getdp issueshttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues2021-05-07T14:56:25Zhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/83Stranded conductor - simple 3D current in coil implementation2021-05-07T14:56:25ZTheo MessinStranded conductor - simple 3D current in coil implementationHello,
I am trying to build a 3D coil in an electric machine and to add some current in it.
**Known approach:** Follow the 3D inductor.pro example, and parametrise the current for each mesh element within the 3D coil. However this is hardly scalable for more complex / various coil geometries.
**My approach:** I add a plane coil_cut within the 3D coil and add some current density vectors normal to this plane. Considering that the coil is simulated as a 'conducting element', the current should be flowing throught the whole coil.
**Question:** How to define a stranded coil? Meaning: How to set the coil to be conducting the current imposed but to not be affected by the possible eddy currents generated by the magnetic field in the coils? (The coil might be made out of thin copper wires, where eddy currents are negligeable)
**Possible solution:** Should this happen in the "formulation" part of the script? Defining a formulation for the coil and another formulation for the rest of the machine?Hello,
I am trying to build a 3D coil in an electric machine and to add some current in it.
**Known approach:** Follow the 3D inductor.pro example, and parametrise the current for each mesh element within the 3D coil. However this is hardly scalable for more complex / various coil geometries.
**My approach:** I add a plane coil_cut within the 3D coil and add some current density vectors normal to this plane. Considering that the coil is simulated as a 'conducting element', the current should be flowing throught the whole coil.
**Question:** How to define a stranded coil? Meaning: How to set the coil to be conducting the current imposed but to not be affected by the possible eddy currents generated by the magnetic field in the coils? (The coil might be made out of thin copper wires, where eddy currents are negligeable)
**Possible solution:** Should this happen in the "formulation" part of the script? Defining a formulation for the coil and another formulation for the rest of the machine?https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/82Guidance on obtaining stiffness and mass matrices2021-05-06T18:20:02ZAlexander ShendiGuidance on obtaining stiffness and mass matricesDear getdp folks,
I need some guidance on how to obtain the stiffness and mass
matrices for a linear elasticity eigenvalue problem (presumably
as a postprocessing step).
I need to transform them into modal coordinates.
Thanks in advance!Dear getdp folks,
I need some guidance on how to obtain the stiffness and mass
matrices for a linear elasticity eigenvalue problem (presumably
as a postprocessing step).
I need to transform them into modal coordinates.
Thanks in advance!https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/81Computation times on Linux aarch64 vs OpenBSD amd642021-05-06T17:52:24ZAlexander ShendiComputation times on Linux aarch64 vs OpenBSD amd64Hello gentle getdp folks,
I have observed rather lqrge (ca. one order of magnitude) differences in calculation times (both wall and cpu). See the attached text file for more details.
The times reported are:
1. Start of program
2. After eigenvalue calculation
3. After Postprocessing
4. End of program
There seems to a difference between wall clock time and cpu time during postprocessing on OpenBSD. On OpenBSD I moved the calculation directory
to a RAM disk, but that didn't help much.
I'm mainly looking for further hints on how to proceed with debugging
the problem. I will also be glad to supply further information,
if needed.
Attachements:
[out.001.txt](/uploads/5fb77a75e989c2dc3dc2e9c35a56e17d/out.001.txt)![OpenBSD_und_Linux](/uploads/30e2f37946800e7e1ef54a56f0de71fa/OpenBSD_und_Linux.png)Hello gentle getdp folks,
I have observed rather lqrge (ca. one order of magnitude) differences in calculation times (both wall and cpu). See the attached text file for more details.
The times reported are:
1. Start of program
2. After eigenvalue calculation
3. After Postprocessing
4. End of program
There seems to a difference between wall clock time and cpu time during postprocessing on OpenBSD. On OpenBSD I moved the calculation directory
to a RAM disk, but that didn't help much.
I'm mainly looking for further hints on how to proceed with debugging
the problem. I will also be glad to supply further information,
if needed.
Attachements:
[out.001.txt](/uploads/5fb77a75e989c2dc3dc2e9c35a56e17d/out.001.txt)![OpenBSD_und_Linux](/uploads/30e2f37946800e7e1ef54a56f0de71fa/OpenBSD_und_Linux.png)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/80rfpm 3D model - gauge condition2021-05-03T09:00:16ZTheo Messinrfpm 3D model - gauge conditionHello,
Looking at the **rfpm.pro** example (3D model of a RFPM machine), I do not understand the meaning of the **'gauge' constraint.**
```
// A correct spanning-tree is essential to the validity of the model.
// The spanning-tree must be autosimilar by rotation on the sliding surfaces
// (SubRegion2 clause, only the edges aligned with the Z axis are placed in
// the tree), and be also a spanning-tree and Dirichlet and Link surfaces and
// their boundaries (SubRegion clause).
{ Name GaugeCondition_a ; Type Assign ;
Case {
{ Region Vol_Tree ; Value 0. ;
SubRegion Region[ { Sur_Tree, Lin_Tree} ] ;
SubRegion2 Region[ Sur_Tree_Sliding, AlignedWith Z ] ;
}
}
}
```
What does this constraint do? Why is it needed? Would its implementation for a 3D AFM model be needed or differ?
(my current implementation of it does not make sense)
Thanks in advance!
Regards,
TheoHello,
Looking at the **rfpm.pro** example (3D model of a RFPM machine), I do not understand the meaning of the **'gauge' constraint.**
```
// A correct spanning-tree is essential to the validity of the model.
// The spanning-tree must be autosimilar by rotation on the sliding surfaces
// (SubRegion2 clause, only the edges aligned with the Z axis are placed in
// the tree), and be also a spanning-tree and Dirichlet and Link surfaces and
// their boundaries (SubRegion clause).
{ Name GaugeCondition_a ; Type Assign ;
Case {
{ Region Vol_Tree ; Value 0. ;
SubRegion Region[ { Sur_Tree, Lin_Tree} ] ;
SubRegion2 Region[ Sur_Tree_Sliding, AlignedWith Z ] ;
}
}
}
```
What does this constraint do? Why is it needed? Would its implementation for a 3D AFM model be needed or differ?
(my current implementation of it does not make sense)
Thanks in advance!
Regards,
Theohttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/78ARPACK96 doesn't work for eigenvalue problem (elasticity 3D modal)2021-04-18T17:21:51ZAlexander ShendiARPACK96 doesn't work for eigenvalue problem (elasticity 3D modal)ARPACK96 doesn't converge for me for modal elasticity 3D problem. SLEPC does. Tested on Debian Linux/aarch64 and OpenBSD-current amd64.
I initially used ARPACK96, because it was available from ports for OpenBSD.ARPACK96 doesn't converge for me for modal elasticity 3D problem. SLEPC does. Tested on Debian Linux/aarch64 and OpenBSD-current amd64.
I initially used ARPACK96, because it was available from ports for OpenBSD.https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/77Implement ABC or PML boundary condition2021-04-21T07:37:18ZJules KoenigImplement ABC or PML boundary conditionHello,
I built a simple model consisting of two rectangular surfaces with different permittivities. I have placed a sinusoidal source point in the upper rectangle.
I then do a temporal study of the propagation of the wave between the two media. However I find myself with unwanted reflections on the boundaries of the domain. I therefore wish to implement absorbing boundaries of ABC or PML type.
I could see that these are implemented in the "AcousticScattering" project. However they are in the frequency domain and moreover the associated code is very bulky and I admit having great difficulty in adapting it to my study.
Could you tell me how to implement as simply as possible one of these two absorption conditions?
I have attached the source files and some screenshots of the model.
I thank you in advance,
KOENIG Jules
[cavite.geo](/uploads/d536989e1d765a9fdd11875cbfccbfdb/cavite.geo)
[cavite.pro](/uploads/f07ade8495cfac4637491108e8aa0725/cavite.pro)
[DAT_cavite.dat](/uploads/8e6f746694df8cef5ff70e64555e4e2d/DAT_cavite.dat)
![Capture1](/uploads/db58f890e4048f66b28b2432f9e0756b/Capture1.JPG)
![Capture2](/uploads/6b95b1f367603528e37152c7e50efd14/Capture2.JPG)
![Capture3](/uploads/32915f6a6baeb06972a55d96e037f6e4/Capture3.JPG)Hello,
I built a simple model consisting of two rectangular surfaces with different permittivities. I have placed a sinusoidal source point in the upper rectangle.
I then do a temporal study of the propagation of the wave between the two media. However I find myself with unwanted reflections on the boundaries of the domain. I therefore wish to implement absorbing boundaries of ABC or PML type.
I could see that these are implemented in the "AcousticScattering" project. However they are in the frequency domain and moreover the associated code is very bulky and I admit having great difficulty in adapting it to my study.
Could you tell me how to implement as simply as possible one of these two absorption conditions?
I have attached the source files and some screenshots of the model.
I thank you in advance,
KOENIG Jules
[cavite.geo](/uploads/d536989e1d765a9fdd11875cbfccbfdb/cavite.geo)
[cavite.pro](/uploads/f07ade8495cfac4637491108e8aa0725/cavite.pro)
[DAT_cavite.dat](/uploads/8e6f746694df8cef5ff70e64555e4e2d/DAT_cavite.dat)
![Capture1](/uploads/db58f890e4048f66b28b2432f9e0756b/Capture1.JPG)
![Capture2](/uploads/6b95b1f367603528e37152c7e50efd14/Capture2.JPG)
![Capture3](/uploads/32915f6a6baeb06972a55d96e037f6e4/Capture3.JPG)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/75Electrical machine tutorial with magnet losses computation2021-04-19T10:44:59ZCrisBabElectrical machine tutorial with magnet losses computationThanks for all the tutorials shared with the community: they are very useful and detailed.
Among the Electrical machines tutorials, there is not a model which computes the magnet losses in time-domain simulations.
Do you think it is possible to add this feature to one of the tutorials in the future release?
If not, Since I've not many skills with GetDP, could you suggest which computation should be added?
ThanksThanks for all the tutorials shared with the community: they are very useful and detailed.
Among the Electrical machines tutorials, there is not a model which computes the magnet losses in time-domain simulations.
Do you think it is possible to add this feature to one of the tutorials in the future release?
If not, Since I've not many skills with GetDP, could you suggest which computation should be added?
Thankshttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/74Unicode is not recognized in path parameters2021-03-23T16:39:18ZRaimonds VilumsUnicode is not recognized in path parametersUnicode characters are not recognized in the path to pro or mesh files
![image](/uploads/54dab7b203005ecaa4dbdfb0babe26b7/image.png)Unicode characters are not recognized in the path to pro or mesh files
![image](/uploads/54dab7b203005ecaa4dbdfb0babe26b7/image.png)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/73magstadyn_av_js0_3d.pro2021-03-18T07:48:10ZAleksei Semenovmagstadyn_av_js0_3d.proHello Dear Sirs!
Unfortunately, I have not found any forums where people discuss the use of the gmsh/getdp software package, so I decide to write here. If there are forums where I can communicate with experienced users of this product, please send me link.
There is a question about using gmsh/getdp for modeling problems related to the electromagnetic field (eddy current nondestructive testing of ferromagnetic products). Based on magstadyn_av_js0_3d.pro the problem was described(the exciting coil and the conducting object located in it). A-v formulation was used. The problem is solved presumably correctly, but there is a question that I could not answer.
The question concerns the last integral in the Equation section for Coulomb calibration, namely Galerkin { [ Dof{d xi}, {a} ] ; In Domain ; Jacobian Vol ; Integration II ; }.
Please tell me what is the meaning of this integral?
I tried to change the basis functions to d{xi} or to d{v} (Galerkin { [ Dof{d xi}, {d xi} ] ;...), the problem stops being solved correctly.
If I understand correctly in the case of using Coulomb calibration, the requirement div(A)=0 is added. After integrating by xi and applying Green's formula, we get the integral of (div(xi*a) – a* d xi). If homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions are given for xi, then a* d xi remains. Where does Dof{d xi}, {a} come from?
[magstadyn_av_js0_3d_claster_.pro](/uploads/5d88f48d2d8e9f8856c67b0db9fa1787/magstadyn_av_js0_3d_claster_.pro)Hello Dear Sirs!
Unfortunately, I have not found any forums where people discuss the use of the gmsh/getdp software package, so I decide to write here. If there are forums where I can communicate with experienced users of this product, please send me link.
There is a question about using gmsh/getdp for modeling problems related to the electromagnetic field (eddy current nondestructive testing of ferromagnetic products). Based on magstadyn_av_js0_3d.pro the problem was described(the exciting coil and the conducting object located in it). A-v formulation was used. The problem is solved presumably correctly, but there is a question that I could not answer.
The question concerns the last integral in the Equation section for Coulomb calibration, namely Galerkin { [ Dof{d xi}, {a} ] ; In Domain ; Jacobian Vol ; Integration II ; }.
Please tell me what is the meaning of this integral?
I tried to change the basis functions to d{xi} or to d{v} (Galerkin { [ Dof{d xi}, {d xi} ] ;...), the problem stops being solved correctly.
If I understand correctly in the case of using Coulomb calibration, the requirement div(A)=0 is added. After integrating by xi and applying Green's formula, we get the integral of (div(xi*a) – a* d xi). If homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions are given for xi, then a* d xi remains. Where does Dof{d xi}, {a} come from?
[magstadyn_av_js0_3d_claster_.pro](/uploads/5d88f48d2d8e9f8856c67b0db9fa1787/magstadyn_av_js0_3d_claster_.pro)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/70Automatic https-forwarding not working2021-01-26T21:10:41ZUser_NAutomatic https-forwarding not workingWhen visiting getdp.info, there is no automatic forwarding to https://getdp.info/ (but let's encrypt certificate is available).
And even when using https://getdp.info/ some graphic parts are not using https.When visiting getdp.info, there is no automatic forwarding to https://getdp.info/ (but let's encrypt certificate is available).
And even when using https://getdp.info/ some graphic parts are not using https.https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/69Implementation of a variational formulation with boundary terms2021-01-28T16:37:44ZAyoub BELLOUCHImplementation of a variational formulation with boundary termsDear ONELAB users,
We encounter difficulties in the implementation of a variational formulation with boundary terms in GetDP.
We want to solve an eigenmode problem for a cylindrical waveguide. The structure is invariant in θ, thus we can restrict the study to a 2D cell (see the attached png file) with an axisymmetric axis (Oy).
- A quasi-periodic boundary condition is enforced on both vertical walls Γ1 and Γ2 :
![image](/uploads/dffd6071f4a0429792923704d42c7a97/image.png) (𝛾∈ℝ, the case of an evanescent mode)
- A Dirichlet condition is imposed on the bottom wall Γd,
- A Neumann condition is imposed on the top wall ΓN.
The field perpendicular to the structure is calculated. The **Form1P** space is therefore used.
The variational formulation of the problem is written as:
![image](/uploads/637fa8ec86377e696ad0a9d2d1d20342/image.png)
It is known that in the cylindrical PEC case (invariance following Oy): ![image](/uploads/aa9485160871cff951575a9d893bfb92/image.png)
When solving the weak formulation in GetDP, the direct implementation of walls terms using ![image](/uploads/1f3d5a2163f6c4b2b235a281c8728c0b/image.png) : `Galerkin {[ Vector [0,1,0] /\ Dof {d e}, {e}]}` does not give appropriate results (the term seems to have no contribution in the matrix, it is as if they do not exist). On the other hand, when we replace ![image](/uploads/1f3d5a2163f6c4b2b235a281c8728c0b/image.png) by ![image](/uploads/5cad4f64d7388c2aa1307e1703d8c149/image.png) in the formulation: `Galerkin {[ -gam [] * Dof {e}, {e}]}` we get the correct eigenvalue that we were looking for (f_0=2.53 GHz for γ=15) and when we export the matrix, we see the contribution of the additional terms.
A comparison of the plots of ![image](/uploads/1f3d5a2163f6c4b2b235a281c8728c0b/image.png) and ![image](/uploads/5cad4f64d7388c2aa1307e1703d8c149/image.png) in PostOperation shows that they appear to be identical (when solving with the " ![image](/uploads/5cad4f64d7388c2aa1307e1703d8c149/image.png)" boundary term).
The simple. geo and .pro considered for this simulation are attached.
Is there something wrong in our implementation of the boundary terms ?
[PEC2D.PNG](/uploads/588df3d8ff4d119f4302ba0977987443/PEC2D.PNG)
[electromagnet.geo](/uploads/a88fafcc1b357a84ce862048447e1356/electromagnet.geo)
[electromagnet.pro](/uploads/b49a982935bc6ebf19511c13bee464ba/electromagnet.pro)Dear ONELAB users,
We encounter difficulties in the implementation of a variational formulation with boundary terms in GetDP.
We want to solve an eigenmode problem for a cylindrical waveguide. The structure is invariant in θ, thus we can restrict the study to a 2D cell (see the attached png file) with an axisymmetric axis (Oy).
- A quasi-periodic boundary condition is enforced on both vertical walls Γ1 and Γ2 :
![image](/uploads/dffd6071f4a0429792923704d42c7a97/image.png) (𝛾∈ℝ, the case of an evanescent mode)
- A Dirichlet condition is imposed on the bottom wall Γd,
- A Neumann condition is imposed on the top wall ΓN.
The field perpendicular to the structure is calculated. The **Form1P** space is therefore used.
The variational formulation of the problem is written as:
![image](/uploads/637fa8ec86377e696ad0a9d2d1d20342/image.png)
It is known that in the cylindrical PEC case (invariance following Oy): ![image](/uploads/aa9485160871cff951575a9d893bfb92/image.png)
When solving the weak formulation in GetDP, the direct implementation of walls terms using ![image](/uploads/1f3d5a2163f6c4b2b235a281c8728c0b/image.png) : `Galerkin {[ Vector [0,1,0] /\ Dof {d e}, {e}]}` does not give appropriate results (the term seems to have no contribution in the matrix, it is as if they do not exist). On the other hand, when we replace ![image](/uploads/1f3d5a2163f6c4b2b235a281c8728c0b/image.png) by ![image](/uploads/5cad4f64d7388c2aa1307e1703d8c149/image.png) in the formulation: `Galerkin {[ -gam [] * Dof {e}, {e}]}` we get the correct eigenvalue that we were looking for (f_0=2.53 GHz for γ=15) and when we export the matrix, we see the contribution of the additional terms.
A comparison of the plots of ![image](/uploads/1f3d5a2163f6c4b2b235a281c8728c0b/image.png) and ![image](/uploads/5cad4f64d7388c2aa1307e1703d8c149/image.png) in PostOperation shows that they appear to be identical (when solving with the " ![image](/uploads/5cad4f64d7388c2aa1307e1703d8c149/image.png)" boundary term).
The simple. geo and .pro considered for this simulation are attached.
Is there something wrong in our implementation of the boundary terms ?
[PEC2D.PNG](/uploads/588df3d8ff4d119f4302ba0977987443/PEC2D.PNG)
[electromagnet.geo](/uploads/a88fafcc1b357a84ce862048447e1356/electromagnet.geo)
[electromagnet.pro](/uploads/b49a982935bc6ebf19511c13bee464ba/electromagnet.pro)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/68Handle modal boundary conditions2020-12-30T19:58:47ZChristophe GeuzaineHandle modal boundary conditionsModal boundary conditions would allow to make more realistic simulations of waveguides and antennas. This issue tracks progress on this front.Modal boundary conditions would allow to make more realistic simulations of waveguides and antennas. This issue tracks progress on this front.Christophe GeuzaineChristophe Geuzainehttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/65Using and releasing deleted code from GetDP2020-10-24T17:21:56ZMiguelUsing and releasing deleted code from GetDPI have been using the MMA optimization algorithm that was once implemented in GetDP: https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/merge_requests/40/diffs . I used it to obtain results for a paper that I want to submit. For reproducibility purposes, I want to release the code that I used, including the MMA algorithm. I am wondering if the deleted code is still under the GPL license or if you guys can provide any guidance on how to license it.I have been using the MMA optimization algorithm that was once implemented in GetDP: https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/merge_requests/40/diffs . I used it to obtain results for a paper that I want to submit. For reproducibility purposes, I want to release the code that I used, including the MMA algorithm. I am wondering if the deleted code is still under the GPL license or if you guys can provide any guidance on how to license it.https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/60Magnetic flux density through airgap computation2019-09-26T23:04:41ZCássio Krugerkrugercassio@gmail.comMagnetic flux density through airgap computationHello guys, it's me, again!
I'm working on a magnetic gear + generator model, for my final graduation project and, to prove the gear ratio of the magnetic gear, I will need to measure the flux density through a point of the airgap and perform a fast Fourier transform (FFT) to analyse it's spectrum and then prove the gear ratio.
Is there any way that I can do that?
If you guys know a way, PLEASE let me know!!
You can e-mail me to krugercassio@gmail.com
Also, you can see my model at github: https://github.com/CassioKruger/PDD1
Best regards,
Cassio!Hello guys, it's me, again!
I'm working on a magnetic gear + generator model, for my final graduation project and, to prove the gear ratio of the magnetic gear, I will need to measure the flux density through a point of the airgap and perform a fast Fourier transform (FFT) to analyse it's spectrum and then prove the gear ratio.
Is there any way that I can do that?
If you guys know a way, PLEASE let me know!!
You can e-mail me to krugercassio@gmail.com
Also, you can see my model at github: https://github.com/CassioKruger/PDD1
Best regards,
Cassio!https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/58Variating rotor speed problem.2019-08-01T05:43:37ZCássio Krugerkrugercassio@gmail.comVariating rotor speed problem.Hello! I'm working on some electrical machines (generators) models and I'm needing to use a variating speed at the rotor based on the actual time of the simulation. My idea is to use a velocity input that looks like a wind variation speed in order to use a frequency inverter to guarantee the 60hz output.
Is there any way that I can use a variating speed at the rotor, not a constant value?
Thanks in advance!Hello! I'm working on some electrical machines (generators) models and I'm needing to use a variating speed at the rotor based on the actual time of the simulation. My idea is to use a velocity input that looks like a wind variation speed in order to use a frequency inverter to guarantee the 60hz output.
Is there any way that I can use a variating speed at the rotor, not a constant value?
Thanks in advance!https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/57Link Constraint for Non-Identical Regions2019-08-01T05:41:14ZBruno de Sousa AlvesLink Constraint for Non-Identical RegionsDear all,
I hope this is the correct place to post a question like that.
I’ve been working in a combined 1D and 2D finite element (FE) model in GetDP with a magnetic field (H) formulation and I’d like to connect the intensity of magnetic field over an edge in 2D with the boundary of a 1D FE system (see figure below). For this purpose, I’ve created two independent “FunctionSpaces” and I tried to apply a constraint of type “Link” to connect the related Degrees of Freedom. However, as each edge in the 2D system is defined by two nodes, the elements in the 2D and 1D regions are not geometrically identical (edges in 2D and nodes in 1D) and I couldn’t apply this type of constraint directly.
![Link2](/uploads/8bad1305cb113bf73c78c7abea7d8360/Link2.jpg)
Thus, I was wondering if there is any way to connect them using a constraint “Link”. Maybe with the optional “FunctionRef” function, but I couldn’t figure out how it works. If possible, could you please give me an example of the application of the “Link” with “FunctionRef”?
Thank you and best regards,
Bruno AlvesDear all,
I hope this is the correct place to post a question like that.
I’ve been working in a combined 1D and 2D finite element (FE) model in GetDP with a magnetic field (H) formulation and I’d like to connect the intensity of magnetic field over an edge in 2D with the boundary of a 1D FE system (see figure below). For this purpose, I’ve created two independent “FunctionSpaces” and I tried to apply a constraint of type “Link” to connect the related Degrees of Freedom. However, as each edge in the 2D system is defined by two nodes, the elements in the 2D and 1D regions are not geometrically identical (edges in 2D and nodes in 1D) and I couldn’t apply this type of constraint directly.
![Link2](/uploads/8bad1305cb113bf73c78c7abea7d8360/Link2.jpg)
Thus, I was wondering if there is any way to connect them using a constraint “Link”. Maybe with the optional “FunctionRef” function, but I couldn’t figure out how it works. If possible, could you please give me an example of the application of the “Link” with “FunctionRef”?
Thank you and best regards,
Bruno Alveshttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/55Computing rotor speed and position2019-08-01T05:44:30ZCássio Krugerkrugercassio@gmail.comComputing rotor speed and positionHello guys! I've been work on a magnetic gear project (https://github.com/CassioKruger/PDD-pure) and I'm having trouble to compute the velocity of the moving bands. I took the "machine_magstadyn_a.pro" file to base my project and added some modifications to use it with 2 rotors instead of 1.
There is a gear ratio between both rotors, so I made this in my .pro file:
```
// pdd gear ratio:
// pH*wH + pL*wL = nP*wP
// wH is the speed of the inner rotor
// wL is the speed of the outer rotor
// wP is the speed of the modulators
// When one of the three parts of the gear is stationary, there will be a constant relation or gear ratio
// between the speeds of other two parts.
// considering that the outer rotor is stationary, the gear ratio becomes:
// -> pH*wH = nP*wP
// -> Gr = pH/nP = wP/wH
// -> gear ratio = nbr of poles at rotor 1 / nbr of modulators
// in this case, the nbr of modulators is equal to the nbr of poles at the outer rotor, so:
gear_ratio = NbrPolesInModel/NbrSectStatorMag;
delta_theta[] = delta_theta_deg * deg2rad ; //rotor 1 step
delta_theta2[] = delta_theta[] * gear_ratio ; //rotor 2 step
```
those "delta_theta[]" should be the step of each rotor to use with "ChangeOfCoordinates" inside the timeloop of the "machine_magstadyn_a_2rotors.pro" file, like this:
```
ChangeOfCoordinates[ NodesOf[Rotor_Moving], RotatePZ[delta_theta[]]];
ChangeOfCoordinates[ NodesOf[Rotor2_Moving], RotatePZ[delta_theta2[]]];
```
and that's working nice, the gear ration is clearly seen at the simulation. But the thing that I'm couldn't figure out is how to compute the correct speed and position of each rotor, so I can show it with graphs and prove that my model is working. I've made this:
-First, I've declared a "DomainKin2", because now there is 2 parts moving
-Then, inside the "Constraint{}" I made this:
```
Constraint{
...
...
...
//Kinetics
{ Name CurrentPosition ; // [m]
Case {
{ Region DomainKin ; Type Init ; Value ($PreviousPosition = 0) ; }
}
}
{ Name CurrentVelocity ; // [rad/s]
Case {
{ Region DomainKin ; Type Init ; Value ($PreviousVelocity = 0) ; }
}
}
//Kinetics - MOVING BAND 2
{ Name CurrentPosition2 ; // [m]
Case {
{ Region DomainKin2 ; Type Init ; Value ($PreviousPosition2 = 0) ; }
}
}
{ Name CurrentVelocity2 ; // [rad/s]
Case {
{ Region DomainKin2 ; Type Init ; Value ($PreviousVelocity2 = 0) ; }
}
}
}
```
-After that, I did the same to "FunctionSpace{}":
```
FunctionSpace{
...
...
...
// For mechanical equation
{ Name Position ; Type Scalar ;
BasisFunction {
{ Name sr ; NameOfCoef pr ; Function BF_Region ;
Support DomainKin ; Entity DomainKin ; }
}
GlobalQuantity {
{ Name P ; Type AliasOf ; NameOfCoef pr ; }
}
Constraint {
{ NameOfCoef P ; EntityType Region ; NameOfConstraint CurrentPosition ; }
}
}
{ Name Velocity ; Type Scalar ;
BasisFunction {
{ Name sr ; NameOfCoef vr ; Function BF_Region ;
Support DomainKin ; Entity DomainKin ; } }
GlobalQuantity {
{ Name V ; Type AliasOf ; NameOfCoef vr ; }
}
Constraint {
{ NameOfCoef V ; EntityType Region ; NameOfConstraint CurrentVelocity ; }
}
}
// For mechanical equation - MOVING BAND 2
{ Name Position2 ; Type Scalar ;
BasisFunction {
{ Name sr ; NameOfCoef pr2 ; Function BF_Region ;
Support DomainKin2 ; Entity DomainKin2 ; }
}
GlobalQuantity {
{ Name P2 ; Type AliasOf ; NameOfCoef pr2 ; }
}
Constraint {
{ NameOfCoef P2 ; EntityType Region ; NameOfConstraint CurrentPosition2 ; }
}
}
{ Name Velocity2 ; Type Scalar ;
BasisFunction {
{ Name sr ; NameOfCoef vr2 ; Function BF_Region ;
Support DomainKin2 ; Entity DomainKin2 ; } }
GlobalQuantity {
{ Name V2 ; Type AliasOf ; NameOfCoef vr2 ; }
}
Constraint {
{ NameOfCoef V2 ; EntityType Region ; NameOfConstraint CurrentVelocity2 ; }
}
}
}
```
-In the "Formulation{}", I did this:
```
Formulation{
...
...
...
// Mechanics
{ Name Mechanical ; Type FemEquation ;
Quantity {
{ Name V ; Type Global ; NameOfSpace Velocity [V] ; } // velocity
{ Name P ; Type Global ; NameOfSpace Position [P] ; } // position
{ Name V2 ; Type Global ; NameOfSpace Velocity2 [V2] ; } // velocity MB2
{ Name P2 ; Type Global ; NameOfSpace Position2 [P2] ; } // position MB2
}
Equation {
GlobalTerm { DtDof [ /*Inertia **/ Dof{V} , {V} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
//GlobalTerm { [ Friction[] * Dof{V} , {V} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
GlobalTerm { [ Torque_mec[], {V} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
GlobalTerm { [ Torque_mag[] , {V} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
GlobalTerm { DtDof [ Dof{P} , {P} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
GlobalTerm { [-Dof{V} , {P} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
//---------------------------------------------------------------//
GlobalTerm { DtDof [ /*Inertia*0.7 **/ Dof{V2} , {V2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
//GlobalTerm { [ Friction[] * Dof{V2} , {V2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
GlobalTerm { [ Torque_mec[] , {V2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
GlobalTerm { [ Torque_mag[] , {V2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
GlobalTerm { DtDof [ Dof{P2} , {P2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
GlobalTerm { [-Dof{V2} , {P2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
}
}
}
```
-And, finally, in the "PostProcessing{}" I did this:
```
PostProcessing{
...
...
...
{ Name Mechanical ; NameOfFormulation Mechanical ;
PostQuantity {
{ Name P ; Value { Term { [ {P} ] ; In DomainKin ; } } } // Position [rad]
{ Name Pdeg ; Value { Term { [ {P}*180/Pi ] ; In DomainKin ; } } } // Position [deg]
{ Name V ; Value { Term { [ {V} ] ; In DomainKin ; } } } // Velocity [rad/s]
{ Name Vrpm ; Value { Term { [ {V}*30/Pi ] ; In DomainKin ; } } } // Velocity [rpm]
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------//
//MB2
{ Name P2 ; Value { Term { [ {P2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; } } } // Position [rad]
{ Name Pdeg2 ; Value { Term { [ {P2}*180/Pi ] ; In DomainKin2 ; } } } // Position [deg]
{ Name V2 ; Value { Term { [ {V2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; } } } // Velocity [rad/s]
{ Name Vrpm2 ; Value { Term { [ {V2}*30/Pi ] ; In DomainKin2 ; } } } // Velocity [rpm]
}
}
}
```
After that, is just the PostOperation stuff to creat .dat files to plot the results...
I'm sorry for the long issue, but I REALLY can't figure out how to compute those.
Thanks in advance!!!Hello guys! I've been work on a magnetic gear project (https://github.com/CassioKruger/PDD-pure) and I'm having trouble to compute the velocity of the moving bands. I took the "machine_magstadyn_a.pro" file to base my project and added some modifications to use it with 2 rotors instead of 1.
There is a gear ratio between both rotors, so I made this in my .pro file:
```
// pdd gear ratio:
// pH*wH + pL*wL = nP*wP
// wH is the speed of the inner rotor
// wL is the speed of the outer rotor
// wP is the speed of the modulators
// When one of the three parts of the gear is stationary, there will be a constant relation or gear ratio
// between the speeds of other two parts.
// considering that the outer rotor is stationary, the gear ratio becomes:
// -> pH*wH = nP*wP
// -> Gr = pH/nP = wP/wH
// -> gear ratio = nbr of poles at rotor 1 / nbr of modulators
// in this case, the nbr of modulators is equal to the nbr of poles at the outer rotor, so:
gear_ratio = NbrPolesInModel/NbrSectStatorMag;
delta_theta[] = delta_theta_deg * deg2rad ; //rotor 1 step
delta_theta2[] = delta_theta[] * gear_ratio ; //rotor 2 step
```
those "delta_theta[]" should be the step of each rotor to use with "ChangeOfCoordinates" inside the timeloop of the "machine_magstadyn_a_2rotors.pro" file, like this:
```
ChangeOfCoordinates[ NodesOf[Rotor_Moving], RotatePZ[delta_theta[]]];
ChangeOfCoordinates[ NodesOf[Rotor2_Moving], RotatePZ[delta_theta2[]]];
```
and that's working nice, the gear ration is clearly seen at the simulation. But the thing that I'm couldn't figure out is how to compute the correct speed and position of each rotor, so I can show it with graphs and prove that my model is working. I've made this:
-First, I've declared a "DomainKin2", because now there is 2 parts moving
-Then, inside the "Constraint{}" I made this:
```
Constraint{
...
...
...
//Kinetics
{ Name CurrentPosition ; // [m]
Case {
{ Region DomainKin ; Type Init ; Value ($PreviousPosition = 0) ; }
}
}
{ Name CurrentVelocity ; // [rad/s]
Case {
{ Region DomainKin ; Type Init ; Value ($PreviousVelocity = 0) ; }
}
}
//Kinetics - MOVING BAND 2
{ Name CurrentPosition2 ; // [m]
Case {
{ Region DomainKin2 ; Type Init ; Value ($PreviousPosition2 = 0) ; }
}
}
{ Name CurrentVelocity2 ; // [rad/s]
Case {
{ Region DomainKin2 ; Type Init ; Value ($PreviousVelocity2 = 0) ; }
}
}
}
```
-After that, I did the same to "FunctionSpace{}":
```
FunctionSpace{
...
...
...
// For mechanical equation
{ Name Position ; Type Scalar ;
BasisFunction {
{ Name sr ; NameOfCoef pr ; Function BF_Region ;
Support DomainKin ; Entity DomainKin ; }
}
GlobalQuantity {
{ Name P ; Type AliasOf ; NameOfCoef pr ; }
}
Constraint {
{ NameOfCoef P ; EntityType Region ; NameOfConstraint CurrentPosition ; }
}
}
{ Name Velocity ; Type Scalar ;
BasisFunction {
{ Name sr ; NameOfCoef vr ; Function BF_Region ;
Support DomainKin ; Entity DomainKin ; } }
GlobalQuantity {
{ Name V ; Type AliasOf ; NameOfCoef vr ; }
}
Constraint {
{ NameOfCoef V ; EntityType Region ; NameOfConstraint CurrentVelocity ; }
}
}
// For mechanical equation - MOVING BAND 2
{ Name Position2 ; Type Scalar ;
BasisFunction {
{ Name sr ; NameOfCoef pr2 ; Function BF_Region ;
Support DomainKin2 ; Entity DomainKin2 ; }
}
GlobalQuantity {
{ Name P2 ; Type AliasOf ; NameOfCoef pr2 ; }
}
Constraint {
{ NameOfCoef P2 ; EntityType Region ; NameOfConstraint CurrentPosition2 ; }
}
}
{ Name Velocity2 ; Type Scalar ;
BasisFunction {
{ Name sr ; NameOfCoef vr2 ; Function BF_Region ;
Support DomainKin2 ; Entity DomainKin2 ; } }
GlobalQuantity {
{ Name V2 ; Type AliasOf ; NameOfCoef vr2 ; }
}
Constraint {
{ NameOfCoef V2 ; EntityType Region ; NameOfConstraint CurrentVelocity2 ; }
}
}
}
```
-In the "Formulation{}", I did this:
```
Formulation{
...
...
...
// Mechanics
{ Name Mechanical ; Type FemEquation ;
Quantity {
{ Name V ; Type Global ; NameOfSpace Velocity [V] ; } // velocity
{ Name P ; Type Global ; NameOfSpace Position [P] ; } // position
{ Name V2 ; Type Global ; NameOfSpace Velocity2 [V2] ; } // velocity MB2
{ Name P2 ; Type Global ; NameOfSpace Position2 [P2] ; } // position MB2
}
Equation {
GlobalTerm { DtDof [ /*Inertia **/ Dof{V} , {V} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
//GlobalTerm { [ Friction[] * Dof{V} , {V} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
GlobalTerm { [ Torque_mec[], {V} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
GlobalTerm { [ Torque_mag[] , {V} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
GlobalTerm { DtDof [ Dof{P} , {P} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
GlobalTerm { [-Dof{V} , {P} ] ; In DomainKin ; }
//---------------------------------------------------------------//
GlobalTerm { DtDof [ /*Inertia*0.7 **/ Dof{V2} , {V2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
//GlobalTerm { [ Friction[] * Dof{V2} , {V2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
GlobalTerm { [ Torque_mec[] , {V2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
GlobalTerm { [ Torque_mag[] , {V2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
GlobalTerm { DtDof [ Dof{P2} , {P2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
GlobalTerm { [-Dof{V2} , {P2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; }
}
}
}
```
-And, finally, in the "PostProcessing{}" I did this:
```
PostProcessing{
...
...
...
{ Name Mechanical ; NameOfFormulation Mechanical ;
PostQuantity {
{ Name P ; Value { Term { [ {P} ] ; In DomainKin ; } } } // Position [rad]
{ Name Pdeg ; Value { Term { [ {P}*180/Pi ] ; In DomainKin ; } } } // Position [deg]
{ Name V ; Value { Term { [ {V} ] ; In DomainKin ; } } } // Velocity [rad/s]
{ Name Vrpm ; Value { Term { [ {V}*30/Pi ] ; In DomainKin ; } } } // Velocity [rpm]
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------//
//MB2
{ Name P2 ; Value { Term { [ {P2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; } } } // Position [rad]
{ Name Pdeg2 ; Value { Term { [ {P2}*180/Pi ] ; In DomainKin2 ; } } } // Position [deg]
{ Name V2 ; Value { Term { [ {V2} ] ; In DomainKin2 ; } } } // Velocity [rad/s]
{ Name Vrpm2 ; Value { Term { [ {V2}*30/Pi ] ; In DomainKin2 ; } } } // Velocity [rpm]
}
}
}
```
After that, is just the PostOperation stuff to creat .dat files to plot the results...
I'm sorry for the long issue, but I REALLY can't figure out how to compute those.
Thanks in advance!!!https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/49Transient Heat Transfer Problem2018-11-04T21:10:35ZAsimTransient Heat Transfer ProblemHello Everyone,
I am trying to model a transient heat transfer problem (Wellbore within multiple Reservoir Domains of variable properties). I have generated the geometry file and defined the problem. But having some error while running those files (named Cylindrical); like undefined sub-region Reservoir_ID2.
In another case (named Cylindrical 2), I just defined only one reservoir region to overcome this error and it worked. But when I am trying to execute these files, I am getting an error; Not piece-wise Expression: k. for the line where I am defining the thermal conductivity k of my reservoir domain.
I am also trying to generate a GNU plot but it is not generating any file for that and it is only generating the Temp. Map file T.pos.
Can you kindly look into those files and help me resolve these errors. I am a student and a new user of getdp, and doesn't have any coding back-ground, I will appreciate if you can modify the attached files with the resolution of the problem and send them back to me so I can run them.
Best Regards,
Asim Hussain
[Cylindrical.geo](/uploads/0b8c4261e39406160830f5e52e469e6b/Cylindrical.geo)
[Cylindrical.inc](/uploads/da977259ec46d6c5e1d84facca503fec/Cylindrical.inc)
[Cylindrical.pro](/uploads/675dca6aca08591a76ff2fbf498a666a/Cylindrical.pro)
[Cylindrical2.geo](/uploads/73c49a5c8448ae6fd8ba5300a5bc9d19/Cylindrical2.geo)
[Cylindrical2.inc](/uploads/ff58c702c2df2a9c297f08769f8a3366/Cylindrical2.inc)
[Cylindrical2.pro](/uploads/8aea9125042b5ccb3120f78c464cfd04/Cylindrical2.pro)Hello Everyone,
I am trying to model a transient heat transfer problem (Wellbore within multiple Reservoir Domains of variable properties). I have generated the geometry file and defined the problem. But having some error while running those files (named Cylindrical); like undefined sub-region Reservoir_ID2.
In another case (named Cylindrical 2), I just defined only one reservoir region to overcome this error and it worked. But when I am trying to execute these files, I am getting an error; Not piece-wise Expression: k. for the line where I am defining the thermal conductivity k of my reservoir domain.
I am also trying to generate a GNU plot but it is not generating any file for that and it is only generating the Temp. Map file T.pos.
Can you kindly look into those files and help me resolve these errors. I am a student and a new user of getdp, and doesn't have any coding back-ground, I will appreciate if you can modify the attached files with the resolution of the problem and send them back to me so I can run them.
Best Regards,
Asim Hussain
[Cylindrical.geo](/uploads/0b8c4261e39406160830f5e52e469e6b/Cylindrical.geo)
[Cylindrical.inc](/uploads/da977259ec46d6c5e1d84facca503fec/Cylindrical.inc)
[Cylindrical.pro](/uploads/675dca6aca08591a76ff2fbf498a666a/Cylindrical.pro)
[Cylindrical2.geo](/uploads/73c49a5c8448ae6fd8ba5300a5bc9d19/Cylindrical2.geo)
[Cylindrical2.inc](/uploads/ff58c702c2df2a9c297f08769f8a3366/Cylindrical2.inc)
[Cylindrical2.pro](/uploads/8aea9125042b5ccb3120f78c464cfd04/Cylindrical2.pro)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/48Wrench2D Tutorial: Second order elements & inhomogeneous Dirichlet data2018-10-24T08:45:08ZMarc Alexander SchweitzerWrench2D Tutorial: Second order elements & inhomogeneous Dirichlet dataI made some minor changes to the wrench2D tutorial to have inhomogeneous Dirichlet data (prescribed non-zero displacement). It seems to work for linear elements but when activating the second order option/flag, the results near the Dirichlet boundary with inhomogeneous data are wrong. I attached the updated wrench2D.pro as well as screen shots of the results with linear / second order. Are further changes required to deal with inhomogeneous data? Or is there an issue with the elimination of essential boundary data when using higher order elements.!
[linear_elements](/uploads/b609dbf1d29882eb3bf4b0b21da6fdb8/linear_elements.png)
![second_order_elements](/uploads/b3800fe006f0e949abfba82efd1079e3/second_order_elements.png)
[wrench2D.pro](/uploads/52a50262d45c4be27ec6287d3f755627/wrench2D.pro)I made some minor changes to the wrench2D tutorial to have inhomogeneous Dirichlet data (prescribed non-zero displacement). It seems to work for linear elements but when activating the second order option/flag, the results near the Dirichlet boundary with inhomogeneous data are wrong. I attached the updated wrench2D.pro as well as screen shots of the results with linear / second order. Are further changes required to deal with inhomogeneous data? Or is there an issue with the elimination of essential boundary data when using higher order elements.!
[linear_elements](/uploads/b609dbf1d29882eb3bf4b0b21da6fdb8/linear_elements.png)
![second_order_elements](/uploads/b3800fe006f0e949abfba82efd1079e3/second_order_elements.png)
[wrench2D.pro](/uploads/52a50262d45c4be27ec6287d3f755627/wrench2D.pro)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/-/issues/42Inductor model2018-05-04T10:42:08ZMattia ConteInductor modelHi there,
I am trying to use your "Inductor" model for obtaining the inductance in Time Domain simulation.
First, in the formula to calculate the inductance you should substitute the term "II" with the actual value of the current "$I"
to obtain the good result.
However, the simulation gives wrong results (in 2D and 3D) simulating the system with a conducting core.
The inductance in function of time should be constant, and should be lower with a conducting core because eddy currents creates
an opposite flux that make the total flux (then the inductance L=Psi/I) decrease.
Do you know what can be the cause of it ?
Thanks in advance,
MattiaHi there,
I am trying to use your "Inductor" model for obtaining the inductance in Time Domain simulation.
First, in the formula to calculate the inductance you should substitute the term "II" with the actual value of the current "$I"
to obtain the good result.
However, the simulation gives wrong results (in 2D and 3D) simulating the system with a conducting core.
The inductance in function of time should be constant, and should be lower with a conducting core because eddy currents creates
an opposite flux that make the total flux (then the inductance L=Psi/I) decrease.
Do you know what can be the cause of it ?
Thanks in advance,
Mattia