10. H modeling#
10.1. Characteristics of modeling#
We use 3D modeling in non-linear mechanics with hyper-reduction of the model. This modeling tests the accuracy of the empirical modes obtained in modeling E on the reduced domain created in the F modeling.
We therefore use the bases produced in modeling D and the reduced domain created in modeling F. The reconstruction operator REST_REDUIT_COMPLET is also tested by gappy- POD.
10.2. Characteristics of the mesh#
The mesh contains 27 elements of type HEXA8.
10.3. Tested sizes and results#
We test the value of the displacements obtained with a hyper-reduced model compared to those obtained in the complete model:
Location |
Moment |
Component |
Movement ( DEPL ) |
Instant |
Precision |
Node A in \(({1,0,3})\) |
|
DX |
\({0,0696319525128}\, {mm}\) |
0.0015 |
|
Node A in \(({1,0,3})\) |
|
DY |
\({0,199062276741}\, {mm}\) |
0.0035 |
|
Node A in \(({1,0,3})\) |
|
DZ |
\({0,529606351907}\, {mm}\) 0.0015 |
0.0025 |
And the constraints:
Location |
Instant |
Component |
Component |
Constraint ( SIEF_NOEU ) |
Precision |
Node A in \(({1,0,3})\) |
|
|
|
0, 34% |
|
Node A in \(({1,0,3})\) |
|
|
|
0, 36% |
|
Node A in \(({1,0,3})\) |
|
|
|
0, 37% |
10.4. notes#
It can be seen that the base produced in the modeling on the reduced domain of modeling F makes it possible to obtain very good results compared to the complete calculation. But they are necessarily slightly worse than in the simply reduced case (G modeling).
On the other hand, as in G modeling, the error remains significant on the last three constraints, but it is not significant (low value of the constraints).