
[Sponsors] 
Cyclic AMI patch minimum weight goes to zero 

LinkBack  Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
February 22, 2016, 10:04 
Cyclic AMI patch minimum weight goes to zero

#1 
New Member
M. Salman Siddiqui
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 11 
Hey,
I am running a wind turbine simulation based on the propeller tutorial in openFoam. However, my solution run's fine for a while but after sometime the minimum value of target patch value goes to zero due to which the simulation crash. AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0, 1.31696, 1.00247 Can somebody please help me what i need to do to avoid such weights in the patch? Do i need to again do all the meshing again? I really want to avoid it since it was very hectic altogether. below is the simulation history just before it crashed. solidBodyMotionFunctions::rotatingMotion::transfor mation(): Time = 0.0278994 transformation: ((0 0 0) (0.999976 (0.00697478 0 0))) AMI: Creating addressing and weights between 23859 source faces and 24266 target faces AMI: Patch source sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.986984, 1.3968, 1.00588 AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.927878, 1.22905, 1.00257 PIMPLE: iteration 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 3.06059e05, Final residual = 8.07053e11, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 0.000213831, Final residual = 3.97398e10, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.000488367, Final residual = 8.27354e10, No Iterations 1 GAMG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.000873145, Final residual = 7.57972e06, No Iterations 1 time step continuity errors : sum local = 1.99807e12, global = 1.33977e14, cumulative = 2.69842e12 PIMPLE: iteration 2 smoothSolver: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 7.6585e06, Final residual = 2.10173e11, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 5.33958e05, Final residual = 1.03302e10, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.000121995, Final residual = 2.14589e10, No Iterations 1 GAMG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.00253285, Final residual = 7.7775e07, No Iterations 3 time step continuity errors : sum local = 2.04369e13, global = 4.55125e14, cumulative = 2.65291e12 smoothSolver: Solving for epsilon, Initial residual = 3.25688e08, Final residual = 3.91035e11, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for k, Initial residual = 8.77933e07, Final residual = 5.25053e11, No Iterations 1 ExecutionTime = 8231.56 s ClockTime = 8233 s forces forces output: sum of forces: pressure : (101090 2047.83 90.0856) viscous : (425.65 2.11477 0.235153) porous : (0 0 0) sum of moments: pressure : (1.55338e+07 38333.9 1012.59) viscous : (6283.84 85.6116 4.80584) porous : (0 0 0) Courant Number mean: 0.000204503 max: 0.999788 deltaT = 8.91374e05 Time = 0.0279885 solidBodyMotionFunctions::rotatingMotion::transfor mation(): Time = 0.0279885 transformation: ((0 0 0) (0.999976 (0.00699707 0 0))) AMI: Creating addressing and weights between 23859 source faces and 24266 target faces AMI: Patch source sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.987031, 1.39698, 1.00588 AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.927634, 6.787, 1.00304 PIMPLE: iteration 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 3.05357e05, Final residual = 8.07259e11, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 0.000212966, Final residual = 3.96325e10, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.000486642, Final residual = 8.24374e10, No Iterations 1 GAMG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.000867852, Final residual = 7.4861e06, No Iterations 1 time step continuity errors : sum local = 1.96148e12, global = 1.10639e14, cumulative = 2.64184e12 PIMPLE: iteration 2 smoothSolver: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 7.64088e06, Final residual = 2.10211e11, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 5.318e05, Final residual = 1.02991e10, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.000121565, Final residual = 2.13811e10, No Iterations 1 GAMG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.00252295, Final residual = 8.05773e07, No Iterations 3 time step continuity errors : sum local = 2.10458e13, global = 4.80043e14, cumulative = 2.59384e12 smoothSolver: Solving for epsilon, Initial residual = 3.25134e08, Final residual = 3.88938e11, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for k, Initial residual = 8.78791e07, Final residual = 5.22215e11, No Iterations 1 ExecutionTime = 8322.19 s ClockTime = 8324 s forces forces output: sum of forces: pressure : (101091 1964.54 89.9517) viscous : (425.182 2.11331 0.235278) porous : (0 0 0) sum of moments: pressure : (1.55275e+07 38375 983.145) viscous : (6277.26 84.9156 4.82144) porous : (0 0 0) Courant Number mean: 0.000204541 max: 0.999794 deltaT = 8.91558e05 Time = 0.0280776 solidBodyMotionFunctions::rotatingMotion::transfor mation(): Time = 0.0280776 transformation: ((0 0 0) (0.999975 (0.00701935 0 0))) AMI: Creating addressing and weights between 23859 source faces and 24266 target faces AMI: Patch source sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.987078, 1.39716, 1.00589 AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0, 1.31696, 1.00247 PIMPLE: iteration 1 rank 0 in job 57 no_46067 caused collective abort of all ranks exit status of rank 0: killed by signal 8 

March 13, 2016, 07:49 

#2 
Senior Member
Artur
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 372
Rep Power: 20 
Hi,
This is a wellknown problem using AMI and rotating meshes in OpenFOAM, see e.g. here: http://www.cfdonline.com/Forums/ope...tutorial.html . From my experience, the key steps to avoid it are: 1. check, recheck, and check your mesh again at the interfaces 2. if using snappyHexMesh, use many featureSnapIters (I would go up to 25 or 30 even sometimes) 3. Try to make sure all faces on either side of the AMI have similar areas 4. Play with the AMI tolerance 5. Be careful with the adjustable time step option, if you can set a fixed time step which will cause your mesh to see the same blade angles at each revolution and you succeed in getting it around 360 degrees then you're home; with adjustable time step this will never happen 6. if it's crashed already you may try to restart from the last save point and tweak the time stepping options to make the solver "jump" over the problematic mesh conformation (should be a last resort though in my opinion) All the best, A 

August 12, 2016, 10:24 
periodic simulation

#3 
New Member
amin talezade
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 14 
Thank for your excellent experiences in AMI simulation, Artur.
I have the same problem simulating a periodic propeller. as the propeller rotates it passes from the stationary region and the min value in the AMI patch target decrease to near zero and the solution stops! AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average does your comment can be use for periodic simulation? how can I solve the min value problem? That would be really appreciated. 

August 12, 2016, 17:01 

#4 
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,708
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 51 
I used AMI and ACMI and I never had problems... (not checked periodic stuff  but here I read that GGI is the better choice)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC_F42CZjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCIBzVWyqzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNavcJb6Pn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlK1jM4twBc In my experience ... know what you do and everything is fine.
__________________
Keep foaming, Tobias Holzmann 

August 14, 2016, 06:09 

#5  
New Member
amin talezade
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 14 
Quote:
I checked my cyclicAMI faces and also change the featureSnapIters to 25 but it doesnt work. the simulation continues for a few time step and AMI min value decreases to zero and exit from the solution as below Code:
Courant Number mean: 0.00113213 max: 0.683572 deltaT = 5e06 Time = 0.00013 solidBodyMotionFunctions::rotatingMotion::transformation(): Time = 0.00013 transformation: ((0 0 0) (0.999947 (0 0.0102698 0))) AMI: Creating addressing and weights between 2467 source faces and 2367 target faces AMI: Patch source sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.635783, 1.00003, 0.997899 AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.785625, 1.0004, 0.999555 AMI: Creating addressing and weights between 6477 source faces and 6477 target faces AMI: Patch source sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.999997, 1, 1 AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.999997, 1, 1 AMI: Creating addressing and weights between 6328 source faces and 6984 target faces AMI: Patch source sum(weights) min/max/average = 0, 1.02797, 0.990961 AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.00514256, 1.00165, 0.988335 PIMPLE: iteration 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 4.24196e06, Final residual = 1.23042e08, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 5.83482e06, Final residual = 1.76498e08, No Iterations 1 smoothSolver: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 9.60301e05, Final residual = 2.06976e07, No Iterations 1 #0 Foam::error::printStack(Foam::Ostream&) at ??:? #1 Foam::sigFpe::sigHandler(int) at ??:? #2 ? in "/lib/x86_64linuxgnu/libc.so.6" #3 Foam::divide(Foam::Field<double>&, double const&, Foam::UList<double> const&) at ??:? #4 Foam::tmp<Foam::GeometricField<double, Foam::fvPatchField, Foam::volMesh> > Foam::operator/<Foam::fvPatchField, Foam::volMesh>(Foam::dimensioned<double> const&, Foam::tmp<Foam::GeometricField<double, Foam::fvPatchField, Foam::volMesh> > const&) at ??:? #5 ? at ??:? #6 __libc_start_main in "/lib/x86_64linuxgnu/libc.so.6" #7 ? at ??:? Floating point exception (core dumped) How can I fix the problem? Thanks you indeed 

May 21, 2018, 01:52 

#6 
New Member
Harshal Akolekar
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 9 
Hi,
Any solution to this problem. I am experiencing a similar issues with cyclicAMI. AMI: Creating addressing and weights between 260 source faces and 190 target faces AMI: Patch source sum(weights) min/max/average = 0, 1, 0.946068 AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0, 1, 0.754746 AMI: Creating addressing and weights between 260 source faces and 190 target faces AMI: Patch source sum(weights) min/max/average = 0, 0, 0 AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0, 0, 0 AMI: Creating addressing and weights between 260 source faces and 190 target faces AMI: Patch source sum(weights) min/max/average = 0, 1, 0.0539319 AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0, 1, 0.245254 #0 Foam::errorrintStack(Foam::Ostream&) at ??:? #1 Foam::sigFpe::sigHandler(int) at ??:? #2 ? in "/lib/x86_64linuxgnu/libc.so.6" #3 Foam::cyclicPeriodicAMIPolyPatch::resetAMI(Foam::A MIInterpolation<Foam::PrimitivePatch<Foam::face, Foam::SubList, Foam::Field<Foam::Vector<double> > const&, Foam::Vector<double> >, Foam::PrimitivePatch<Foam::face, Foam::SubList, Foam::Field<Foam::Vector<double> > const&, Foam::Vector<double> > >::interpolationMethod const&) const at ??:? #4 Foam::cyclicAMIPolyPatch::AMI() const at ??:? #5 Foam::cyclicAMIPolyPatch::applyLowWeightCorrection () const at ??:? #6 Foam::cyclicAMIFvPatch::makeWeights(Foam::Field<do uble>&) const at ??:? #7 Foam::surfaceInterpolation::makeWeights() const at ??:? #8 Foam::surfaceInterpolation::weights() const at ??:? #9 Foam::fvPatch::weights() const at ??:? #10 Foam::coupledFvPatchField<double>::evaluate(Foam:: UPstream::commsTypes) at ??:? #11 Foam::cyclicFvPatchField<double>::cyclicFvPatchFie ld(Foam::fvPatch const&, Foam:dimensionedField<double, Foam::volMesh> const&, Foam::dictionary const&) at ??:? #12 Foam::fvPatchField<double>::adddictionaryConstruct orToTable<Foam::cyclicFvPatchField<double> >::New(Foam::fvPatch const&, Foam:dimensionedField<double, Foam::volMesh> const&, Foam::dictionary const&) at ??:? #13 Foam::fvPatchField<double>::New(Foam::fvPatch const&, Foam:dimensionedField<double, Foam::volMesh> const&, Foam::dictionary const&) at ??:? #14 Foam::GeometricField<double, Foam::fvPatchField, Foam::volMesh>::Boundary::readField(Foam:dimension edField<double, Foam::volMesh> const&, Foam::dictionary const&) at ??:? #15 Foam::GeometricField<double, Foam::fvPatchField, Foam::volMesh>::readFields(Foam::dictionary const&) at ??:? #16 Foam::GeometricField<double, Foam::fvPatchField, Foam::volMesh>::readFields() at ??:? #17 Foam::GeometricField<double, Foam::fvPatchField, Foam::volMesh>::GeometricField(Foam::IOobject const&, Foam::fvMesh const&, bool) at ??:? #18 Foam::basicThermo::lookupOrConstruct(Foam::fvMesh const&, char const*) const at ??:? #19 Foam::basicThermo::basicThermo(Foam::fvMesh const&, Foam::word const&) at ??:? #20 Foam::fluidThermo::fluidThermo(Foam::fvMesh const&, Foam::word const&) at ??:? #21 FoamsiThermosiThermo(Foam::fvMesh const&, Foam::word const&) at ??:? #22 Foam::heThermo<FoamsiThermo, FoamureMixture<Foam::sutherlandTransport<Foam::s pecies::thermo<Foam::hConstThermo<FoamerfectGas< Foam::specie> >, Foam::sensibleEnthalpy> > > >::heThermo(Foam::fvMesh const&, Foam::word const&) at ??:? #23 Foam::fluidThermo::addfvMeshConstructorToTable<Foa m::hePsiThermo<FoamsiThermo, FoamureMixture<Foam::sutherlandTransport<Foam::s pecies::thermo<Foam::hConstThermo<FoamerfectGas< Foam::specie> >, Foam::sensibleEnthalpy> > > > >::New(Foam::fvMesh const&, Foam::word const&) at ??:? #24 Foam::autoPtr<Foam::fluidThermo> Foam::basicThermo::New<Foam::fluidThermo>(Foam::fv Mesh const&, Foam::word const&) at ??:? #25 Foam::fluidThermo::New(Foam::fvMesh const&, Foam::word const&) at ??:? #26 ? at ??:? #27 __libc_start_main in "/lib/x86_64linuxgnu/libc.so.6" #28 ? at ??:? Floating point exception (core dumped) I do observe that if the source faces is less than or equal to the target faces, the simulation runs fine. But as soon as the source faces become more than the target faces, the simulation crashes. Any ideas? Regards, Harshal 

July 17, 2018, 11:16 

#7 
Member
Utkan Caliskan
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 11 
Although my mesh was quite good I also had the same issue. I have overcome this by using constant timestep which means I turned off adjustTimeStep.
I recommend to use moveDynamicMesh solver before the main simulation in order to check that the mesh does not collapse in time. Utkan 

October 8, 2021, 06:10 

#8 
New Member
Federico Nahuel Ramírez
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Spain
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 5 
Hi, I know this is an old post, but i've been facing this problem lately and just found a solution, so i wanted to put on record how i solved it in case someone else finds it useful.
In my case, the problem ocurred because the two AMI surfaces weren't identical (see attached). This ocurred when mesing with snappyHexMesh and using explicitFeatureSnap. Just changing to implicitFeatureSnap in snapControls was enough in my case to resolve the problem. Last edited by fedenr; October 8, 2021 at 07:40. 

February 21, 2022, 21:15 
cylicAMI for periodicBoundary

#9 
New Member
jaym
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 7 
Hello Everyone,
I encountered this thread and I am experiencing similar problems with cyclic AMI. I have tried solutions suggested here and in other links on the website but I am still experiencing errors. In my case, I intend to simulate a marine propeller's single blade. The boundary condition for the sides are periodic, therefore the use of cyclicAMI. This is shown in the image provided. The propeller is a 5 blade propeller therefore, one blade is presumed to take a portion of 72 degrees. I have provided the createPatchDict, the result from running createPatch Utility (createPatch overwrite) and dynamic meshing checking(moveDynamicMesh checkAMI noFunctionObjects) If you have ideas on this case or encountered similar problem let us think together. Thank you in advance. Best regards Jay 

February 22, 2022, 03:23 

#10 
Senior Member
Artur
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 372
Rep Power: 20 
It seems you are splitting cells at the interfaces, I suspect this may lead to these issues  note that not only is the minimum weighting 0, but maximum is about 2, suggesting twice the face size. Have you tried without grid refinement at the interfaces?


February 22, 2022, 08:23 

#11 
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,708
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 51 
You cannot use cyclicAMI for periodic things as far as I know. You need cyclicPeriodicAMI. Its obvious that you run into trouble with cyclicAMI.
__________________
Keep foaming, Tobias Holzmann 

February 23, 2022, 05:10 

#12  
New Member
jaym
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 7 
Quote:
Intially I had prepared the base mesh from blockMesh(Box) and used snappyhexmesh refine stl region giving the shape as previously attached above. Without grid refinement  I tried without grid refinement however the weight remained at zero. To check on splitting cells at the interface  I decided to make a basemesh(blockMesh) that has the shape of the domain and only use snappyHexMesh for the blade and hub. This has improved the AMI weights as shown HTML Code:
Calculating AMI weights between owner patch: AMI1 and neighbour patch: AMI2 AMI: Creating addressing and weights between 7398 source faces and 7395 target faces AMI: Patch source sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.5550600558, 1.045356542, 0.9999971939 AMI: Patch target sum(weights) min/max/average = 0.3245599576, 1.002642677, 0.9999967814 ExecutionTime = 9.59 s ClockTime = 9 s 

February 23, 2022, 05:22 

#13  
New Member
jaym
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 7 
Quote:
Initially, I had read that for periodic boundary conditions one can use cyclic boundary, if the conformal match is granted for interfaces(Eg mesh from starccm+) otherwise cyclicAMI, is used when conformal matching is not possible(as for the case with snappyHexMesh). In case I get this literature I will attach it later. I have no experience with cyclicPeriodicAMI, by any chance do you have some lead on that? Best regards, Jay 

February 23, 2022, 05:28 

#14 
Senior Member
Artur
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 372
Rep Power: 20 
Hi,
That's good to hear. I tried an approach like this in the past and found that stating with blockMesh like you're doing now is a much more robust approach for the AMI, but unfortunately comes at a price of worse shm grids. You should check out the advice from Tobi as well, I was actually not aware of this BC myself. An alternative would be to try using engrid for mesh generation, it should be more consistent with the geometry of the domain: Primsatic boundary layer creation fixed Best of luck, A 

October 7, 2022, 01:29 

#16  
New Member
jaym
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 7 
Quote:
I solved the problem by making a base mesh using blockMesh. The base mesh had the shape of the domain and I only used snappyHexMesh for the blade and hub. So far I have no other solution. This worked for me. 

October 7, 2022, 04:26 

#17 
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,708
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 51 
We have a lowWeightCorrection keyword you can put into the boundary file for the cyclicAMI. Which is somehow similar to ACMI; means, if you have minWeight < lowWeightCorrection, FOAM handles this face as wall.
__________________
Keep foaming, Tobias Holzmann 

Tags 
ami, cyclic boundaries, cyclic patches 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
y+ and u+ values with lowRe RANS turbulence models: utility + testcase  florian_krause  OpenFOAM  114  August 23, 2023 05:37 
AMI speed performance  danny123  OpenFOAM  21  October 24, 2020 04:13 
[OpenFOAM.org] Compile OF 2.3 on Mac OS X .... the patch  gschaider  OpenFOAM Installation  225  August 25, 2015 19:43 
createPatch Segmentation Fault (CORE DUMPED)  sam.ho  OpenFOAM PreProcessing  2  April 21, 2014 02:01 