[olivierdambron]

Hi guys,

I am trying to compile a solver for WindDrivenRainFoam that I found here: http://www.carmeliet.ethz.ch/researc...nrainfoam.html

The solver was written for OpenFOAM 2.2.x/2.3.x and when I try to compile it using 'wmake' in OpenFOAM 5.0 or 5.x I get the following error:

~/OpenFOAM/ODB-5.0/windDrivenRainFoam/windDrivenRainFoam$ wmake
Making dependency list for source file windDrivenRainFoam.C
g++ -std=c++11 -m64 -Dlinux64 -DWM_ARCH_OPTION=64 -DWM_DP -DWM_LABEL_SIZE=32 -Wall -Wextra -Wold-style-cast -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-invalid-offsetof -O3 -DNoRepository -ftemplate-depth-100 -I/opt/openfoam5/src/finiteVolume/lnInclude -I/opt/openfoam5/src/meshTools/lnInclude -IlnInclude -I. -I/opt/openfoam5/src/OpenFOAM/lnInclude -I/opt/openfoam5/src/OSspecific/POSIX/lnInclude -fPIC -c windDrivenRainFoam.C -o Make/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/windDrivenRainFoam.o
In file included from windDrivenRainFoam.C:138:0:
calculateCatchRatio.H: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
calculateCatchRatio.H:19:8: error: ‘GeometricBoundaryField’ in ‘Foam::surfaceScalarField {aka class Foam::GeometricField<double, Foam::fvsPatchField, Foam::surfaceMesh>}’ does not name a type
const surfaceScalarField::GeometricBoundaryField& patchSurfaceScr = surfaceScr.boundaryField();
^
calculateCatchRatio.H:36:37: error: ‘patchSurfaceScr’ was not declared in this scope
scrtemp.boundaryField()[patchi] = patchSurfaceScr[patchi];
^
make: *** [Make/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/windDrivenRainFoam.o] Error 1


Would anyone be able to help me adapt the files for new versions of OF?

Kind regards,
Olivier

[alexeym]

Hi,

In 5.x surfaceScalarField::GeometricBoundaryField is just surfaceScalarField::Boundary.

You can take a look at my attempt to adapt solver to 5.x API: https://github.com/mrklein/windDrivenRain.

[olivierdambron]

Hi Alex,
Many thanks for this. installed your update nicely.

Am trying to update the tutorial files for testing.

[alexeym]

Hi,

I have added cubicBuilding adapted for 5.x conventions (and several corrections to solver). Solver runs, yet I do not know if it produces meaningful results.

[olivierdambron]

Hi Alexey,

Just wanted to thank you for this one, am still running tests. Will post later on my findings.

Best wishes,
Olivier

[alexeym]

Hi,

You are welcome. I fact, after looking at the papers cited at the code page, I have doubts it was implemented correctly (even for version 2.4.0). For example, test cases, which come with the code are definitely differ from the cubic building case, described in the papers.