Ivar KJELBERG
COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
2011年11月23日 GMT-5 01:34
Hi
You should not forget that COMSOL is ALWAYS calculating in 3D. So when we do a 2D representation of an object, COMSOL considers by default 1m depth (along z, and for most physics, as always there are exceptions check your doc) which means that all edges = boundaries in 2D are in fact a surface of length equivalent to the edge, but of depth of 1 m. Hence the units "per meter".
I.e. in solid you need to multiply by "solid.d" to get rid of the depth.
Note that you can always change the depth value in the main physics entry (for most physics) but you still need to multiply most variables. Use the units as check it helps to get the numbers correct.
Another thing one must adapt to (at least I needed to ;) is that msot entries are represented in the "element" dimensions of dx*dy*dz or corresponding boundaries dx*dy or dy*dz or dx*dz ...units hence the per /m^3 for domains and the per /m^2 for fluxes on boundaries
--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi
You should not forget that COMSOL is ALWAYS calculating in 3D. So when we do a 2D representation of an object, COMSOL considers by default 1m depth (along z, and for most physics, as always there are exceptions check your doc) which means that all edges = boundaries in 2D are in fact a surface of length equivalent to the edge, but of depth of 1 m. Hence the units "per meter".
I.e. in solid you need to multiply by "solid.d" to get rid of the depth.
Note that you can always change the depth value in the main physics entry (for most physics) but you still need to multiply most variables. Use the units as check it helps to get the numbers correct.
Another thing one must adapt to (at least I needed to ;) is that msot entries are represented in the "element" dimensions of dx*dy*dz or corresponding boundaries dx*dy or dy*dz or dx*dz ...units hence the per /m^3 for domains and the per /m^2 for fluxes on boundaries
--
Good luck
Ivar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
2011年11月23日 GMT-5 02:52
Thanks a lot for the kindly explanation.
Have a nice day!
Thanks a lot for the kindly explanation.
Have a nice day!
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
2014年1月8日 GMT-5 03:15
Hi Ivar,
I have encountered a problem when solving capacitance in electrostatic model. I compute a simple parallel plate capacitance. I choose the upper plate as terminal, and set the voltage as 1V. But when I integral the surface charges on this surface, I found that it differs with the value of terminal charge or terminal capacitance.
Do you know the difference between them, thank you very much!!
Best Regards,
zhun
Hi Ivar,
I have encountered a problem when solving capacitance in electrostatic model. I compute a simple parallel plate capacitance. I choose the upper plate as terminal, and set the voltage as 1V. But when I integral the surface charges on this surface, I found that it differs with the value of terminal charge or terminal capacitance.
Do you know the difference between them, thank you very much!!
Best Regards,
zhun