CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM

Support thread for "Solid Mechanics Solvers added to OpenFOAM Extend"

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Like Tree14Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 28, 2014, 12:59
Default
  #201
Senior Member
 
bigphil's Avatar
 
Philip Cardiff
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 568
Rep Power: 19
bigphil will become famous soon enoughbigphil will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by codder View Post
@ Dr. Cardiff -

I believe there exists a bug in the arbitraryCrack solid model. I have tested 2D trigonal meshes with the elasticAcpSolidFoam solver using meshes generated in both gmsh and ICEM (having initially suspected the error to be associated with a mesh import utility).

But I am now thinking the issue is:

$FOAM_SRC/solidModels/arbitraryCrack/faceCracker/detachFaceCracker.C

As part of this issue, I see under paraview warp-by-vector an unphysical separation of faces not a member of (but adjacent to) the crack patch; conjointly, elements with no opportunity to detach nodes, because no traction will develop on attached faces.

By thumbnail:

#1 - uncracked mesh - crackable boundary patch specified along the five triangular notches
#2 - cracked mesh with labeled displaced problem face (time = 54)
#3 - crack patch in slightly 3-D view, similarly labelled (time = 54)

For example, compilation using "detachFaceCracker_orig.C" worsens the issue.

Best, Eric
Hi Eric,

I was aware of this issue with certain meshes, but I finally got around to looking at it and hopefully it is now solved with the attached detachFaceCracker.C.

Try is out and let me know.

Best regards,
Philip
Attached Files
File Type: c detachFaceCracker.C (18.0 KB, 5 views)
codder likes this.
bigphil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 30, 2014, 11:16
Default Stress & Displacement Errors
  #202
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 3
Brayanashel is on a distinguished road
Hi,

A thin beam has been modeled by plane strain problem. When the number of cells along the thickness increases there is some error increasing in the simulation but by increasing number of cells along the length there is decreasing in the error, as shown in attached figures. Why does increasing cell numbers along the thickness cause an increasing in the error, please?

Thank you.
Brayanashel is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 30, 2014, 11:44
Default
  #203
Senior Member
 
bigphil's Avatar
 
Philip Cardiff
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 568
Rep Power: 19
bigphil will become famous soon enoughbigphil will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayanashel View Post
Hi,

A thin beam has been modeled by plane strain problem. When the number of cells along the thickness increases there is some error increasing in the simulation but by increasing number of cells along the length there is decreasing in the error, as shown in attached figures. Why does increasing cell numbers along the thickness cause an increasing in the error, please?

Thank you.
Hi,

Using the finite volume method in its current linear form, large aspect ratio cells act stiffer in bending. So if you have long skinny cells along the length of the beam then it will act more stiff in bending than it should be.
This behaviour can also occur in finite elements.

I think someone has noted this earlier in this thread.

Philip
bigphil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2014, 22:08
Default
  #204
Member
 
Eric Bryant
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 3
codder is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigphil View Post
Hi Eric,

Try is out and let me know.
Hi Phil -

To my eyes, the problem is gone.

A big thanks for your bug fix. A second big thanks to the continued generosity of the UCD lab for releasing the code.

Best, Eric
bigphil likes this.
codder is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 9, 2014, 11:52
Default
  #205
Senior Member
 
bigphil's Avatar
 
Philip Cardiff
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 568
Rep Power: 19
bigphil will become famous soon enoughbigphil will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by misklach View Post
Thank you very much Philip for your support.

Ok I fixed the issue with the tolerance (the tolerance for the linear solver was bigger than the convergenceTolerance ...shame on me!) ...but apparently it doesn't affect very much the result.

For a time step of 0.005 at time 10 the displacement is still the same. A zoom-in at the middle point shows that the difference is really negligible.
DU convergenceTolerances are 1e-7(blue), 1e-9(red), 1e-12(green)
Attachment 30377

Attachment 30378

Decreasing the timestep still makes the solution diverge at some point
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing
deltaT = 5e-3(blu), 3.125e-4(red), 7.8125e-5(green)
DU convergenceTolerance = 1e-9
Hi Giampaolo,

You could try this case with a total displacement solver such as elasticNonLinTLSolidFoam instead of the incremental displacement solver and see how it compares.

There are only a few changes to the case required:
change all BCs with "nonLinear updatedLagrangian" to "nonLinear totalLagrangian"; and also change all "DU" to "U" in fvSchemes/fvSolution.

Best regards,
Philip
bigphil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 10, 2014, 10:02
Default
  #206
New Member
 
Giampaolo Cetraro
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 4
misklach is on a distinguished road
Hi Philip,

unfortunately there are no improvements using the total lagrangian solver. For the same time-step TL and UL give different behaviour.
All the simulations use backward scheme and DU tolerance = 1e-09.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing

At least all the total lagrange simulations converge (with different modes) towards the steady state solution ...but now where the dissipation/dumping comes from?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing

Best regards
Giamp
misklach is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 12, 2014, 04:16
Default
  #207
Senior Member
 
bigphil's Avatar
 
Philip Cardiff
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 568
Rep Power: 19
bigphil will become famous soon enoughbigphil will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by misklach View Post
Hi Philip,

unfortunately there are no improvements using the total lagrangian solver. For the same time-step TL and UL give different behaviour.
All the simulations use backward scheme and DU tolerance = 1e-09.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing

At least all the total lagrange simulations converge (with different modes) towards the steady state solution ...but now where the dissipation/dumping comes from?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing

Best regards
Giamp
HI Giamp,

for the TL simulations using the backward scheme, did you modify the temporal term in the solver to be rho*d2dt2(U) instead of d2dt2(rho, U)?

Philip
bigphil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 12, 2014, 07:30
Default
  #208
New Member
 
Giampaolo Cetraro
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 4
misklach is on a distinguished road
Hi Philip,

also with the temporal term rho*fvm::d2dt2(U) the solution is damped
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing

decreasing the time step, even if dumped, at least the solution seems to not change anymore
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing

but unfortunately at some some it crashes
these are the last lines from the log of DeltaT=3.125e-4

Code:
Time 1.87156, Corrector 9992, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 3.70566e-05, relative residual = 2.45566, inner iterations 9
        Time 1.87156, Corrector 9993, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 3.51757e-05, relative residual = 0.244511, inner iterations 4
        Time 1.87156, Corrector 9994, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 1.73622e-05, relative residual = 1.30172, inner iterations 18
        Time 1.87156, Corrector 9995, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 2.47067e-05, relative residual = 0.183089, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87156, Corrector 9996, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 4.02368e-05, relative residual = 0.197761, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87156, Corrector 9997, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 3.76838e-05, relative residual = 0.389101, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87156, Corrector 9998, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 2.09545e-05, relative residual = 0.672903, inner iterations 2
        Time 1.87156, Corrector 9999, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 1.19139e-05, relative residual = 0.731561, inner iterations 6

Time 1.87156, Solving for U, Initial residual = 0.0049075, Final residual = 1.19139e-05, Relative residual = 0.731561, No outer iterations 10000
ExecutionTime = 2376.78 s  ClockTime = 2398 s
ExecutionTime = 2376.78 s


Time: 1.87187

        Time 1.87187, Corrector 0, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 0.00534617, relative residual = 1, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 1, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 1.96508e-05, relative residual = 1.01578, inner iterations 14
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 2, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 2.91777e-05, relative residual = 5.95844, inner iterations 5
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 3, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 2.74333e-05, relative residual = 1.4765, inner iterations 2
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 4, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 2.01264e-05, relative residual = 0.445946, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 5, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 1.45802e-05, relative residual = 4.99339, inner iterations 4
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 6, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 2.34268e-05, relative residual = 0.336645, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 7, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 2.84046e-05, relative residual = 0.698792, inner iterations 2
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 8, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 3.61341e-05, relative residual = 2.96854, inner iterations 5
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 9, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 3.78643e-05, relative residual = 2.09039, inner iterations 2
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 10, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 3.68786e-05, relative residual = 4.16278, inner iterations 7
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 11, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 3.29223e-05, relative residual = 1.70304, inner iterations 4
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 12, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 3.08959e-05, relative residual = 9.57103, inner iterations 8
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 13, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 4.94034e-05, relative residual = 0.192556, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 14, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 9.53101e-05, relative residual = 0.190417, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 15, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 0.000259233, relative residual = 0.18017, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 16, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 0.00113276, relative residual = 1.74945, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 17, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 0.0123064, relative residual = 1.9589, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 18, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 0.377465, relative residual = 1.48288, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 19, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 0.995577, relative residual = 1.00002, inner iterations 1
        Time 1.87187, Corrector 20, Solving for U using DICPCG, residual = 1, relative residual = 1, inner iterations 1
--> FOAM Warning :
    From function eigenValues(const tensor&)
    in file primitives/Tensor/tensor/tensor.C at line 170
    complex eigenvalues detected for tensor: (-5.24059e+18 1.52383e+20 6.46432e-26 378752 1 -4.87694e-11 653.646 -18991.2 1)
--> FOAM Warning :
    From function eigenValues(const tensor&)
    in file primitives/Tensor/tensor/tensor.C at line 170
    complex eigenvalues detected for tensor: (-5.24059e+18 1.52383e+20 6.46432e-26 378752 1 -4.87694e-11 653.646 -18991.2 1)
Here there is the case that I'm running if you want to check it...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing

Best regards,
Giamp
misklach is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 12, 2014, 07:36
Default
  #209
Senior Member
 
bigphil's Avatar
 
Philip Cardiff
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 568
Rep Power: 19
bigphil will become famous soon enoughbigphil will become famous soon enough
Hi Giamp,

Hmnnn for transient analysis the beam should never reach steady-state, can you check if a small bug-fix in TL solver makes a difference:
in writeFields.H, change this:
Code:
    rho = rho/J;
to this:
Code:
    //rho = rho/J;
Also, it would be interesting to check if the small stain solver elasticSolidFoam has same issues.

Philip
bigphil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 12, 2014, 11:50
Default
  #210
New Member
 
Giampaolo Cetraro
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 4
misklach is on a distinguished road
good! with the bug-fix, the beam keeps oscillating
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing

but still, decreasing the time-step, at some point the solutions are different. ElasticSolidFoam keeps oscillating but crashes when decreasing the time-step
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1d...it?usp=sharing
misklach is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 13, 2014, 22:11
Default
  #211
Senior Member
 
Daniel
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 175
Rep Power: 9
Daniel_Khazaei will become famous soon enough
Hi Dr. Cardiff

Have you ever tried the FSI solver using velocityLaplacian mesh motion solver in parallel?
I am facing an error:

Code:
Constructing processor meshes

Processor 0
    Number of cells = 10470
    Number of faces shared with processor 1 = 171
    Number of processor patches = 1
    Number of processor faces = 171
    Number of boundary faces = 21405

Processor 1
    Number of cells = 10470
    Number of faces shared with processor 0 = 171
    Number of processor patches = 1
    Number of processor faces = 171
    Number of boundary faces = 21395

Number of processor faces = 171
Max number of processor patches = 1
Max number of faces between processors = 171

Processor 0: field transfer


--> FOAM FATAL ERROR: 
size of field = 21744 is not the same as the size of mesh = 21578

    From function DimensionedField<Type, GeoMesh>::DimensionedField(const IOobject& io,const Mesh& mesh, const dimensionSet& dims, const Field<Type>& field)
    in file /opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-3.0-ext/src/OpenFOAM/lnInclude/DimensionedField.C at line 71.

FOAM aborting

Aborted (core dumped)
This problem does not happen with FEM solvers.

Best wishes
Daniel_Khazaei is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 16, 2014, 14:00
Default
  #212
New Member
 
Giampaolo Cetraro
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 4
misklach is on a distinguished road
Hi Philip,
I'm trying to modify the solver elasticNonULSolidFoam using an incompressible Mooney-Rivlin hyperelastic model.

From the strain energy function

W = c1*(tr(C) - 3) + c2*(0.5*((tr(C))^2 - tr(C^2)) -3)

I derived the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor in its incremental form

DSigma = 2*c1*I + 2*c2*tr(C)*I - 2*c2*C - p*inv(C)

where C is the right Cauchy-Green deformation tensor (C=F.T() & F), and c1+c2=mu/2

Following
http://powerlab.fsb.hr/ped/kturbo/Op...tressPaper.pdf
and
http://powerlab.fsb.hr/ped/kturbo/op...18-06-2007.pdf
I came up with the following Updated lagrangian momentum equation (neglecting the pressure term)

rho*fvm::d2dt2(DU)
==
- fvm::laplacian(2*c2, DU, "laplacian(DDU,DU)")
+ fvc::div
(
4*c2*tr(gradDU)*I
+ 2*c2*(gradDU.T()),
"div(sigma)"
)
+ fvc::div
(
2*c2*(I*tr(gradDU.T() & gradDU))
- 2*c2*(gradDU.T() & gradDU)
+ ((sigma + DSigma) & gradDU),
"div(sigma)"
)

Basically in elasticNonLinULSolidFoam I changed only the momentum equation and DSigma (neglecting the pressure term for now). I calculated C as C = (2*DEpsilon + I) and used c1=0.4375*mu and c2=0.0625*mu.

I tried to run a steady state simulation with this solver with a case which works fine with elasticNonLinULSolidFoam, but unfortunately the simulation crashes
Code:
	Time 0.0001, Corrector 61, Solving for DU using GAMG, res = 0.786476, rel res = 0.117896, inner iters 1
	Time 0.0001, Corrector 62, Solving for DU using GAMG, res = 0.783442, rel res = 0.116527, inner iters 1
	Time 0.0001, Corrector 63, Solving for DU using GAMG, res = 0.780196, rel res = 0.115416, inner iters 1
	Time 0.0001, Corrector 64, Solving for DU using GAMG, res = 0.776698, rel res = 0.116016, inner iters 1
	Time 0.0001, Corrector 65, Solving for DU using GAMG, res = 0.77302, rel res = 0.156058, inner iters 1
	Time 0.0001, Corrector 66, Solving for DU using GAMG, res = 0.799312, rel res = 0.628151, inner iters 1
	Time 0.0001, Corrector 67, Solving for DU using GAMG, res = 0.998106, rel res = 0.998607, inner iters 2
	Time 0.0001, Corrector 68, Solving for DU using GAMG, res = 1, rel res = 0.999996, inner iters 2
	Time 0.0001, Corrector 69, Solving for DU using GAMG, res = 1, rel res = 1, inner iters 2
	Time 0.0001, Corrector 70, Solving for DU using GAMG, res = 1, rel res = 1, inner iters 2
Floating point exception (core dumped)
I don't know if the problem comes from the equations (maybe because I neglected the pressure term?) or from the discretization. Apparently I don't know in my case how to do the trick with the implicit/explicit manipulation of the laplacian(DU).

Any suggestion to make it work?

About the pressure term, since that should be an arbitrary pressure, does assuming p=0 make sense? ...or the problem might come from this assumption?

Thank you very much!
misklach is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 20, 2014, 13:12
Default
  #213
Senior Member
 
bigphil's Avatar
 
Philip Cardiff
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 568
Rep Power: 19
bigphil will become famous soon enoughbigphil will become famous soon enough
Hi Giampaolo,

See this paper by Bijelonja et al, they develop the mathematical model for an incompressible Mooney-Rivlin material using a large strain total Lagrangian approach. They use the SIMPLE algorithm to couple the pressure term, just like in fluids.

So essentially merge elasticNonLinTLSolidFoam and simpleFoam and change calculation of stress in terms of Mooney-Rivlin.
Also traction boundary gradient method must be changed.

Let me know how it goes, I previously looked at creating a solid solver for incompressible materials using SIMPLE/PISO coupling and I had problems with traction boundary conditions, but it is possible as the authors above have achieved it using cell-centred Finite Volume method.

Good luck,

By the way, as regards the time-step defence of the oscillating membrane problem, I am not sure what the issue is, I suppose a more accurate time discretisation (e.g. Newmark, Crank-Nicholson, etc.) would help but I am not sure.

Philip
bigphil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 23, 2014, 13:23
Default MesquiteMotionSolver with icoFsiElasticNonLinULSolidFoam
  #214
New Member
 
Mohammed Abdulaziz
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 3
sfmoabdu is on a distinguished road
@Philip
I wanted to remesh the deformed part of the mesh while using icoFsiElasticNonLinULSolidFoam but when i used dynamicTopoFvMesh along with mesquiteMotionSolver I got this error msg!!!


--> FOAM FATAL ERROR:
Problem with mesh motion solver selection

From function icoFsiElasticNonLinULSolidFoam
in file moveFluidMesh.H at line 140.

FOAM aborting

Aborted (core dumped)

and when I forced the moveFluidMesh.H to use the given motion solver, it reported an error msg.:


--> FOAM FATAL ERROR:

request for tetPointVectorField motionU from objectRegistry region0 failed
available objects of type tetPointVectorField are

0
(
)


From function objectRegistry::lookupObject<Type>(const word&) const
in file /home/a/foam/foam-extend-3.0/src/foam/lnInclude/objectRegistryTemplates.C at line 139.

FOAM aborting



can I know where the problem is? and what should I do to solve this issue?

regards,

MA

Last edited by sfmoabdu; May 25, 2014 at 03:45.
sfmoabdu is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 28, 2014, 08:05
Default Dual BC
  #215
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 3
Brayanashel is on a distinguished road
Hi,

How can a traction and displacement BCs be applied simultaneously in a face, please? For example, having tractionDisplacement and slip types BC in the same time in a face.

Thanks.
Brayanashel is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 28, 2014, 08:54
Default
  #216
Senior Member
 
bigphil's Avatar
 
Philip Cardiff
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 568
Rep Power: 19
bigphil will become famous soon enoughbigphil will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayanashel View Post
Hi,

How can a traction and displacement BCs be applied simultaneously in a face, please? For example, having tractionDisplacement and slip types BC in the same time in a face.

Thanks.
If you mean that the normal displacement is specified and the tangential traction is zero then use the fixedDisplacementZeroShear boundary condition.

Philip
bigphil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 28, 2014, 10:15
Default Dual BC
  #217
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 3
Brayanashel is on a distinguished road
Actually there are shear and displacement in a single face, as shown in the left BC in attachment.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Dual BC.pdf (85.2 KB, 21 views)
Brayanashel is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 28, 2014, 10:20
Default
  #218
Senior Member
 
bigphil's Avatar
 
Philip Cardiff
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 568
Rep Power: 19
bigphil will become famous soon enoughbigphil will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayanashel View Post
Actually there are shear and displacement in a single face, as shown in the left BC in attachment.
I am not sure I understand your schematic drawing;

there are 'frictionless' rollers on the left which implies there is zero shear?
And there is a fixed point at the centre of the left boundary.

If this is the case, then you would split the left boundary so as there is a thin fixedDisplacement boundary for the fixed part and fixedDisplacementZeroShear for the other parts.

Philip

Last edited by bigphil; May 28, 2014 at 10:21. Reason: typo
bigphil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 28, 2014, 10:31
Default Dual BC
  #219
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 3
Brayanashel is on a distinguished road
Please look at the paper in attachment. I would like to know how beams D and E in Fig. 2 on page 2 can be modeled by stressedFoam. Applying the left dual BCs is my question.

Thanks.
Brayanashel is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 28, 2014, 10:34
Default
  #220
Senior Member
 
bigphil's Avatar
 
Philip Cardiff
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 568
Rep Power: 19
bigphil will become famous soon enoughbigphil will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayanashel View Post
Please look at the paper in attachment. I would like to know how beams D and E in Fig. 2 on page 2 can be modeled by stressedFoam. Applying the left dual BCs is my question.

Thanks.
attachment?
bigphil is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ESI-OpenCFD Releases OpenFOAM v2.2.0 opencfd OpenFOAM Announcements from ESI-OpenCFD 13 March 30, 2013 17:52
[Virtualization] OpenFOAM oriented tutorial on using VMware Player - support thread wyldckat OpenFOAM Installation 2 July 11, 2012 16:01
GPU Linear Solvers for OpenFOAM gocarts OpenFOAM Announcements from Other Sources 35 March 1, 2012 21:41
Cross-compiling OpenFOAM 1.7.0 on Linux for Windows 32 and 64bits with Mingw-w64 wyldckat OpenFOAM Announcements from Other Sources 3 September 8, 2010 06:25
OpenFOAM Debian packaging current status problems and TODOs oseen OpenFOAM Installation 9 August 26, 2007 13:50


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:39.