Dear Kostas and Yves:
The line of "md.add_nodal_contact_between_nonmatching_meshes_brick(mim1, mim2, 'u1',
'u2', 'lambda_n', 'r', CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL, CONTACT_BOUND_FND, True, False, 1)"
works fine now. Thank you so much!
Regarding the convergence, the above line converges for both displacement and force
loadings. However, "md.add_integral_contact_between_nonmatching_meshes_brick(mim1,
'u1', 'u2', 'lambda_n', 'r', 'f_coeff', CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL, CONTACT_BOUND_FND)"
converges only with a displacement loading. I will keep working on it to find out what
causes this convergence issue.
I wish you all have a very happy new year!
Hojae
On 12/29/2016 2:12 AM, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
Dear Hojae,
that was a bug in GetFEM++ that I have just fixed in this commit
http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/getfem/trunk/getfem/src/getfem_contact_and_friction_nodal.cc?r1=5496&r2=5495&pathrev=5496
Thank you for testing this old contact brick. However I would
recommend you to use the integral contact bricks which are in general
superior and more heavily tested. The convergence problems that you
are experiencing are not some intrinsic problem of the integral
contact brick but most probably due to the way you are setting up your
model.
Best regards
Kostas
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Dr. Hojae Yi <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear Yves and Kostas:
Thank you so much for spending your time on my code. I removed the
'lambda_n' definition and ran the code. It runs through without
error on that line but now I get an error of 'dimensions mismatch'
at 'md.solve('max_res', 1E-5, 'max_iter', 100, 'very_noisy' ,
'lsearch', 'simplest', 'alpha min', 0.8)'.
By the way, the code runs fine when I use
'add_integral_contact_between_nonmatching_meshes_brick(mim1, 'u1',
'u2', 'lambda_n', 'r', 'f_coeff', CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL,
CONTACT_BOUND_FND)' instead of using
'add_nodal_contact_between_nonmatching_meshes_brick'. In this
case, I define 'lambda_n' with 'md.add_multiplier('lambda_n',
mfu1, 'u1', mim1, CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL)'. It runs without an error
but it does not converge.
I will dig in further to find out where I made a mistake.
Best regards,
Hojae
On 12/28/2016 04:43 PM, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
Dear Yves and Hojae,
The error "The given name for the multiplier is already reserved
in the model" occurs because the brick requires to define the
multiplier internally. In Hojae's script however, 'lambda_n' is
already defined earlier. The definition
md.add_variable('lambda_n', nbc_wheel) ## Number of contact
boundary dof for normal contact`
should be removed.
Best regards
Kostas
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Yves Renard
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear Hojae,
I think the right call should be
md.add_nodal_contact_between_nonmatching_meshes_brick(mim1,
mim2, 'u1', 'u2', 'lambda_n', 'r', CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL,
CONTACT_BOUND_FND, True, False, 1)
(If you indicate a 'lambda_t' then the friction coefficient
is needed. However, it does not work. The given error is "The
given name for the multiplier is already reserved in the
model". Kostas, do you have an explanation for this ?
Best regards,
Yves.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hojae Yi" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "logari81" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "yves renard" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, "getfem-users"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2016 3:34:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Getfem-users] nodal contact problem
Hello Kostas:
Thank you for the reply.
I tried 'CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL' AND 'CONTACT_BOUND_FND' before.
When I
did, I got the error of "Argument 10 must be a string" error
with the
region id's. It was same when I added friction coefficient
data name as
''md.add_nodal_contact_between_nonmatching_meshes_brick(mim1,
mim2,
'u1', 'u2', 'lambda_n', 'lambda_t', 'r', 'f_coeff',
CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL,
CONTACT_BOUND_FND, True, False, 1)".
I tried mesh1.pid_in_regions(CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL) since I
found that
those arguments are defined as 'const std::vector<size_type>
&rg1' in
the C++ code.
I feel like I am missing some obvious mistake I made
somewhere in my code.
Kind regards,
Hojae
On 12/24/2016 3:47 AM, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
> Dear Hojae
>
> From what I am seeing, you should replace
> mesh1.pid_in_regions(CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL) with
CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL.
>
> CONTACT_BOUND_WHEEL is the region id. The same applies to
> CONTACT_BOUND_FND.
>
> Best regards
> Kostas
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Hojae Yi <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>
> Hello Yves,
>
> Than you very much for the reply. I thought and tried
that rg1 and
> rg2 should be boundary numbers as you explained (and in the
> documents). Just in case, I am attaching my code with a
comment to
> highlight the line issues an error. It is line number
200. Let me
> know if there is anything unclear about this revised code.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Hojae
>
>
>
> On 12/23/2016 2:43 PM, Yves Renard wrote:
>
>
> Dear Hojae,
>
> The best is that you send the lines of your code
that are not
> working.
> rg1 and rg2 are boundary numbers so that they
should be some
> integers.
>
> Yves.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hojae Yi" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
> To: "getfem-users" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 8:25:34 PM
> Subject: [Getfem-users] nodal contact problem
>
> Hello,
>
> First of all, thank you so much for a great FEA
package!
>
> I am currently using GetFEM 5.1 using Python. I
have been
> toying with
> provided 'demo_wheel_contact.py' and trying to apply
> add_nodal_contact_between_nonmatching_meshes_brick
using two
> contact
> surfaces. However, when I run, it complains that
rg1 (and rg2)
> should be
> a string. Python Interface reference explains that
rg1 and rg2 as
> integers while User Document explains them as vectors.
>
> Can someone kindly point me where I can find further
> information on how
> these rg1 and rg2 should be defined? Let me know if any
> further details
> are needed.
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> Hojae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Getfem-users mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users
<https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users>
> <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users
<https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Getfem-users mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users
<https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users>
> <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users
<https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Getfem-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users
