Hi,

Can anyone check for me if I'm doing correctly calculations based on 2 equations? Especially an integral because I don't really know how should I compute it. I'm calculating it in microsoft excel (I've got those equations from scientific paper, and I don't really know if there is a mistake or maybe I'm doing something wrong, because I should get other results than I'm actually getting) (I've put both equations and excel file in attachments). From the beginning, I've got a model created in Abaqus CAE and I am taking temperatures of elements from there (temperature depeneds on time, because it it connected with laser irradiation, laser position is changing with time). Then I'm puting it in Arrhenius equation (6). From equation (6) and time I'm calculating integrals (using Trapezoidal rule), subsequently I'm putting it into equation (5). Can anyone help me?

Thanks,

best regards,

Steczkowski Patryk

# Numerical Analysis

### #1

Posted 13 November 2016 - 01:48 PM

### #2

Posted 14 November 2016 - 12:32 PM

### #3

Posted 20 November 2016 - 10:59 PM

Hey steq,

The calculations look fine, including the integration part. Your Excel sheet seems to calculate what is given in formula (5) and (6), although I have no clue if the result makes sense, physically.

I suggest to test it by using an alternative integration method (try the rectangle rule)! Just to see if the integration method has a significant effect.

**Edited by renerpho, 20 November 2016 - 11:00 PM.**

### #4

Posted 22 November 2016 - 10:11 PM

Hi renerpho,

I'm extremely thankful for your response, I will try yours advice and see what will hapen, thanks .

It is said in scietific paper that cristallization should appear up to melting point (1183C) and above this temperature material should become practically amorphous(what elimantes crystallization), but in my case during elevation of temperature it is becoming more and more cristallized. So I suppose that error is in scietific paper. Beneath this temperature I don't get any cristallized elements, but based on paper I should get it.

Once again thanks, wish you all the best,

best regards,

Steczkowski Patryk

### #5

Posted 23 November 2016 - 07:48 PM

In that case, you should doubt your data first; if that does not help, you can still doubt the literature.

Maybe the formula is not the one you actually need? Maybe your data is flawed? Or there was a problem with your setup? *Or* there's a problem in the calculations that I missed. Don't just suppose that the literature is wrong.

Or, maybe you're misinterpreting the literature and the result you observed is actually what should happen? Check again if the conclusions you made are right.

Can you repeat the experiment?

Can you ask someone else who actually did the experiment?

**Edited by renerpho, 23 November 2016 - 07:51 PM.**

### #6

Posted 6 December 2016 - 03:05 PM

Thanks again renerpho for your your reply,

I somehow didn't saw your answer before. I don't know what is wrong, but I will write today to authors of this experiment and see if they can help me. I've made lots of time this experiment but I'am always getting wrong final results. Thanks again for your involvement into this case.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users