Skip to content
  • Search
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

ZMT zurich med tech

  1. Home
  2. Sim4Life
  3. Simulations & Solvers
  4. My Electro QuasiStatic simulation failed to converge - Dynamic Range...

My Electro QuasiStatic simulation failed to converge - Dynamic Range...

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Simulations & Solvers
1 Posts 1 Posters 329 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • SylvainS Offline
    SylvainS Offline
    Sylvain
    ZMT
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Sometimes the EQS solver refuses to converge and a warning like this appears in the log:

    Dynamic range is 1.1096e+12 (lower limit solid Background (1) and upper limit solid Cover Loops 3 (1.1096e+12)).
    WARNING: The material parameters differ considerably, please consider to decrease the dynamic range of the material parameters or increase the solver's relative tolerance.

    Technical explanation:

    The problem that you are trying to solve is very difficult for the EQS solver: some regions are dominated by ohmic current effect (the materials with high conductivity), some regions are dominated by displacement currents (the free space or materials with very low conductivity) and the solver is trying to accommodate both at the same time.

    Solution(s):

    Option 1: Change the material properties of all the metals to PEC. This will reduce the "dynamic range" a lot and the solver should converge.

    Option 2: Use either the Quasi-static or the Ohmic-QuasiStatic solver, intead of QuasiStatic. Whether or not this is a good idea depends on the application.

    Option 3: Reducing the solver tolerance (e.g. from 1e-8 to 1e-12) may eliminate the error, but at a high computational cost.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes


    • Login

    • Don't have an account? Register

    • Login or register to search.
    • First post
      Last post
    0
    • Search