[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Getfem-users] Hyperelastic law Benchmark

From: David Danan
Subject: [Getfem-users] Hyperelastic law Benchmark
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:58:26 +0200

Dear Getfem users,

i am trying to implement a new hyperelastic law and, in order to validate my results, i am using the following Benchmark

There are 3 problems, for now i am working on the first one that is to say the deformation of a 3D rectangular beam clamped on one side and with a pressure applied to the bottom face.

While the deformed configuration given by Getfem is relatively close to the reference(s) solution(s) provided by the benchmark, a visible difference between them still remains and i don't understand where it comes from.

The material is governed by a transversely isotropic constitutive law with an incompressibility constraint, often used in cardiac modelling, where the strain energy function is a function of the components of the Green–Lagrange strain tensor E.

I tried 2 differents implementations of this law:
-the first use the symmetry of the Green-Lagrange strain tensor to simplify the strain energy function
-The second does not (ergo it is necessary to write the 9 components of the second piola Kirchhoff stress tensor and the 81 components of the fourth order tensor)

Please find enclosed
-the comparison in the first case: Results.png
-the comparison in the second case: Results_nosym.png (slightly better results but 15 times as slow as the first version)
-the python program used to compute the derivative and second derivative of the strain energy function in the first case.
-the implementation of the laws in and getfem_nonlinear_elasticity.h
-The program and Guccione.param used to produce these very pictures

in both pictures, the reference solution is in grey.
The computation uses Q2/Q1 elements (displacement/lagrange multiplier), since there is no restrictions regarding these aspects.
I have tried with a quasi-incompressibility condition instead of the Lagrangian multiplier: same result (which was to be expected).
I have also tried with other meshes (more or less refined) used by other teams but in vain.

Could someone have a look and provide some advices regarding this case/tell me what i am doing wrong?

Thanks a lot.

Yours sincerely,

Description: Binary data

Attachment: getfem_nonlinear_elasticity.h
Description: Text Data

Description: Text Data

Description: Binary data

Attachment: Guccione.param
Description: Binary data

Attachment: Results_nosym.png
Description: PNG image

Attachment: Results.png
Description: PNG image

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]