For instance, a question that a typical analyst might struggle with on a daily basis is: "Do I have the hardware/license tokens/time/support/blessings from management. For example, CEL is great at capturing huge deformation and FSI, but it comes at an enormous computational expense.
Each of these will come with its trade-offs. you choose is primarily governed by the physical phenomenon that you wish to capture. A co-simulation is helpful when you wish to use both the implicit and the explicit solvers in tandem.īottomline: Which solver/analysis type. The terminology comes from linear algebra and, if you have no idea, it will be immensely helpful to grab a good book (Strang, for example) and go through it. However, certain practical limitations force one to choose one or the other solver. In many problems, that happens to be accurate.
Both solvers, theoretically speaking, MUST give the EXACT SAME results.
On the other hand, SPH is a better tool to use when fluid-solid interaction is of interest.Ībaqus employs either an implicit method (Abaqus/Standard) or an explicit method (Abaqus/Explicit) to solve the physics (i.e., differential equation converted into a discretized form). In the case of DEM, it's the particle-particle interaction that one cares more about. On the other hand, SPH/DEM fall under the broad category of the so-called meshless methods the documentation is pretty good at suggesting when to use these methods. That being said, here are my two cents:ĭepending on the amount of deformation a given physical phenomenon undergoes, within Abaqus, one may choose anything in between a purely Lagrangian analysis or a purely Eulerian analysis or something in between (Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian with adaptive meshing or Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian). However, the documentation is an excellent resource to get a few quick answers. That is a lot of questions! :) To be honest, these are advanced questions and, in order to capture the meaning, you will have to cross a threshold first - which is fun because there is so much more to learn.
0 kommentar(er)
