Skip to content

Modal dynamic simulation of the perpendicular flap with CalculiX #284

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Aug 9, 2022

Conversation

boris-martin
Copy link
Contributor

Adds a variant of the CalculiX case for the perpendicular flap, using modal dynamic simulations: a few eigenfrequencies are computed, then a simulation is run where all loads are projected into the subspace formed by the used eigenmodes.

Showcases precice/calculix-adapter#99.

@boris-martin boris-martin requested a review from KyleDavisSA July 20, 2022 17:23
@boris-martin
Copy link
Contributor Author

@uekerman I'd need an opinion on the structure: is it appropriate to have 2 CalculiX subfolders for the same tutorial ? It looks cleaner to me than having both cases in the same folder.

@uekerman
Copy link
Member

How different are both cases? Is it only a different inp file?

@boris-martin
Copy link
Contributor Author

How different are both cases? Is it only a different inp file?

It's a different process. Here there are two inp files: one for the frequency analysis, and one for the actual simulation (which reads stored frequencies). It's quite tricky to setup with no experience, which is why I wanted to add it.

@uekerman
Copy link
Member

I ask, because if it is only two different inp files, I would not go for different subfolders.
We could add an argument to the run.sh to distinguish both. Similar to how we treat Dirichlet and Neumann BCs in the partitioned heat tutorial.

It's quite tricky to setup with no experience, which is why I wanted to add it.

Completely agree 👍

@boris-martin
Copy link
Contributor Author

It's two more files instead of one, but a shared run.sh would work yes.

@uekerman
Copy link
Member

It's two more files instead of one, but a shared run.sh would work yes.

I have a slight tendency towards one folder, but of course depends on how much hassle it is.

@MakisH opinions?

@boris-martin
Copy link
Contributor Author

I wrote a working run.sh script with argument. I'll push it once we agree on this if we decide to keep one case.
(Now that it's done I'm in favor of this approach too)

@MakisH
Copy link
Member

MakisH commented Jul 22, 2022

I also ran the case and it completed, while the results look reasonable. I am not sure if I should look for any differences compared to the current solid-calculix case.

@boris-martin
Copy link
Contributor Author

I also ran the case and it completed, while the results look reasonable. I am not sure if I should look for any differences compared to the current solid-calculix case.

Results should be very similar. If you reduce the number of frequencies (say 1 instead of 10) the difference becomes noticeable.

@precice-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

This pull request has been mentioned on preCICE Forum on Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://precice.discourse.group/t/installation-problem-with-calculix-2-19-adapter/1124/8

@@ -1,4 +1,19 @@
#!/bin/sh
set -e -u

ccx_preCICE -i flap -precice-participant Solid
usage() { echo "Usage: run.sh [-modal]" 1>&2; exit 1; }
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We still need to also document this in the README.md.

boris-martin and others added 3 commits August 9, 2022 23:04
Co-authored-by: Gerasimos Chourdakis <makishourdakis@gmail.com>
@boris-martin boris-martin merged commit 664122a into develop Aug 9, 2022
@MakisH MakisH deleted the flap_modal branch August 10, 2022 05:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants