Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- commit:2017:12_20 [2017/12/20 11:23] – [Added [a] / deleted [d] / modified [m] / renamed [r] test cases] boemer
+++ commit:2017:12_20 [2018/05/04 16:47] (current) – boman
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== Commit December 20, 2017 ======
+====== Commit 2017-12-20 ======
 In this commit, the asperity crushing simulations in the generalized plane strain state created by Carretta for the Metalub/Metafor coupling were simplified as much as possible and corrected where necessary.  The scripts of these simulations can be found in:
@@ Line 205: / Line 205: @@
 Either Godunov's method or the finite volume linear reconstruction method (see [[doc:user:ale:ale|]]) can be used for the convection step with sub-stepping depending on whether ''conv'' is equal to ''godunov'' or ''benson''.  Only the pressure is convected.  More precisely, to compute the pressure, Metafor computes a pressure increment at each time step based on the bulk modulus and the volume variation of the lubricant elements.  To compute the pressure at the following time step it is therefore necessary to convect the pressure.
-According to Carretta, the velocities and accelerations were not convected because they made the convergence more difficult.
+According to Carretta, the velocities and accelerations were not convected because they made the convergence more difficult/impossible.
 :?: ** Why is only the convection of the pressure sufficient?  Is this sufficient to model the creation of a pressure gradient due to a convergent effect? I am not sure, if it is a good idea to not convect the velocities and accelerations since they are at the cause of creating pressure gradients, which might lead to the microhydrodynamism. **
@@ Line 426: / Line 426: @@
- --- // [[dominik.boemer@uliege.be|Domnik Boemer]] 2017/12/20 11:30 //
+ --- // [[dominik.boemer@uliege.be|Dominik Boemer]] 2017/12/20 11:30 //