Moose plastic hardening simulation - Computationaly slower than ANSYS #16372
-
Dear all, Arun |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 3 comments 4 replies
-
Could you quickly check whether ANSYS and MOOSE are solving the same number of DOFs? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
my 2c. In my experience, MOOSE is generally slower than either ANSYS or ABAQUS. For non-AD solutions in plasticity i have found moose to be about 2 - 2.5 times slower with a LU preconditioner and newton solution. The relative convergence criteria are about 1e-3 in ANSYS and ABAQUS. Also double check the elements you are using. The defaults in commercial software, use hybrid elements with an extra pressure degree of freedom, that is not yet implemented in MOOSE. Also turn on volumetric locking to get better convergence and speed. In your input file, change the solution to NEWTON instead of PJFNK and see if it helps. Cheers |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Your But the execution time difference is too substantial to be explained away by that most likely. Without the mesh and function files we cannot run your input though. 1500 nodes is a really tiny problem and should absolutely not take that long to run at all. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Your
IsotropicPlasticityStressUpdate
is set to run on the displaced mesh. I don't think that's right. You might try using AD versions of all mechanics modelsADIsotropicPlasticityStressUpdate
,ADComputeMultipleInelasticStress
,ADComputeIsotropicElasticityTensor
, anduse_asutomatic_differentiation = true
in the Master action. (you may need to recompile your moose with a larger AD vector size for 3D...)But the execution time difference is too substantial to be explained away by that most likely. Without the mesh and function files we cannot run your input though.
1500 nodes is a really tiny problem and should absolutely not take that long to run at all.