CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Cyclic AMI patch minimum weight goes to zero

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

Like Tree8Likes
  • 2 Post By Artur
  • 1 Post By Tobi
  • 1 Post By amintalezade
  • 1 Post By dscian
  • 1 Post By Artur
  • 1 Post By Tobi
  • 1 Post By Artur

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   February 22, 2016, 10:04
Default Cyclic AMI patch minimum weight goes to zero
  #1
New Member
 
M. Salman Siddiqui
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 9
muhammss is on a distinguished road
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 = 3.06059e-05, Final residual = 8.07053e-11, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 0.000213831, Final residual = 3.97398e-10, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.000488367, Final residual = 8.27354e-10, No Iterations 1
GAMG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.000873145, Final residual = 7.57972e-06, No Iterations 1
time step continuity errors : sum local = 1.99807e-12, global = 1.33977e-14, cumulative = -2.69842e-12
PIMPLE: iteration 2
smoothSolver: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 7.6585e-06, Final residual = 2.10173e-11, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 5.33958e-05, Final residual = 1.03302e-10, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.000121995, Final residual = 2.14589e-10, No Iterations 1
GAMG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.00253285, Final residual = 7.7775e-07, No Iterations 3
time step continuity errors : sum local = 2.04369e-13, global = 4.55125e-14, cumulative = -2.65291e-12
smoothSolver: Solving for epsilon, Initial residual = 3.25688e-08, Final residual = 3.91035e-11, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver: Solving for k, Initial residual = 8.77933e-07, Final residual = 5.25053e-11, 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 = 8.91374e-05
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 = 3.05357e-05, Final residual = 8.07259e-11, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 0.000212966, Final residual = 3.96325e-10, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.000486642, Final residual = 8.24374e-10, No Iterations 1
GAMG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.000867852, Final residual = 7.4861e-06, No Iterations 1
time step continuity errors : sum local = 1.96148e-12, global = 1.10639e-14, cumulative = -2.64184e-12
PIMPLE: iteration 2
smoothSolver: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 7.64088e-06, Final residual = 2.10211e-11, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 5.318e-05, Final residual = 1.02991e-10, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.000121565, Final residual = 2.13811e-10, No Iterations 1
GAMG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.00252295, Final residual = 8.05773e-07, No Iterations 3
time step continuity errors : sum local = 2.10458e-13, global = 4.80043e-14, cumulative = -2.59384e-12
smoothSolver: Solving for epsilon, Initial residual = 3.25134e-08, Final residual = 3.88938e-11, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver: Solving for k, Initial residual = 8.78791e-07, Final residual = 5.22215e-11, 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 = 8.91558e-05
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
muhammss is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 13, 2016, 07:49
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Artur's Avatar
 
Artur
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 372
Rep Power: 18
Artur will become famous soon enough
Hi,

This is a well-known problem using AMI and rotating meshes in OpenFOAM, see e.g. here: http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...-tutorial.html .

From my experience, the key steps to avoid it are:
1. check, re-check, 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 re-start 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
swws16 and Mehdi Rami like this.
Artur is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 12, 2016, 10:24
Default periodic simulation
  #3
New Member
 
amin talezade
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 12
amintalezade is on a distinguished road
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.
amintalezade is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 12, 2016, 17:01
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Tobi's Avatar
 
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,667
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 48
Tobi has a spectacular aura aboutTobi has a spectacular aura aboutTobi has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via ICQ to Tobi Send a message via Skype™ to Tobi
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.
Zaphod'sSecondHead likes this.
__________________
Keep foaming,
Tobias Holzmann
Tobi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 14, 2016, 06:09
Default
  #5
New Member
 
amin talezade
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 12
amintalezade is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobi View Post
I used AMI and ACMI and I never had problems... (not checked periodic stuff - but here I read that GGI is the better choice)

In my experience ... know what you do and everything is fine.
Dear Tobi
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 = 5e-06
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 = 4.24196e-06, Final residual = 1.23042e-08, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver:  Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 5.83482e-06, Final residual = 1.76498e-08, No Iterations 1
smoothSolver:  Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 9.60301e-05, Final residual = 2.06976e-07, No Iterations 1
#0  Foam::error::printStack(Foam::Ostream&) at ??:?
#1  Foam::sigFpe::sigHandler(int) at ??:?
#2  ? in "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/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_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6"
#7  ? at ??:?
Floating point exception (core dumped)
the 6328 source faces and 6984 target faces are belonged to the AMI between the stationary and rotationary zone as shown in the attached figure.
How can I fix the problem?
Thanks you indeed
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screenshot from 2016-08-14 14-32-19.jpg (165.0 KB, 152 views)
File Type: jpg Screenshot from 2016-08-14 14-32-37.jpg (178.3 KB, 113 views)
File Type: jpg Screenshot from 2016-08-14 14-32-47.jpg (173.7 KB, 90 views)
homayoun9604 likes this.
amintalezade is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 21, 2018, 01:52
Default
  #6
New Member
 
Harshal Akolekar
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 8
hakolekar is on a distinguished road
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_64-linux-gnu/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_64-linux-gnu/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
hakolekar is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 17, 2018, 11:16
Default
  #7
Member
 
Utkan Caliskan
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 32
Rep Power: 10
dscian is on a distinguished road
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
Tobi likes this.
dscian is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 8, 2021, 06:10
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Federico Nahuel Ramírez
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Spain
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 3
fedenr is on a distinguished road
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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ami1.jpg (163.8 KB, 52 views)
File Type: jpg ami2.jpg (163.4 KB, 49 views)

Last edited by fedenr; October 8, 2021 at 07:40.
fedenr is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 21, 2022, 21:15
Default cylicAMI for periodicBoundary
  #9
New Member
 
jaym
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 5
Ngaru is on a distinguished road
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
Attached Images
File Type: png boundarypatches.png (9.8 KB, 27 views)
File Type: jpg onebladedomainnew.jpg (32.1 KB, 29 views)
File Type: jpg cyclicAMI_singlebladepropeller.jpg (146.9 KB, 34 views)
File Type: png createPatchresult.png (172.1 KB, 30 views)
File Type: png amiweightcapture.png (114.1 KB, 27 views)
Ngaru is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 22, 2022, 03:23
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
Artur's Avatar
 
Artur
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 372
Rep Power: 18
Artur will become famous soon enough
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?
Ngaru likes this.
Artur is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 22, 2022, 08:23
Default
  #11
Super Moderator
 
Tobi's Avatar
 
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,667
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 48
Tobi has a spectacular aura aboutTobi has a spectacular aura aboutTobi has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via ICQ to Tobi Send a message via Skype™ to Tobi
You cannot use cyclicAMI for periodic things as far as I know. You need cyclicPeriodicAMI. Its obvious that you run into trouble with cyclicAMI.
Ngaru likes this.
__________________
Keep foaming,
Tobias Holzmann
Tobi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 23, 2022, 05:10
Default
  #12
New Member
 
jaym
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 5
Ngaru is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artur View Post
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?
Thank you Artur for your response.

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
The mesh is not as good as the first one but I will try to improved and simulate to see results
Ngaru is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 23, 2022, 05:22
Default
  #13
New Member
 
jaym
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 5
Ngaru is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobi View Post
You cannot use cyclicAMI for periodic things as far as I know. You need cyclicPeriodicAMI. It is obvious that you run into trouble with cyclicAMI.
Thank you Tobias for your response,

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
Ngaru is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 23, 2022, 05:28
Default
  #14
Senior Member
 
Artur's Avatar
 
Artur
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 372
Rep Power: 18
Artur will become famous soon enough
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
Ngaru likes this.
Artur is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 18, 2022, 10:38
Default
  #15
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 11
kont1901 is on a distinguished road
Hello,
Has anyone solved the Ngaru's problem?
kont1901 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
ami, cyclic boundaries, cyclic patches

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AMI speed performance danny123 OpenFOAM 21 October 24, 2020 04:13
y+ and u+ values with low-Re RANS turbulence models: utility + testcase florian_krause OpenFOAM 113 June 25, 2019 00:58
[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 Pre-Processing 2 April 21, 2014 02:01


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:37.