getdp issueshttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues2023-10-17T12:11:13Zhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/157interior permanent magnet synchronous machine ONELAB2023-10-17T12:11:13Zivan MEDRANOinterior permanent magnet synchronous machine ONELABHello everyone, I am currently developing a project for a machine with a magnet inside the rotor, I have a simulation already made, as can be seen in the figure, I have some questions and if possible I would greatly appreciate your help:...Hello everyone, I am currently developing a project for a machine with a magnet inside the rotor, I have a simulation already made, as can be seen in the figure, I have some questions and if possible I would greatly appreciate your help:
Can ONE LAB work with magnets inside the rotor without having to alter the pmsm_8p_circuit.pro file or the machine_magstadyn_a.pro file, of course I had to modify the machine_magstadyn_a.pro file, to define the new regions, but just change in that?
Do you know how BACK calculates or estimates emf?
Does performing the simulation give a completely wrong waveform for the torque as shown in the figure?
![onelabforum](/uploads/a7759c950e200ed4752bf7d885e24794/onelabforum.jpg)
![torqueforum](/uploads/7b8a125379c6e2a61d1490b1f4bf408f/torqueforum.jpg)
applying current to the stator returns a negative torque, how is that possible? , it is very likely that my simulation still has problems,
when the simulation is carried out without considering the current, the values to return for torque are the values corresponding to cogging torque ??? And one last question, what is the difference between the torque that returns from the rotor and from the stator.https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/110Auto-symmetrization of Galerkin terms2023-09-22T07:24:04ZChristophe GeuzaineAuto-symmetrization of Galerkin termsWe should fix the auto-symmetrization of terms by being "safe", i.e. only auto-symmetrize with tensor-valued functions if the term involves symmetric tensors.
See https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/blob/master/Kernel/Cal_GalerkinT...We should fix the auto-symmetrization of terms by being "safe", i.e. only auto-symmetrize with tensor-valued functions if the term involves symmetric tensors.
See https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/blob/master/Kernel/Cal_GalerkinTermOfFemEquation.cpp#L72
@julien.dularhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/100issue about template2021-10-21T22:56:14ZJie Liissue about templateHallo,
When I run the template you gave me (interactive_Elasticity.pro) as instructed, it pops up with the following:![issue](/uploads/c024fa973bf8e5f0a29a1d51bbc1ce09/issue.png). It shows:Error:GetDP- Unable to open file'D:/getdp/Intera...Hallo,
When I run the template you gave me (interactive_Elasticity.pro) as instructed, it pops up with the following:![issue](/uploads/c024fa973bf8e5f0a29a1d51bbc1ce09/issue.png). It shows:Error:GetDP- Unable to open file'D:/getdp/Interactive_Elasticity.**msh**'Is there any solution to this please?
best wishes
Jiehttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/72GetDP running on geometry data created by Gmsh API2021-04-04T08:45:20ZAlbert PiwonskiGetDP running on geometry data created by Gmsh APIHello together,
I implemented a FEM in the Julia PL. I created a mesh by using the Julia Gmsh API.
Now I want to compare my results with a GetDP solution (fixing the example "Magnetodynamics with cohomology conditions" to my problem)....Hello together,
I implemented a FEM in the Julia PL. I created a mesh by using the Julia Gmsh API.
Now I want to compare my results with a GetDP solution (fixing the example "Magnetodynamics with cohomology conditions" to my problem).
Is it necessary to backtranslate the Julia meshing file (.jl) into a Gmsh scripting language file (.geo)?
Or does the GetDP (.pro) file only needs the physical group labels of the generated mesh?
Greeting,
Alberthttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/66Something wrong with a periodic constraint2020-11-15T03:12:06ZKotaro MatsuokaSomething wrong with a periodic constraint Hello, maintainers.
I'm now trying to define a periodic constraint in the twisted super conductor wire model.
However, I got error like this.
```
Warning : Node 1854 (-0.0006951479199108561, 8.227617786218665e-05, 0.0004) already exi... Hello, maintainers.
I'm now trying to define a periodic constraint in the twisted super conductor wire model.
However, I got error like this.
```
Warning : Node 1854 (-0.0006951479199108561, 8.227617786218665e-05, 0.0004) already exists with tolerance 2.85657e-11: node 1853 (-0.0006951479199108561, 8.227617786218665e-05, 0.0004)
Warning : Could not find node corresponding to reference node 247 (-0.000683736, 0.000150016, 0.0004)
Error : Constraint Link: bad correspondance of number of Nodes (8054, 8053)
```
This seems to be bug because Node 1853 is at (-0.0006837361169588987 0.0001500164069892594 0.0004).
I attached files to reproduce this message. Just place all files in the same directory and run following commad.
```
sudo docker build -t onelab . && sudo docker run -t onelab
```
This error seems to be generated by `Generate_LinkNodes` but I could not figure out what wrong with this.
I need help. Thank you for any suggestion to find the suspicious piece of code.
[Dockerfile](/uploads/81e89fc1e994e1d5ad4e3622736c42cf/Dockerfile)
[periodic3d.geo](/uploads/9b433cfd6f072792bcd6ddb2023665f2/periodic3d.geo)
[periodic3d.pro](/uploads/c12df4024c060475afa6f8651e298a1d/periodic3d.pro)
[periodic3d_data.pro](/uploads/36891e1584e3ddd2160316814c3ce157/periodic3d_data.pro)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/168Large mesh type influence on calculated field results2024-03-13T16:36:23ZMax HullmannLarge mesh type influence on calculated field resultsHello together,
I am working on quite a simple model for the 3-D calculation of eddy current losses in permanent magnets. The field source is calculated in an external magnetostatic FEA program, is then mapped onto the Gmsh model and fi...Hello together,
I am working on quite a simple model for the 3-D calculation of eddy current losses in permanent magnets. The field source is calculated in an external magnetostatic FEA program, is then mapped onto the Gmsh model and finally used for the 3-D field caclulation with GetDP.
However, I have found that the calculation results (eddy current field, eddy current loss) vary greatly depending on the type of grid used. Only the tetrahedral mesh delivers the expected results. With a hexahedral mesh, the deviation is suspiciously large. With a triangular prism mesh, the deviation becomes much smaller, but is still remarkable. I have attached an example.
Kind regards,
Max
[example_mesh_influence.zip](/uploads/e35ff6dcda2a59618a678f7e76cd0601/example_mesh_influence.zip)
![ecloss_hexahedron](/uploads/653bb2324471213b56340729550e8971/ecloss_hexahedron.png)![ecloss_tetrahedron](/uploads/95c9d876da1331dd1b8cdd99c887a084/ecloss_tetrahedron.png)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/167Compilation error when building getdp 3.6.0. on FreeBSD,2024-03-12T07:15:26ZStephen Montgomery-SmithCompilation error when building getdp 3.6.0. on FreeBSD,In line 120 of src/kernel/LinAlg_SPARSKIT.cpp, the function declaration of LinAlg_CreateMatrix conflicts with its prototype defined on line 99 src/kernel/LinAlg.h. Using the clang-17.0.6 compiler gives the error:
ld: error: undefined sy...In line 120 of src/kernel/LinAlg_SPARSKIT.cpp, the function declaration of LinAlg_CreateMatrix conflicts with its prototype defined on line 99 src/kernel/LinAlg.h. Using the clang-17.0.6 compiler gives the error:
ld: error: undefined symbol: LinAlg_CreateMatrix(gMatrix\*, gSolver\*, int, int, bool)
> > > referenced by EigenSolve_ARPACK.cpp CMakeFiles/getdp.dir/src/kernel/EigenSolve_ARPACK.cpp.o:(EigenSolve_ARPACK(DofData\*, int, double, double, int)) referenced by Cal_AssembleTerm.cpp CMakeFiles/getdp.dir/src/kernel/Cal_AssembleTerm.cpp.o:(Cal_AssembleTerm_NoDt(Dof\*, Dof\*, double\*)) referenced by Cal_AssembleTerm.cpp CMakeFiles/getdp.dir/src/kernel/Cal_AssembleTerm.cpp.o:(Cal_AssembleTerm_DtDof(Dof\*, Dof\*, double\*)) referenced 34 more times did you mean: LinAlg_CreateMatrix(gMatrix\*, gSolver\*, int, int) defined in: CMakeFiles/getdp.dir/src/kernel/LinAlg_SPARSKIT.cpp.o c++: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
I could fix it with the following patch (which will be mangled by the editor, but is easy to do by hand):
`--- src/kernel/LinAlg_SPARSKIT.cpp.orig 2024-03-08 06:48:58 UTC`
`+++ src/kernel/LinAlg_SPARSKIT.cpp`
`@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ void LinAlg_CreateVector(gVector *V, gSolver *Solver, V->N = n; }`
`-void LinAlg_CreateMatrix(gMatrix *M, gSolver *Solver, int n, int m)`
`+void LinAlg_CreateMatrix(gMatrix *M, gSolver *Solver, int n, int m, bool silent )`
`{`
`init_matrix(n, &M->M, &Solver->Params);`
`}`https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/166Typo in material properties for Aluminum2024-02-28T08:08:24ZChristopher JonesTypo in material properties for AluminumI believe that the electrical conductivity for aluminum has an extra digit in the exponent.I believe that the electrical conductivity for aluminum has an extra digit in the exponent.https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/165TimeLoopAdaptive + PostOperation Convergence Criterion + MPI --> PetSC Error2024-02-28T21:06:56ZErik SchnaubeltTimeLoopAdaptive + PostOperation Convergence Criterion + MPI --> PetSC ErrorHi @geuzaine,
It seems that the combination of `TimeLoopAdaptive` and `PostOperation`-based convergence criterion does not work with MPI.
I've attached a simple `.pro` and `.geo` below to reproduce the behavior. When calling `mpirun -...Hi @geuzaine,
It seems that the combination of `TimeLoopAdaptive` and `PostOperation`-based convergence criterion does not work with MPI.
I've attached a simple `.pro` and `.geo` below to reproduce the behavior. When calling `mpirun -n 2 getdp mpi_test_adaptive_postpro.pro -solve resolution -pos postop`, I get the following error message:
<details><summary>Error Message</summary>
`
Warning : [rank 0] PETSc error: Object is in wrong state Warning : [rank 1] PETSc error: Object is in wrong state [0]PETSC ERROR: #1 VecAXPY() at /petsc-3.19.4/src/vec/vec/interface/rvector.c:595 [0]PETSC ERROR: #2 _try() at /cerngetdp/src/kernel/LinAlg_PETSC.cpp:58 #1 VecAXPY() at /petsc-3.19.4/src/vec/vec/interface/rvector.c:595 [1]PETSC ERROR: #2 _try() at /cerngetdp/src/kernel/LinAlg_PETSC.cpp:58 Warning : [rank 0] Time step 1 Try 17 Time = 2.3283064e-12 s rejected: Warning : [rank 0] No valid solution found (PETSc-Error: 73)! Info : Time step 1 Try 18 Time = 1e-12 s Stepsize = 1e-12 s Integr. Order = 1 Warning : [rank 1] Time step 1 Try 17 Time = 2.3283064e-12 s rejected: Warning : [rank 1] No valid solution found (PETSc-Error: 73)! [0]PETSC ERROR: --------------------- Error Message -------------------------------------------------------------- [0]PETSC ERROR: Object is in wrong state [0]PETSC ERROR: Not for unassembled vector, did you call VecAssemblyBegin()/VecAssemblyEnd()? [0]PETSC ERROR: See https://petsc.org/release/faq/ for trouble shooting. [0]PETSC ERROR: Petsc Release Version 3.19.4, Jul 31, 2023 [0]PETSC ERROR: init_from_res_mpi_test.pro on a real_mumps_mpi named 1c96e047515d by Unknown Fri Dec 29 19:51:45 2023 [0]PETSC ERROR: [1]PETSC ERROR: --------------------- Error Message -------------------------------------------------------------- [1]PETSC ERROR: Object is in wrong state [1]PETSC ERROR: Not for unassembled vector, did you call VecAssemblyBegin()/VecAssemblyEnd()? [1]PETSC ERROR: See https://petsc.org/release/faq/ for trouble shooting. [1]PETSC ERROR: Petsc Release Version 3.19.4, Jul 31, 2023 [1]PETSC ERROR: init_from_res_mpi_test.pro on a real_mumps_mpi named 1c96e047515d by Unknown Fri Dec 29 19:51:45 2023 [1]PETSC ERROR: Configure options --with-blaslapack-lib=/usr/lib64/libopenblasp.so --with-clanguage=cxx --with-debugging=0 --download-mumps=1 --download-metis=1 --download-parmetis=1 --download-scalapack=1 --download-blacs=1 --with-shared-libraries=0 --with-x=0 --with-scalar-type=real --download-suitesparse Configure options --with-blaslapack-lib=/usr/lib64/libopenblasp.so --with-clanguage=cxx --with-debugging=0 --download-mumps=1 --download-metis=1 --download-parmetis=1 --download-scalapack=1 --download-blacs=1 --with-shared-libraries=0 --with-x=0 --with-scalar-type=real --download-suitesparse [0]PETSC ERROR: #1 VecAXPY() at /petsc-3.19.4/src/vec/vec/interface/rvector.c:595 [0]PETSC ERROR: #2 _try() at /cerngetdp/src/kernel/LinAlg_PETSC.cpp:58 [1]PETSC ERROR: #1 VecAXPY() at /petsc-3.19.4/src/vec/vec/interface/rvector.c:595 [1]PETSC ERROR: #2 _try() at /cerngetdp/src/kernel/LinAlg_PETSC.cpp:58
`
</details>
Removing the `PostOperation` inside the `TimeLoopAdaptive` gets rid of the error message. Furthermore, running the `.pro` without `MPI` works fine.
Thank you very much for your help!
Erik
[mpi_test_adaptive_postpro.geo](/uploads/40cf0d8b56ea23206d929dcd47fdae31/mpi_test_adaptive_postpro.geo)
[mpi_test_adaptive_postpro.pro](/uploads/dd3ca40d51981533502f53191f93256e/mpi_test_adaptive_postpro.pro)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/164Pre-processing of GroupOfEdgesOf Cohomology Basis for Complex Geometry2023-12-30T17:19:19ZErik SchnaubeltPre-processing of GroupOfEdgesOf Cohomology Basis for Complex GeometryHi Christophe,
We are trying to run a transient simulation of two (or more) insulated spiral pancake coils connected in series using an $\vec{H}-\phi$ formulation, see below for the geometry. Unfortunately, we could not reproduce the p...Hi Christophe,
We are trying to run a transient simulation of two (or more) insulated spiral pancake coils connected in series using an $\vec{H}-\phi$ formulation, see below for the geometry. Unfortunately, we could not reproduce the problem with easier geometries...
![geo](/uploads/e1d4f014ad61e715149887ffe1a78899/geo.jpg)
This model setup then has two cohomology basis functions. We follow Section 5 of the Gmsh cohomology paper to create a cohomology basis of 2 elements with evident physical interpretation:
![first_one_chain](/uploads/c5820bdcc2ac5257495f924b1115fb81/first_one_chain.jpg)
![second_one_chain](/uploads/48e429da66b8db5e9f6fe8cc3550fcf8/second_one_chain.jpg)
We then set up a very simple .pro file that only calls `InitSolution` in the `Resolution` and enforce a current of 1A in the first cut and 0A in the second (effectively "disabling" it). This should yield the following initial solution (log scale) with currents only in the conducting parts:
![12turns_okay](/uploads/0e49feea7697e8d9359b22356d96f985/12turns_okay.jpg)
The above picture is for a spiral of 12 turns. When increasing the number of turns to 13, we have non-zero currents in the air domain:
![13turns_ko](/uploads/2e605d6027b324dcca166b3b34f281a2/13turns_ko.jpg)
A few more symptoms:
- Removing the second cut region, i.e. `DOM_airHoleCut = Region[{ }];`, there are no currents in non-conducting domains.
- Switching to the cohomology basis originally created from the `HomologyComputation` (Regions 8 and 9 as commented in the `.pro`) without the rearranging to make homology and cohomology compatible, again no currents in the non-conducting domain.
- Below 13 turns (exclusive), no air currents. Above 13 turns, air currents.
Do you have an idea what's going on? Thanks for the help!
Please find below the simple .pro and two meshes for the two cases. We tested it with the official `GetDP 3.5.0` release.
[simple_init.pro](/uploads/59c5526761147e82431cf944e1bfab62/simple_init.pro)
[12_turns_okay.msh](/uploads/521b8989ccd3457614e7d8e633e30341/12_turns_okay.msh)
[13_turns_not_okay.msh](/uploads/101c21c367b4e001b145c1902bba72d2/13_turns_not_okay.msh)
Thank you!
Erikhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/163Question: can we modelize semiconductor electrical equations in GetDP2023-10-26T15:25:41ZPhilQuestion: can we modelize semiconductor electrical equations in GetDPHello
first let me share a big whaou and a big thank for the job done on GetDP !
I'm new with GetDP and looking how to run thermo-electrical simulation of a semiconductor device given the mesh of the structure, e.g the active part + me...Hello
first let me share a big whaou and a big thank for the job done on GetDP !
I'm new with GetDP and looking how to run thermo-electrical simulation of a semiconductor device given the mesh of the structure, e.g the active part + metal access path. I found the example of ElectroThermal_Sim in https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/wikis/Nonlinear-solvers (bottom of the page) very interesting but can't figure out the way to code non linear electrical equations in the Formulation object of .pro input file.
A simple example of non-linear electrical equation would be the diode current equation:
given Vbreak, I0 and the temperature dependent voltage V0(Temperature),the diode current Id is function its potential difference Vj
if Vj \< Vbreak then Id = -I0 \* (Vj/Vbreak)^N // this equation to materialize the need to code a "if/then/else"
else Id = I0\*(exp(Vj/V0(T)) - 1)
I believe that a way would be to define a volume in the structure where this equation apply, replace the equation of current by an equation of its<span dir=""> </span>electrical conductivity in only one direction (for example in Z) retrieving the potential difference of elementary mesh cell in the same Z direction.
Any hint would be appreciated
Philhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/162Incorrect calculated Brooks coil inductance2023-10-25T07:13:19ZDenIncorrect calculated Brooks coil inductanceTask
Calculate Brooks coil inductance.
![image](/uploads/4a1b7e948724013d593ce8001e84df83/image.png)
Brooks coil has specially adjusted dimensions, which assure the maximum inductance value for a given wire length.
Given
Current I = 1 ...Task
Calculate Brooks coil inductance.
![image](/uploads/4a1b7e948724013d593ce8001e84df83/image.png)
Brooks coil has specially adjusted dimensions, which assure the maximum inductance value for a given wire length.
Given
Current I = 1 A,
Number of turns N = 200,
c = 20 mm.
Solution
Brooks coil inductance can be calculated using equation:
L = 1.6994·10-6·(3/2·c)·N² [H]*,
where N - number of turns.
Results
Theoretical value L = 1.6994·10-6·(3/2·20·10-3)·200² = 0.002039 H.
Calculation in Gmsh &GetDP L= 4.96279e-08
![image](/uploads/35af0d5b3d736a3fe85696dbd4a095b1/image.png)
It's not clear where the error might be
[simple_coil.geo](/uploads/0f0f215274dcc5dc6091b1160911de69/simple_coil.geo)
[simple_coil.pro](/uploads/a5349023299faafbd5c38fdfb44f9229/simple_coil.pro)
[Lib_Magnetostatics_a_phi.pro](/uploads/8842c4430261fce184624b2db2c8c385/Lib_Magnetostatics_a_phi.pro)
[Lib_Materials.pro](/uploads/b353aa73298dbc089cb5901b4b726951/Lib_Materials.pro)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/161Incorrect work of Interactive_Magnetostatics.pro template for 3D tasks2023-10-26T06:28:31ZDenIncorrect work of Interactive_Magnetostatics.pro template for 3D tasksProblem, similar to issue #121(https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/121 "Incorrect work of Interactive_Elasticity.pro template for 3D tasks") For subsequent non-interactive use of the ".pro" file for 3D tasks, the Interactive_...Problem, similar to issue #121(https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/121 "Incorrect work of Interactive_Elasticity.pro template for 3D tasks") For subsequent non-interactive use of the ".pro" file for 3D tasks, the Interactive_Magnetostatics.pro file must be modified.
```
// insert modelDim for correct operation in 3d
If(export&&modelDim==3)
Printf(StrCat['modelDim = 3;'])
>> Str[exportFile];
EndIf
```https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/160Delete PostProcessing Views Before PostOperation2023-10-24T03:40:16ZStuart BarthDelete PostProcessing Views Before PostOperationPost-processing views are generally created in the `PostOperation` step by using the `Print[ `_`post-quantity-id`_ `<[`_`group-def`_`]>, `_`print-support`_ `<,`_`print-option`_`> ... ]` command. **gmsh** has a command `Delete View[`_`exp...Post-processing views are generally created in the `PostOperation` step by using the `Print[ `_`post-quantity-id`_ `<[`_`group-def`_`]>, `_`print-support`_ `<,`_`print-option`_`> ... ]` command. **gmsh** has a command `Delete View[`_`expression`_`];` that deletes these post-processing views at the index of _`expression`_. I want to run my simulation multiple times, but also clear any existing post-processing views before starting a new simlation. I think the easiset way to do this is in **getdp**'s `PostOperation` step, before the `Print[]` commands are called.
In [rhombus.pro](https://gitlab.onelab.info/doc/models/-/blob/master/BlochPeriodicWaveguides/rhombus.pro#L286), we see that the `Delete View[ ]` is mentioned to do precisely this -- but not explictly called, and indeed, **getdp** doesn't seem to recognize the command here if not `Echo`'d.
Is there some way to delete the postprocessing views before a new simulation is run?
Thank you!https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/159Calculate resistance in inductor example - problem with current density in co...2023-08-31T08:43:21ZPatrickCalculate resistance in inductor example - problem with current density in conductorHello,
I would like to calculate the resistance in the inductor example. However, in the current setup, it seems that the eddy current is only being simulated in the core and not in the coil.
**Approach:** To address this limitation, I...Hello,
I would like to calculate the resistance in the inductor example. However, in the current setup, it seems that the eddy current is only being simulated in the core and not in the coil.
**Approach:** To address this limitation, I have included the coil within DomainC to simulate the skin effect within the coil itself.
**Problem:** Unfortunately, the current density, represented as jAV + js1, does not appear to be correct.
**Question:** I am seeking guidance on how to modify the example to accurately simulate both the skin and proximity effects within the coil.
**Possible Solution:** One approach I am considering is defining a voltage between two closely spaced surfaces within the coil and utilizing a circuit definition to model these effects. Does this approach seem feasible, and if so, how should I go about implementing it?
I appreciate any insights or suggestions for improving this simulation.https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/158Issues Running GetDP from Python versus Directly from Gmsh2023-08-20T20:23:17ZOthman AbujazarIssues Running GetDP from Python versus Directly from GmshHello everyone,
I'm experiencing an issue when trying to run a time domain simulation from a Python script. When I execute the simulation this way, I encounter a problem. The problem shows that I have freeing solution. This will happen ...Hello everyone,
I'm experiencing an issue when trying to run a time domain simulation from a Python script. When I execute the simulation this way, I encounter a problem. The problem shows that I have freeing solution. This will happen from the step time 3. However, when I place the same files in a single folder and run the simulation directly from Gmsh, it executes without any issues.
Error : Empty solution in DofData 0
Could anyone provide guidance on why this might be happening and how to resolve the issue when running from Python?
Thank you for your assistance.
![freeing_solution](/uploads/681b8ad663547abed455e761635c2db4/freeing_solution.jpg)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/156Vectorial Ohm Law + Continuity Eq.2023-07-03T11:36:15Zmassimiliano galvagnoVectorial Ohm Law + Continuity Eq.Hello Everyone,
I am trying to implement with getDP a very simple Current flow simulation, between voltage drops.
The equation I am using are:
- Div **J** = 0
- **J** = -Sigma*Grad V
However, I am not succeeding in this task when I star...Hello Everyone,
I am trying to implement with getDP a very simple Current flow simulation, between voltage drops.
The equation I am using are:
- Div **J** = 0
- **J** = -Sigma*Grad V
However, I am not succeeding in this task when I start using 3D domain and thus vectorial equations.
My problem raises exactly with the implementation of the Galerkin method for vectors: It is not clear to me whether use **J** as vector (but I am having troubles with vectorial basis set BFNodeX, BFNodeY, BFNodeZ) or separate its component [Jx,Jy,Jz] and in this case which basis function to use for the weak form of the equation.
My actual guess, not working is the following formulation:
//div(J) =0
Galerkin { [ Dof{d jx} , {jx} ] ;
In Vol_tot; Integration I1; Jacobian JVol; }
Galerkin { [ Dof{d jy} , {jy} ] ;
In Vol_tot; Integration I1; Jacobian JVol; }
Galerkin { [ Dof{d jz} , {jz} ] ;
In Vol_tot; Integration I1; Jacobian JVol; }
//sigma* Grad(u)
Galerkin { [ sigma[]*Dof{Grad u} , {u} ];
In Vol_tot; Integration I1; Jacobian JVol; }
//+j=0
Galerkin { [Dof{jx} , {u} ];
In Vol_tot; Integration I1; Jacobian JVol; }
Galerkin { [Dof{jy} , {u} ];
In Vol_tot; Integration I1; Jacobian JVol; }
Galerkin { [Dof{jz} , {u} ];
In Vol_tot; Integration I1; Jacobian JVol; }
I am completely new to this software, thus I will appreciate very much any help with my problem, but eventually also more in general some explanation with this environment
(in case please contact me at massimiliano.galvagno@mail.polimi.it).
Thank you!
Massimiliano Galvagnohttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/155About Freq and Time domain`s simulation2023-06-26T14:48:55ZOthman AbujazarAbout Freq and Time domain`s simulationHello Everyone,
I have recently been exploring the inductor example in ONELAB, and there's a particular observation that has caught my attention. In the frequency domain analysis, I noticed that the Joule losses correspond to the peak v...Hello Everyone,
I have recently been exploring the inductor example in ONELAB, and there's a particular observation that has caught my attention. In the frequency domain analysis, I noticed that the Joule losses correspond to the peak value found in the time domain simulation. This has raised a question for me, as I originally anticipated the losses in the frequency domain to align with the average (or RMS value) from the time domain simulation. I am currently investigating this discrepancy and would appreciate any insights or clarification.
Thanks
Othman Abujazarhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/154Average in time domain simulation2023-06-15T11:12:35ZOthman AbujazarAverage in time domain simulationHi,
I want to ask if it is possible to get the average in time domain simulation. for example, ![joule](/uploads/f6f19bcdd98e47a35ff8992af5f6505e/joule.png)
Could I make a time Integral or sum the Joule losses over the period time?
tha...Hi,
I want to ask if it is possible to get the average in time domain simulation. for example, ![joule](/uploads/f6f19bcdd98e47a35ff8992af5f6505e/joule.png)
Could I make a time Integral or sum the Joule losses over the period time?
thank youhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/153linking getdp with gmsh in linux2023-07-01T19:57:48ZZakaria HOUTAlinking getdp with gmsh in linuxI am trying to compile getdp as showed on [wiki](https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/wikis/GetDP-compilation) but it seems like it is not linking it correctly.
I understand from this line -- * Build options: 64Bit Arpack[contrib] ...I am trying to compile getdp as showed on [wiki](https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/wikis/GetDP-compilation) but it seems like it is not linking it correctly.
I understand from this line -- * Build options: 64Bit Arpack[contrib] Blas[petsc] Gmsh Kernel Lapack[petsc] MPI PETSc PeWe Python that it has been taking gmsh option but when I try to run it gives me the following error message : Error : You need to compile GetDP with Gmsh support to open.
What am I doing wrong ?