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.
Thermoelastic (TED) Dissipation in Clamped-Clamped Beam. 2D and 3D don't match.
Posted 11 dic 2015, 19:04 GMT-5 MEMS & Nanotechnology, Heat Transfer & Phase Change, MEMS & Piezoelectric Devices, Materials, Mesh, Modeling Tools & Definitions, Parameters, Variables, & Functions, Structural Mechanics Version 5.0, Version 5.1, Version 5.2 2 Replies
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Hello,
I am using COMSOL 5.0 to model Q_TED in a Clamped-Clamped Beam for MEMS applications. I use the same parameters in 2D and 3D model and get different results. I get Q_TED (te.Q_eig) equal to 5.5k in the 2D model and I get Q_TED 8.5k in the 3D case. I have refined the mesh (manually very fine!) and I still get the disagreement between 2D and 3D models.
Furthermore, for a simple beam the Q_TED according to Zener's theory should be around 10k. Why are these models inconsistent and don't agree with the Zener model?
I attached the files.
Thanks in advance.
I am using COMSOL 5.0 to model Q_TED in a Clamped-Clamped Beam for MEMS applications. I use the same parameters in 2D and 3D model and get different results. I get Q_TED (te.Q_eig) equal to 5.5k in the 2D model and I get Q_TED 8.5k in the 3D case. I have refined the mesh (manually very fine!) and I still get the disagreement between 2D and 3D models.
Furthermore, for a simple beam the Q_TED according to Zener's theory should be around 10k. Why are these models inconsistent and don't agree with the Zener model?
I attached the files.
Thanks in advance.
Attachments:
2 Replies Last Post 14 dic 2015, 11:21 GMT-5