Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'pbc'.
Found 3 results
Hello everyone! I have a mesh of RVE with symmetric opposite surfaces. My goal is to make Periodic Boundary Condition (PBC) for this model. The problem is - My mesh (nodes) is not symmetric on opposite surfaces. Is there any tool to remesh the model to get symmetric nodes on opposite surfaces? Attached model below. Thank you! RVE_PBC_REMESH.hm
Hi All, I need to apply periodic boundary conditions in a simulation. My goal is finding the equivalent Elastic modulus of a unit cell for lattice structures. I've found that in Optistruct it is possible to use PERBC and RELOC, but I cannot find any documentation, except for the reference guide, that is not so clear. Could you please help me? Enrico
Hello there, I'm trying to develop a study with the RL-GO solver, so I also need to run a "pre-study" to create the .tr file for the medium. One of the parts in question is made of construction_concrete. In the "pre-study" I'm creating a layered structure of 5mm per side with the following properties: Thickness: 0.1mm (due to WARNING 2757: A triangle is too thick as compared to the lateral dimensions for application of the skin effect approximation) Dielectric material: Construction_concrete_block As the Example H05. Jerusalem_Cross_FSS specifies, I'm including a two dimensions PBC with 5.2mm per side, the operating freq. is 77GHz and running the solver the following WARNING appears: WARNING 49005: Reflection/transmission not defined due to possible grating lobes. I reviewed other similar questions here at the forum (Interpretation of the near field) and one of the alternatives is to move the measurement of the transmission/reflection coeff. to 10 wavelengths, lambda=c/f, 3x10^8/77=3.896mm. If I request the transmission/reflection coeff. at: X: 4mm Y: 0mm Z: 0mm the WARNING still appearing. I think using near field request for "Calculate only the scattered part of the field" is not the more appropriate alternative since my full model intended to run with RL-GO is in meters. Should I change something on the study definition? Or this is something I can take as an "acceptable" WARNING? Should I change the solver for the full model? Thanks for your support on this, -David