team:gdeliege:nnm
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| team:gdeliege:nnm [2015/08/13 10:36] – geoffrey | team:gdeliege:nnm [2016/03/30 15:23] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| This is one of the research topics of the | This is one of the research topics of the | ||
| [[http:// | [[http:// | ||
| - | Actually, I knew nothing | + | Actually, I knew nothing |
| told me about it | told me about it | ||
| and about the nonlinear equations he wanted to solve with finite elements. | and about the nonlinear equations he wanted to solve with finite elements. | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| v\, \partial_u Y_i +f_k\, \partial_v Y_i &=& f_i | v\, \partial_u Y_i +f_k\, \partial_v Y_i &=& f_i | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| - | \in\{1, | + | |
| \end{eqnarray*} | \end{eqnarray*} | ||
| $$ | $$ | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| These equations are solved in a two-dimensional invariant manifold in phase space. | These equations are solved in a two-dimensional invariant manifold in phase space. | ||
| - | $\vec{v}=[v, | + | It turns out that the best way to solve these equations with finite elements is to define a pseudo-velocity |
| - | Find $X_i\in V$ et $Y_i\in V$, $i=\{1, \ldots, | + | //Find $X_i\in V$ et $Y_i\in V$, $i=\{1, \ldots, |
| $$ | $$ | ||
| \begin{eqnarray*} | \begin{eqnarray*} | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| \;{\rm d}\Omega = 0\;, | \;{\rm d}\Omega = 0\;, | ||
| && \forall X'_i \in V \;, | && \forall X'_i \in V \;, | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | V = \{ f(u,v)\in H^1(\Omega): | ||
| + | \;. && | ||
| \end{eqnarray*} | \end{eqnarray*} | ||
| $$ | $$ | ||
| - | with | + | The domain boundary must be tangent to the velocity field to avoid problems |
| - | $$ | + | Fig. 1 shows results I obtained with my code for a simple 2-DOF system, also described |
| - | \begin{equation*} | + | |
| - | V = \{ f(u,v)\in H^1(\Omega):\, f(0, | + | |
| - | \;. | + | |
| - | \end{equation*} | + | |
| - | $$ | + | |
| + | {{ : | ||
| + | //Figure 1. Finite element solution of a 2-DOF conservative system, calculated with my own code (mesh and visualization by [[http:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also attempted to solve a 6-DOF system corresponding to a cantilever beam. This requires the solution of a system of 10 equations with 10 unknown fields. | ||
| + | Although my code has been designed to allow the definition of an arbitrary number of unknown fields, I had never tried more than 2 or 3 fields coupled in one single formulation. The Jacobian matrix for the Newton-Raphson algorithm is written below; I wrote a Python script to define this formulation in my code avoiding copy-paste errors. | ||
| + | To my own surprise, it worked, although efficiency issues allowed me to solve the system on a small domain only. | ||
| {{ : | {{ : | ||
| + | |||
| + | === References === | ||
| [1] L. Renson, G. Deliége, G. Kerschen. //An effective finite-element-based method for the computation of nonlinear normal modes of nonconservative systems.// Meccanica, vol. 49(8), pp. 1901-1916, 2014. \\ | [1] L. Renson, G. Deliége, G. Kerschen. //An effective finite-element-based method for the computation of nonlinear normal modes of nonconservative systems.// Meccanica, vol. 49(8), pp. 1901-1916, 2014. \\ | ||
| [2] L. Renson. //Nonlinear Modal Analysis of Conservative and Nonconservative Aerospace Structures.// | [2] L. Renson. //Nonlinear Modal Analysis of Conservative and Nonconservative Aerospace Structures.// | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | [[team: | ||
team/gdeliege/nnm.1439455010.txt.gz · Last modified: (external edit)
