're just solving for noise.
NB : we're solving with timesteps of the order of 1E-10 < dt < 1E-9 since we are restricted by the acoustic CFL in the fluid.
Are those velocities a numerical artifact ? If so how can I set up the case properly ?
Please find the FEBio case enclosed.
If you have any indications feel free to ask me.
Thanks a lot,
Armand.
Comment