dolfin team mailing list archive
-
dolfin team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #02734
Re: Dissertation
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:17:35PM +0200, Johan Jansson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:48:07AM +0200, Johan Hoffman wrote:
>> >
>> > Ok. A solid model is an option, but it seems that a membrane model may
>> be
>> > sufficient. I'll see what I'll do. Adding a membrane model to Ko may
>> then
>> > later be a natural step, which probably does not take too much effort?
>> >
>> > This connects also to a previous discussion on obtaining a surface
>> mesh
>> > automatically from a volume mesh. With a membrane model the equations
>> > would be solved on the surface mesh being the boundary of the fluid
>> volume
>> > mesh. The resulting coupling as a fluid-stucture interaction problem
>> could
>> > be quite a challange depending on the properties of the solid vs
>> fluid.
>> >
>> > /Johan
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I think a membrane model will be necessary at some point. I
>> haven't looked into it so much yet, I think it's a good principle to
>> keep things simple unless absolutely necessary. I guess the main
>> property of the membrane model which we haven't considered in Fenics
>> is that we have triangular cells in 3D.
>
> Won't be a problem with the new mesh.
Sounds great!
>> I assume the application here is blood vessels or something similar? I
>> think the walls in that case are quite thick w.r.t. the diameter,
>> something like 5-10%, so I don't think a membrane model is
>> applicable. It's probably unavoidable in other applications though,
>> where you have a very small thickness and performance is paramount.
Yes, that is true. But it seems that membrane models are quite common in
this area. I think a reason is that one have a really hard time to come up
with reasonable material properties for the walls.
/Johan
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
>
References