models issueshttps://gitlab.onelab.info/doc/models/-/issues2023-03-28T07:26:59Zhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/doc/models/-/issues/15How to use Double sweep preconditioner?2023-03-28T07:26:59Zjiaqiang maHow to use Double sweep preconditioner?I modified the PRECONDITIONER to '1' in file marmousi.pro.
I try to use Double sweep preconditioner instead of Unpreconditioned in marmousi, but I failed when I use mpirun.
What should I do if I want to test Double sweep preconditioner...I modified the PRECONDITIONER to '1' in file marmousi.pro.
I try to use Double sweep preconditioner instead of Unpreconditioned in marmousi, but I failed when I use mpirun.
What should I do if I want to test Double sweep preconditioner in multiple processes?
Thank you for your reply!https://gitlab.onelab.info/doc/models/-/issues/14Waveguides - Erroneous Absorbing Boundary Conditions?2022-08-10T11:15:46ZBernd BreitkreutzWaveguides - Erroneous Absorbing Boundary Conditions?I have trouble with the waveguide ports in the straight waveguide model. My understanding is that the fields are excited by an analytical field distribution (i.e. sine half-waves), and the incoming waves are absorbed by some kind of abc....I have trouble with the waveguide ports in the straight waveguide model. My understanding is that the fields are excited by an analytical field distribution (i.e. sine half-waves), and the incoming waves are absorbed by some kind of abc. However, I am already failing to understand the result of the simulation.
With a sufficient discretization and excitation above cut-off frequency, I would expect a reflection free transmission from one port to the other. This corresponds to $`|s_{11}|=0=-\infty\,\mathrm{dB}`$ , $`|s_{21}|=1=0\,\mathrm{dB}`$, and identical field distributions for real part and imaginary part, but shifted by 90° in space. But I witness a strong reflection of $`|s_{11}|=-7.3\,\mathrm{dB}`$ and significant differences in the field plots.
May there a bug in the abc formulation of the model?
![waveguide_2d_real](/uploads/5922d46a53e92ec5570c3d373187eb5c/waveguide_2d_real.png)![waveguide_2d_imag](/uploads/890488acc2ec365a2a6a3fca179870d5/waveguide_2d_imag.png)https://gitlab.onelab.info/doc/models/-/issues/12getdp or gmsh FEM for electric machine analysis?2022-03-07T10:07:54ZAlexander Shendigetdp or gmsh FEM for electric machine analysis?Dear onelab people,
for electric machine analysis, should I use getdp or can I use gmesh FEM? Which one is recommended?
Thanks in advance,
AlexanderDear onelab people,
for electric machine analysis, should I use getdp or can I use gmesh FEM? Which one is recommended?
Thanks in advance,
Alexanderhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/doc/models/-/issues/11Iq value in model ElectricMachines/pmsm_cbmag doesn't have any effect2022-03-07T10:09:28ZAlexander ShendiIq value in model ElectricMachines/pmsm_cbmag doesn't have any effectIn the model "ElectricMachines/pmsm_cbmag", when chosing current excitation, the input value for IQ doesn't seem to have any effect.
I always get a small cogging torque.
In the simplified pmsm model this works as expected.In the model "ElectricMachines/pmsm_cbmag", when chosing current excitation, the input value for IQ doesn't seem to have any effect.
I always get a small cogging torque.
In the simplified pmsm model this works as expected.Ruth SabariegoRuth Sabariegohttps://gitlab.onelab.info/doc/models/-/issues/8Antenna example crush2021-12-23T09:46:16ZDmitry KonkinAntenna example crushWhile trying to run mstrip.pro gmsh pass meshing stage and then it closes.
Is there any specific requirement for hardware e.g. RAM more than 8 GB etc. which could potentially results in such behavior?While trying to run mstrip.pro gmsh pass meshing stage and then it closes.
Is there any specific requirement for hardware e.g. RAM more than 8 GB etc. which could potentially results in such behavior?https://gitlab.onelab.info/doc/models/-/issues/7Ordering of cuts in 2D Gmsh-GetDP (homology-cohomology)2021-05-20T19:53:57ZFrederic TrillaudOrdering of cuts in 2D Gmsh-GetDP (homology-cohomology)Dear all,
This is not per se an issue but an inconveniency in some cases. I am running a case study 1n 2D having different conductors in series.
For each conductor, I assign a cut to impress the transport current. As all the conductor...Dear all,
This is not per se an issue but an inconveniency in some cases. I am running a case study 1n 2D having different conductors in series.
For each conductor, I assign a cut to impress the transport current. As all the conductors are in series, they have the same current. However, building the cuts and assigning the current result in random orientation of the latter. It seems that the edges of the mesh making the cuts are not necessary in the same "direction" for all overlapping cuts.
A colleague of mine as a manual fixed reordering the direction of the edges, however, I think tat it would be more appropriate to have it already arranged directly in the code. The idea would be that the direction of the cuts are all the same for all the conductors and only the sign of the impressed current should be defined.
I am attaching a figure showing the current density resulting of impressing the current through the cuts with the basic ordering of Gmsh.
The cuts are associated with branches in an electrical circuit each branch is a conductor form node 2 to 11:
{ Region cut_0; Branch{2, 3}; }
{ Region cut_1; Branch{3, 4}; }
{ Region cut_2; Branch{4, 5}; }
{ Region cut_3; Branch{5, 6}; }
{ Region cut_4; Branch{6, 7}; }
{ Region cut_5; Branch{7, 8}; }
{ Region cut_6; Branch{8, 9}; }
{ Region cut_7; Branch{9, 10}; }
{ Region cut_8; Branch{10, 11}; }
{ Region cut_9; Branch{11, 0}; }
Some of the cuts:
![circuitCouplingDCAC](/uploads/c07cb70430199767fe5c70561f091fd7/circuitCouplingDCAC.png)
Current density:
![currentDensityDirection](/uploads/2be1f030bd0aee02bc952eafb149c3a3/currentDensityDirection.png)
Best,
Frederic