Help Needed: Modeling Beam Bending with Electrostatic Forces

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around modeling the bending of a beam due to electrostatic forces using Femlab software. Participants explore the challenges of coupling mechanical and electrostatic problems within a multiphysics framework, addressing issues related to the setup and results of their models.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in obtaining reasonable results when combining beam bending and electrostatic forces in Femlab, despite being familiar with both individual components.
  • Another participant inquires about the specifics of the coupling process and the nature of the results, suggesting that the coupling may not be functioning correctly.
  • A request for clarification on the beam's deflection angle and whether the deflection plates follow the particle trajectory is made to better understand the setup.
  • One participant describes their setup involving a fixed beam and a voltage difference, questioning why the electric field does not induce bending as expected.
  • Terminology confusion arises when one participant assumes "beam" refers to a charged particle beam rather than a structural beam.
  • A suggestion is made that the coupling of application modes may be the issue, with a reference to specific equations for coupling electrostatic and static elastic problems.
  • A participant admits to being new to the software and not having modified any equations, questioning if this is necessary for multiphysics modeling.
  • Another participant indicates that if the elasticity solution shows all zeros, it may mean the coupling is not active, suggesting that manual implementation of coupling equations may be required.
  • One participant expresses intent to manually connect the problems after considering the advice given.
  • Another offers to share models with the coupling already implemented for further assistance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the specific issues causing the modeling difficulties, and multiple competing views on the coupling process and its implementation remain. The discussion is unresolved regarding the best approach to achieve the desired results.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in their understanding of the coupling process and the need for manual adjustments in the software to achieve the desired outcomes. There is also uncertainty regarding the definitions and terminology used in the discussion.

evelyncanarvon
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hey--
I'm trying to model the bending of a beam due to electrostatic forces. (Femlab does offer this model on their website, but the module I'd need to run it costs $600!)

I have no problem modeling a beam bending, and I have no problem creating a parallel plate capacitor, but when I combine the two in multiphysics, I don't get a reasonable result.

Any femlab gurus out there who might be able to help? Thanks a lot! :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
More Femlab users ... cool ! Have you gotten the coupling to produce anything reasonable and how've you done the actual coupling of the mechanical and electrostatical problems ?

(btw I might have that model somewhere ... have collected quite a bit of stuff from them)
 
Show us what you have, and what you call uneasonable. To help you I also need more information. Is the deflection angle small? I.e., do the deflection plates curve to follow the particle trajectory?
 
I basically just set up a beam (a rectangle) with the left side fixed into place, and a plate (a fixed line) underneath it, and I set up a voltage difference between the two. This produces an electric field between them, but that field does not bend down the beam. I don't know why this is: in the structural mechanics module, I just had to apply a load to a beam fixed at one end to get it to bend. Isn't that what I'm doing when I apply a field to it? Thanks!
 
Terminology problem here: By beam, I automatically assumed a charged particle beam. Sorry.
 
A safe bet there is something in the coupling of the application modes :biggrin: . What route have you taken in coupling the electrostatic and static elastic problems, i.e. building, say, in linear coupling :

[tex] T_{p}=c^{E}_{pq}S_{q}-e_{kp}E_{k}[/tex]
[tex] D_{i}=e_{iq}S_{q}+\epsilon^{S}_{ik}E_{k}[/tex]

?
 
Woah--sorry, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. I haven't ever fiddled with any of the equations they gave me. Should I have? I am quite new at this--up to this point I've just been creating the objects and choosing properties for them from a list of options in the subdomain and boundary physics categories. I never had to input any equations into the single-physics mode, and I assumed it would all be taken care of in the multiphysics mode. Is this incorrect? Thanks! :smile:
 
If your elasticity solution displays all zeros (only the coupling induced loading?) then it's likely the coupling is not active at all (it solves both multiphysics problems totally independent). I've been running piezoelectric problems in 3.1 using the same coupling scheme and at least in this version the coupling for the electric and mechanical multiphysics problems needs to "implemented" by hand ... i.e. you need to modify the subdomain equation system settings ... and naturally introducing the related material property matrices. If you've the structural mechanics module in its basic model library reference there are a couple of piezoelectricity models which you can use as a reference in doing this ... following the cases given there makes it pretty simple, some work although.

Some of the couplings in Femlab can be taken to use inherently (like thermal - mechanical etc.) but in many cases you need to modify the subdomains etc. to introduce the coupling equations. Gives you the lots of 'leeway' but takes some effort ... and makes use of those examples a way to get things done quickly.
 
Oh ok. I think that might be it. I'll look at connecting them manually. Thanks a lot!
 
  • #10
... if the thing doesn't seem to comply I can hook you up with some models which have the coupling done - have fun !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
15K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K