getdp issueshttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues2019-04-09T20:07:36Zhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/52Double moving band machine model2019-04-09T20:07:36ZCássio Krugerkrugercassio@gmail.comDouble moving band machine modelHello guys! I'm working on a double moving band machine model for my final graduation project and I'm having some problems. The last problem I had was related to the "DomainM" group at the "machine_magstadyn_a_2rotors.pro" file. It seems to allow only one kind of region, I mean, only "Rotor_Magnets", as the examples files.
However, my model has a "Stator_Magnets" region and I can't make it work beside the "Rotor_Magnets" region. If I attach only one kind of region to "DomainM", it works, but not both at the same time.
Do you guys have any idea of the reason it doesn't work with two kind o regions (Stator_Magnets and Rotor_Magnets)? If so, please let me know as soon as possible.
Here is my github repo, so you can see the codes about that machine:
https://github.com/CassioKruger/PDD1
Thanks for the attention!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)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)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,
Mattiahttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/38Segmentation fault in GetDP 2.11.0 64-bit Windows2017-08-05T11:55:13ZChristophe GeuzaineSegmentation fault in GetDP 2.11.0 64-bit WindowsWorking with the enclosed files, the command _getdp 2D_eucard_v3.pro -pre ResolutionH -msh 2D_eucard_v3.msh_ behaves differently between the 32 and 64-bit versions of the GetDP 2.11.0 Windows executable. With the 32-bit version, the command works fine whereas with the 64-bit executable it generates a segmentation fault.
The error seems to happen while executing
```
GlobalQuantity_P = (struct GlobalQuantity*)
List_Pointer(QuantityStorage_P->FunctionSpace->GlobalQuantity,
*(int*) List_Pointer(DefineQuantity_P->IndexInFunctionSpace,0)
```
in file Kernel/Treatment_Formulation.cpp around line 669. In the 64-bit Windows version, the pointer to QuantityStorage_P->FunctionSpace is invalid (0xFFFFFFFF00000001) while it was ok in the 32-bit version. I figured the problem could be circumvented by increasing NBR_MAX_BASISFUNCTIONS in Interface/ProData.h.
[2D_eucard_v3.pro](/uploads/78e938cdc91e79d86c6b603a087ce45b/2D_eucard_v3.pro)
[2D_eucard_parameters_v3.geo](/uploads/16420bfc22441f22d67e815eafed88d2/2D_eucard_parameters_v3.geo)
[2D_eucard_v3.geo](/uploads/9f71660fedf134898d5127cc0c20e3ce/2D_eucard_v3.geo)
[2D_eucard_macros_v3.geo](/uploads/b505c587edded44d6cb5ea5e40f2192e/2D_eucard_macros_v3.geo)
[2D_eucard_display_v3.geo](/uploads/3713f5ceb202387d416462033a4a51ca/2D_eucard_display_v3.geo)
https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/37magnetostatics simulation gives wrong results2017-08-05T11:56:16ZChristophe Geuzainemagnetostatics simulation gives wrong resultsI made a model with one magnet and an iron frame (mu_r = 9000) wrapped around it. I expect most of the B lines should go inside the iron frame, but the simulation result seems as if the iron frame does not exist. Please see attached from the geo model. Open the geo model in gmsh first, then merge (gmsh menu: File >> Merge) in magnetostatics.pro in the template folder came with gmsh. You should be able to set the model interactively. Set a constant magnetization for the magnet of 900000 in z direction. Select the right materials for air, set frame with constant mu_r = 9000, and the boundary condition on "Inf" can be either way (may leave at its default value). Then click Run.
Below is the 1magnet.geo file I used:
```
//=================start==================
// define geometry-specific parameters
mm = 1.e-3;
DefineConstant[
cub = {10*mm, Name "Parameters/2Magnet bottom size [m]"}
hite = {20*mm, Name "Parameters/2Magnet hieght [m]"}
lc1 = {TotalMemory <= 2048 ? 5*mm : 2*mm, Name "Parameters/3Mesh size on magnets [m]"}
lc2 = {TotalMemory <= 2048 ? 20*mm : 10*mm, Name "Parameters/4Mesh size at infinity [m]"}
inf = {100*mm, Name "Parameters/1Air box distance [m]"}
];
// change global Gmsh options
Mesh.Optimize = 1; // optimize quality of tetrahedra
Mesh.VolumeEdges = 0; // hide volume edges
Geometry.ExactExtrusion = 0; // to allow rotation of extruded shapes
Solver.AutoMesh = 2; // always remesh if necessary (don't reuse mesh on disk)
p1 = newp; Point(p1) = {-cub, -cub, -hite, lc1};
p2 = newp; Point(p2) = { cub, -cub, -hite, lc1};
p3 = newp; Point(p3) = { cub, cub, -hite, lc1};
p4 = newp; Point(p4) = {-cub, cub, -hite, lc1};
l1 = newl; Line(l1) = {p1,p2}; l2 = newl; Line(l2) = {p2,p3};
l3 = newl; Line(l3) = {p3,p4}; l4 = newl; Line(l4) = {p4,p1};
ll1 = newll; Line Loop(ll1) = {l1,l2,l3,l4};
s1 = news; Plane Surface(s1) = {ll1};
mag[] = Extrude {0, 0, 2*hite} { Surface{s1}; };
Physical Volume("Magnet") = {mag[1]};
//create steel frame around the magnet
p1 = newp; Point(p1) = {-2*cub, -cub, -hite, lc1};
p2 = newp; Point(p2) = { 2*cub, -cub, -hite, lc1};
p3 = newp; Point(p3) = { 2*cub, -cub, hite, lc1};
p4 = newp; Point(p4) = {-2*cub, -cub, hite, lc1};
l1 = newl; Line(l1) = {p1,p2}; l2 = newl; Line(l2) = {p2,p3};
l3 = newl; Line(l3) = {p3,p4}; l4 = newl; Line(l4) = {p4,p1};
ll1 = newll; Line Loop(ll1) = {l1,l2,l3,l4};
hite2 = hite + cub;
p1 = newp; Point(p1) = {-4*cub, -cub, -hite2, lc1};
p2 = newp; Point(p2) = { 4*cub, -cub, -hite2, lc1};
p3 = newp; Point(p3) = { 4*cub, -cub, hite2, lc1};
p4 = newp; Point(p4) = {-4*cub, -cub, hite2, lc1};
l1 = newl; Line(l1) = {p1,p2}; l2 = newl; Line(l2) = {p2,p3};
l3 = newl; Line(l3) = {p3,p4}; l4 = newl; Line(l4) = {p4,p1};
ll2 = newll; Line Loop(ll2) = {l1,l2,l3,l4};
s1 = news; Plane Surface(s1) = {ll2, ll1};
frame[] = Extrude {0, 2*cub, 0} { Surface{s1}; };
Physical Volume("Frame") = {frame[1]};
// create air box around magnets
BoundingBox; // recompute model bounding box
cx = (General.MinX + General.MaxX) / 2;
cy = (General.MinY + General.MaxY) / 2;
cz = (General.MinZ + General.MaxZ) / 2;
lx = 2*inf + General.MaxX - General.MinX;
ly = 2*inf + General.MaxY - General.MinZ;
lz = 2*inf + General.MaxZ - General.MinZ;
p1 = newp; Point (p1) = {cx-lx/2, cy-ly/2, cz-lz/2, lc2};
p2 = newp; Point (p2) = {cx+lx/2, cy-ly/2, cz-lz/2, lc2};
l1 = newl; Line(l1) = {p1, p2};
e1[] = Extrude {0, ly, 0} { Line{l1}; };
air[] = Extrude {0, 0, lz} { Surface{e1[1]}; };
slair = newsl; Surface Loop(slair) = Boundary{Volume{air[1]}; };
slmag = newsl; Surface Loop(slmag) = Boundary{Volume{mag[1]}; };
vair = newv; Volume(vair) = {slair, slmag};
Physical Volume("Air") = vair; // air
Physical Surface("Inf") = {e1[1], air[0], air[2], air[3], air[4], air[5]};
Delete { Volume{air[1]}; }
//=================end==================
```
[1magnet.geo](/uploads/7f08801b5b3492eb6d959a7606e7d989/1magnet.geo)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/30OnGrid Interpolation with Timestepping results in erronous output for the fir...2017-03-27T09:20:47ZChristophe GeuzaineOnGrid Interpolation with Timestepping results in erronous output for the first tilmestepIf I use OnGrid interpolation with TimeStepping in PostOperation, the first timestep that is outputted has some small errors. I've modified the Simple_RLC example to demonstrate this.
I output timesteps 90:101 and 91:101 of the vector current. When subtracting two equal time steps the difference can be seen for any subtraction that includes the first time step. Subtractions of later time steps results in zero as expected. See the attached screenshot.https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/27time-dependent functions with time stepping schemes other than implicit Euler2017-03-27T09:20:45ZChristophe Geuzainetime-dependent functions with time stepping schemes other than implicit EulerGetDP automatically handles time-dependent constraints when they are provided using the TimeFunction mechanism in an Assign-type Constraint.
However, GetDP cannot automatically transform general time-dependent source terms in weak formulations. Such source terms will be correctly treated only for implicit Euler, as the expression in the Galerkin term is evaluated at the current time step.
For other schemes, the source term should be written explicitly, by splitting it in two (theta f_n+1 + (1-theta) f_n), making use of the AtAnteriorTimeStep[] for the second part, and specifying NeverDt in the Galerkin term.https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/18Add function that gives size of geometric bounding box2017-03-27T09:20:40ZChristophe GeuzaineAdd function that gives size of geometric bounding boxWe should add a function that returns the values of the geom bbox stored in
GeoData_P->Xmin, etc.
This would be useful for determining regularization constantshttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/10generalize localterm2017-08-05T12:01:19ZChristophe Geuzainegeneralize localtermgeneralize localterm (equation part should call Cal_vBFxDof)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/9Should recompute Current.x,y,z in Cal_vBFxDof?2017-03-27T09:20:54ZChristophe GeuzaineShould recompute Current.x,y,z in Cal_vBFxDof?subject says it all...https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/6SetFrequency2017-03-27T09:20:53ZChristophe GeuzaineSetFrequencyverify if the post-pro uses the correct frequency for each system if
the frequency was changed by hand using SetFrequency in the
resolution, in between two GenerateSystemhttps://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/4access Time & TimeImag in post-processing2017-03-27T09:20:53ZChristophe Geuzaineaccess Time & TimeImag in post-processingSubject says it all (mostly useful for eigenvalues Re/Im)https://gitlab.onelab.info/getdp/getdp/issues/3complex conjugation problem with sparskit2017-03-27T09:20:53ZChristophe Geuzainecomplex conjugation problem with sparskitWith sparsekit and 3D modelling in getdp I found an
error. If one includes terms like
Galerkin { [ Einc[], {E} ]; In port; Integration I1;
Jacobian Jac;}
Where Einc is purely imaginary then sparsekit complex conjugates it.
It is only a problem in 3D. In 2D it does not exist. The problem
also disappers with petsc.