FEM: Local lumped mass matrices for elements on no slip boundaries.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on debugging a SUPG FEM code for flow problems, particularly regarding the Lumped Mass Matrix in P2P1 tetrahedral elements on no slip boundaries. It highlights a 60% loss of mass at the local level due to nodes on the boundary representing known velocity values, which are excluded from the global system of equations. The main question raised is whether additional mass should be lumped at the unknown nodes to ensure the total mass in the computational domain matches the global Lumped Mass Matrix. The consensus leans towards maintaining the current approach, as mass conservation on a global scale is deemed sufficient, despite the discrepancies at the local level. The discussion concludes that each node in the flow domain has a discrete equation, but those on Dirichlet boundaries do not require mass contributions in the global matrix.
Geaux
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am trying to debug a SUPG FEM code for flow problems (based on Brooks Hughes 1982) and have a question about the Lumped Mass Matrix. My understanding of the Lumped Mass Matrix is that for any given element the mass of that element is simply distributed evenly over the number of nodes.

In my case I am using P2P1 tetrahedral elements which, in the case of an element on the no slip boundary, results in a 60% loss of mass at the local level because of the 6 velocity nodes (3 vertex and 3 edge nodes) that would lie on the no slip surface. The reason for this is that nodes on the boundary represent known velocity values and are not required in the global system of equations. This ulimately results in the sum of my diagonal entries in the global Lumped Mass Matrix not being equal to the mass of fluid in my system.

My question is: For an element on the no slip boundary, should additional mass be lumped at those unknown nodes such that the total mass of the fluid in my computational domain is equal to the sum of diagonal entries in the global Lumped Mass Matrix?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I'd say "no" and think it's ok as is. Think the lumped mass matrix in principle does contain the whole mass of the fluid, even though the boundary conditions lead to a different matrix being actually processed within the solution. As long as mass is conserved on the global scale, i.e. it's at least lumped somewhere irrespective of what the mass actually "does" in the analysis.
 
Thanks for those comments as the more I think about it I certainly agree with what you have said.

Every node in the flow domain has a discrete equation associated with it, and will therefore have an associated entry in the global lumped mass matrix. If that node happens to be on a dirichlet boundary then the equaion is not needed and the subsequent mass 'lumped' at that node is no longer required.

I think this is just a convoluted way of re-stating what you have said. Thanks again.
 
Thread 'Physics of Stretch: What pressure does a band apply on a cylinder?'
Scenario 1 (figure 1) A continuous loop of elastic material is stretched around two metal bars. The top bar is attached to a load cell that reads force. The lower bar can be moved downwards to stretch the elastic material. The lower bar is moved downwards until the two bars are 1190mm apart, stretching the elastic material. The bars are 5mm thick, so the total internal loop length is 1200mm (1190mm + 5mm + 5mm). At this level of stretch, the load cell reads 45N tensile force. Key numbers...
I'm trying to decide what size and type of galvanized steel I need for 2 cantilever extensions. The cantilever is 5 ft. The space between the two cantilever arms is a 17 ft Gap the center 7 ft of the 17 ft Gap we'll need to Bear approximately 17,000 lb spread evenly from the front of the cantilever to the back of the cantilever over 5 ft. I will put support beams across these cantilever arms to support the load evenly

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Back
Top