Menu

Discussion Forum

New Discussion
查找

Discussion Closed This discussion was created more than 6 months ago and has been closed. To start a new discussion with a link back to this one, click here.

How could I define a customized 'Flux/Source' boundary condition in 'Coefficient form PDE' interface?

Posted 2021年8月1日 GMT-4 05:49 Version 5.6 4 Replies

Runzi Wang
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Hi

I'm trying to define a customized 'Flux/Source' boundary condition. The default flux equation in the 'Coefficient form PDE' interface is

However, the expression I need in my model is

Due to the structure of my governing equation, I couldn't define the constant 'c' as 0. So I'm wondering is there a way to define a customized flux boundary condition in the PDE interface?

4 Replies Last Post 2021年8月5日 GMT-4 17:47
Alexis Prel
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 3 years ago 2021年8月1日 GMT-4 06:02

Hello,

your boundary condition is unusual because it does not depend on the variable solved for, unless or depend on .

May I ask what physical conditions you are trying to model?

Hello, your boundary condition is unusual because it does not depend on the variable solved for, unless \gamma or g depend on u. May I ask what physical conditions you are trying to model?
Runzi Wang
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 3 years ago 2021年8月2日 GMT-4 08:16

Hi Alexis

Thank you for your reply! Your guess is correct, is defined as an expression that depends on .

I'm dealling with a phase field model. I'm trying to model the flux of the phase field variable . However, the expression for the flux is non-standard, I couldn't use the flux/source node directly. I want to define my flux expression by myself. I know there is a boundary node called 'weak constraint' that allows me to define my own boundary condition. But when I applied this condition to my boundary, I kept getting an error telling me 'There are 293 void equations (empty rows in matrix) for the variable comp1.lm', where 'comp1.lm' is the Lagrange multiplier variable. I'm not familiar with weak consrtaint, so I don't know what this means.

Do you have any ideas on this problem? Or do you have any better ideas on how to implement this boundary condition?

Any advice will be much appreciated!

Hi Alexis Thank you for your reply! Your guess is correct, \gamma is defined as an expression that depends on u. I'm dealling with a phase field model. I'm trying to model the flux of the phase field variable \phi. However, the expression for the flux is non-standard, I couldn't use the flux/source node directly. I want to define my flux expression by myself. I know there is a boundary node called 'weak constraint' that allows me to define my own boundary condition. But when I applied this condition to my boundary, I kept getting an error telling me 'There are 293 void equations (empty rows in matrix) for the variable comp1.lm', where 'comp1.lm' is the Lagrange multiplier variable. I'm not familiar with weak consrtaint, so I don't know what this means. Do you have any ideas on this problem? Or do you have any better ideas on how to implement this boundary condition? Any advice will be much appreciated!
Alexis Prel
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 3 years ago 2021年8月5日 GMT-4 11:34
Updated: 3 years ago 2021年8月5日 GMT-4 11:38

Hello Runzi,

Have you tried including into the definition of ?

Hello Runzi, Have you tried including - \vec{n} \,\cdot\,(-c\vec\nabla u) into the definition of g ?
Runzi Wang
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 3 years ago 2021年8月5日 GMT-4 17:47
Updated: 3 years ago 2021年8月5日 GMT-4 17:47

Hi Alexis

Do you mean I do ,

where (some other parameters)?

Well, that's a good idea! I'll have a try.

Thank you!

Hi Alexis Do you mean I do -n\cdot( -c\nabla u-\alpha u + \gamma)=g -q u, where g=- n \cdot (-c\nabla u)+ (some other parameters)? Well, that's a good idea! I'll have a try. Thank you!

Note that while COMSOL employees may participate in the discussion forum, COMSOL® software users who are on-subscription should submit their questions via the Support Center for a more comprehensive response from the Technical Support team.

Suggested Content