Menu

Discussion Forum

New Discussion
Filtra

Note: This discussion is about an older version of the COMSOL Multiphysics® software. The information provided may be out of date.

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.

discontinuous BC

Posted 7 giu 2012, 02:00 GMT-4 Version 4.2a 8 Replies

EH Ooi
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Hi,
I am attempting to use Identity Pair or perhaps Contact Pair to prescribe a flux boundary condition at an interior boundary. However, when I solved the model and plot the flux across the interior boundary, it is different from the function of the boundary condition. I am solving the Helmholtz equation.

I have attached the file here and Identity Pair 1 is where the discontinuous boundary condition is prescribed. Can someone see if anything is wrong?

Thank you.



Best regards,
EH

Attachments:

8 Replies Last Post 7 giu 2012, 05:57 GMT-4
Ivar KJELBERG COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 7 giu 2012, 02:11 GMT-4
Hi

why bother using "assembly mode" if its to apply default continuity, its much easier to remain in "Union" mode and rely on COMSOLs internal settings of continuity on common boundaries

--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi why bother using "assembly mode" if its to apply default continuity, its much easier to remain in "Union" mode and rely on COMSOLs internal settings of continuity on common boundaries -- Good luck Ivar
EH Ooi
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 7 giu 2012, 02:15 GMT-4
Hi Ivar,
That model was set at continuity because I am not sure which Pair condition I should use to prescribe a discontinuous flux. In fact, I have used Flux/Source (under pair node) and the results are still the same. i.e. when I plot the flux on the interior boundary, the distribution is different from the function that is being prescribed. I would like to have the flux at the interior boundary to be the same but a discontinuous potential.

Thank you.

Best wishes,
EH
Hi Ivar, That model was set at continuity because I am not sure which Pair condition I should use to prescribe a discontinuous flux. In fact, I have used Flux/Source (under pair node) and the results are still the same. i.e. when I plot the flux on the interior boundary, the distribution is different from the function that is being prescribed. I would like to have the flux at the interior boundary to be the same but a discontinuous potential. Thank you. Best wishes, EH
Ivar KJELBERG COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 7 giu 2012, 02:18 GMT-4
Hi

then have you tried Thin resistive layer BCs ?

--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi then have you tried Thin resistive layer BCs ? -- Good luck Ivar
EH Ooi
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 7 giu 2012, 02:21 GMT-4
I am using the PDE mode and solving the Helmholtz equation. I dont think there is an option to select the thin resistive layer BC in this physics or am I wrong?

Thank you.


EH
I am using the PDE mode and solving the Helmholtz equation. I dont think there is an option to select the thin resistive layer BC in this physics or am I wrong? Thank you. EH
EH Ooi
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 7 giu 2012, 03:09 GMT-4
Hi again,
Did you mean contact pair when you said thin resistive layer? I have tried that but I am still getting a different flux distribution across the interior boundary than the function that I prescribed. However, I cannot be certain if I am doing it correctly.


Thank you.


Best regards,
EH
Hi again, Did you mean contact pair when you said thin resistive layer? I have tried that but I am still getting a different flux distribution across the interior boundary than the function that I prescribed. However, I cannot be certain if I am doing it correctly. Thank you. Best regards, EH
Ivar KJELBERG COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 7 giu 2012, 04:50 GMT-4
Hi

you are right in "pure math mode" you need to define your surface layers with assembly and pair identity or linked flux (contact is normally for structural)

--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi you are right in "pure math mode" you need to define your surface layers with assembly and pair identity or linked flux (contact is normally for structural) -- Good luck Ivar
EH Ooi
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 7 giu 2012, 05:25 GMT-4
Hi,
I have just found out that if I check the box for 'Create Imprint' then I am able to specify the flux at the interior boundary. The results are more acceptable but there is still one nagging problem. Across the interior boundary where the flux BC is prescribed, the magnitude appears to be different, which would suggest discontinuity in the flux. However the potential across the top and bottom surfaces are identical, i.e. the potential is continuous across the interior boundary. I am curious as to why the potential is continuous and flux discontinous and not the other way round?


Best wishes,
EH
Hi, I have just found out that if I check the box for 'Create Imprint' then I am able to specify the flux at the interior boundary. The results are more acceptable but there is still one nagging problem. Across the interior boundary where the flux BC is prescribed, the magnitude appears to be different, which would suggest discontinuity in the flux. However the potential across the top and bottom surfaces are identical, i.e. the potential is continuous across the interior boundary. I am curious as to why the potential is continuous and flux discontinous and not the other way round? Best wishes, EH
Ivar KJELBERG COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 7 giu 2012, 05:57 GMT-4
Hi

depending on your physics you might have a mesh density issue around the discontinuity, as if you work on fluxes these are often derivatives of the depedent variables hence might become "ragged" for coarse meshing.

check your mesh sensitivity, and perhaps increase the discretization order of the mesh elements

--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi depending on your physics you might have a mesh density issue around the discontinuity, as if you work on fluxes these are often derivatives of the depedent variables hence might become "ragged" for coarse meshing. check your mesh sensitivity, and perhaps increase the discretization order of the mesh elements -- Good luck Ivar

Note that while COMSOL employees may participate in the discussion forum, COMSOL® software users who are on-subscription should submit their questions via the Support Center for a more comprehensive response from the Technical Support team.

Suggested Content