Hello,
I used biphasic material with perm-Holmes-Mow permeability to study the influence of the sold volume fraction. In ‘test 1’, the solid volume fraction is 0.1923. In ‘test 2 fraction0.01’ and ‘test 3 fraction0.9’, I changed the solid volume fraction from 0.1923 to 0.01 and 0.9 respectively.
However, the results did not show clear differences among these tests. Does it correct? I suggest that it should exists some differences (such as fluid pressure) between test 2 and test 3 because the solid volume fractions are so different.
I also used the same method to test biphasic material with perm-ref-iso too. And this time the results show different trend.
So I don't know why it didn't work in the first materail setting (biphasic material with perm-Holmes-Mow permeability). I had read the FEBio-user’s manual but I still could not figure it out. I attached my models in the attachment. I would really appreciate it if anyone could help me. Thank you in advance.
Albert
test solid fration(perm-Holmes-mow).zip
I used biphasic material with perm-Holmes-Mow permeability to study the influence of the sold volume fraction. In ‘test 1’, the solid volume fraction is 0.1923. In ‘test 2 fraction0.01’ and ‘test 3 fraction0.9’, I changed the solid volume fraction from 0.1923 to 0.01 and 0.9 respectively.
However, the results did not show clear differences among these tests. Does it correct? I suggest that it should exists some differences (such as fluid pressure) between test 2 and test 3 because the solid volume fractions are so different.
I also used the same method to test biphasic material with perm-ref-iso too. And this time the results show different trend.
So I don't know why it didn't work in the first materail setting (biphasic material with perm-Holmes-Mow permeability). I had read the FEBio-user’s manual but I still could not figure it out. I attached my models in the attachment. I would really appreciate it if anyone could help me. Thank you in advance.
Albert
test solid fration(perm-Holmes-mow).zip
Comment