COMSOL example model results do not match with Mathematical Model

In summary, the conversation discusses the results obtained from a frequency response analysis of a cantilever beam using COMSOL. The speaker used an example model from the Model Library for structural mechanics and obtained resonance frequencies of 84.36, 528.84, 949.31, 1316.00, 1481.41, and 2882.00. However, when using Euler beam theory, the resonance frequencies were different, with values of 84.36, 528.66, 1862.89, 3650.55, 6034.61, and 9064.89. The speaker is unsure of the discrepancy and is seeking clarification on the boundary conditions used in the analysis.
  • #1
Oscar6330
29
0
Hi! I started to look into freq response analysis of a cantilever beam using COMSOL. Luckily COMSOL already has an example model "Model Library>> Structural mechanics module>>Dynamics and Vibrations>>rotating blade". While not changing anything in the model and with Omega=0 and Cloris =0, I get the following results

Resonance Freq1 = 84.36
Resonance Freq2 =528.84
Resonance Freq3 =949.31

Resonance Freq4 =1316.00
Resonance Freq5 =1481.41
Resonance Freq6 =2882.00

But Euler beam theory (options>>constants) gives me the following

Resonance Freq1 = 84.36
Resonance Freq2 =528.66
Resonance Freq3 =1862.89

Resonance Freq4 =3650.55
Resonance Freq5 =6034.61
Resonance Freq6 =9064.89

Clearly the results do not match after 2nd natural/ resonance freq. I am quite sure that COMSOL example model cannot be wrong but there is something odd. Some elaboration would be appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You're wanting to solve a cantilever beam modal analysis, but used a rotating blade vibration analysis. How are the boundary conditions defined?
 

FAQ: COMSOL example model results do not match with Mathematical Model

1. Why are my COMSOL example model results different than my mathematical model?

There are a few potential reasons for this discrepancy. One possibility is that there may be errors in your mathematical model, such as incorrect equations or assumptions. Another possibility is that there may be errors in your COMSOL model setup, such as incorrect boundary conditions or mesh settings. Additionally, the numerical methods used in COMSOL may differ from those used in your mathematical model, which can lead to slightly different results.

2. How can I troubleshoot the differences between my COMSOL and mathematical model results?

To troubleshoot the differences between your results, you can start by carefully reviewing your mathematical model and COMSOL setup to identify any potential errors or discrepancies. You can also try adjusting the settings and parameters in your COMSOL model to see if that improves the match with your mathematical model results. It may also be helpful to consult with other experts or resources for guidance.

3. Can the differences between my COMSOL and mathematical model results be due to limitations in COMSOL?

In general, COMSOL is a powerful and versatile software that can accurately solve a wide range of mathematical models. However, like any software, it does have its limitations. Some of these limitations include the assumptions and simplifications made in the software algorithms, as well as the accuracy of the physical models used. It is important to carefully consider these limitations when comparing results from COMSOL with a mathematical model.

4. How can I improve the accuracy of my COMSOL model to match my mathematical model results?

To improve the accuracy of your COMSOL model, you can try refining the mesh, adjusting the solver settings, and using more advanced physics models. You can also compare your results with experimental data or other established models to validate your results and identify areas for improvement. Additionally, it may be helpful to consult with experts or attend workshops and trainings to learn more about optimizing COMSOL models.

5. Are there any best practices for ensuring that my COMSOL and mathematical model results match?

Some best practices for ensuring that your COMSOL and mathematical model results match include thoroughly reviewing and validating your mathematical model, carefully setting up and validating your COMSOL model, and regularly reviewing and adjusting your model parameters and settings. It can also be helpful to document your modeling process and results, as well as seek feedback and guidance from other experts in the field.

Similar threads

A How Many Hidden Variables Would It Take to Model Photon Polarization?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Mathematical model of a political process
Replies
2
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 253)
Replies
20
Views
4K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 258)
Replies
4
Views
9K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 267)
Replies
1
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 266)
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 264)
Replies
6
Views
4K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 218)
Replies
1
Views
2K
Requesting suggestions for languages, libraries, and architectures for parallel (and sometimes non parallel) numerical and scientific computations
Replies
8
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226)
Replies
7
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top