View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0003326 | OpenFOAM | Bug | public | 2019-08-11 14:30 | 2019-08-12 10:28 |
Reporter | handrake0724 | Assigned To | henry | ||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
Platform | x86_64 | OS | Arch | OS Version | (please specify) |
Summary | 0003326: incorrect moving mesh treatment in MULES::correct function | ||||
Description | in line 20-29 shown in correct function of CMULESTemplates.C if (mesh.moving)) { psi.primitiveFieldRef() = ( rho.field()*psi.primitiveField()*rDeltaT + Su.field() - psiIf )/(rho.field()*rDeltaT - Sp.field()); } is exactly same as static mesh implementation. It should be modified as follows: if (mesh.moving)) { psi.primitiveFieldRef() = ( rho.field()*psi.primitiveField()*rDeltaT*mesh.Vsc0()/mesh.Vsc() + Su.field() - psiIf )/(rho.field()*rDeltaT - Sp.field()); } | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
Do you have a test-case which demonstrates and verifies the need for this change? |
|
No, I don't have a test-case at the moment. While I was studing CMULES code, I found that lines 55 - 60 are same as lines 64 - 69. Since I found a similar code in MULESTemplate.C, I tried derivation of the code. Is there something that I missed in the derivation? |
|
In order to require the volume ratio the case would have to be running with moving mesh, MULES correction AND sub-cycling. I was wondering if you have a case which would benefit from this combination; my view is that MULES correction is an alternative to sub-cycling and that using both together is unlikely to be beneficial and it might be better to restrict the MULES to run either with correction or sub-cycling. |
|
Looking at the code again I am not convinced that the sub-cycling volume ratio is required for the correction; this relates to a change between the previous and current correction states, not a difference in time. If you believe the change you propose is correct we need a test-case to demonstrate it. |
|
In that sense, I think your view looks right. I would like to close this issue. Thanks. |
|
Fundamental change to MULES proposed without supporting derivation or any case for validation. |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2019-08-11 14:30 | handrake0724 | New Issue | |
2019-08-11 14:56 | henry | Note Added: 0010669 | |
2019-08-11 15:20 | handrake0724 | Note Added: 0010670 | |
2019-08-11 16:08 | henry | Note Added: 0010671 | |
2019-08-11 16:13 | henry | Note Added: 0010672 | |
2019-08-12 00:51 | handrake0724 | Note Added: 0010673 | |
2019-08-12 10:28 | henry | Assigned To | => henry |
2019-08-12 10:28 | henry | Status | new => closed |
2019-08-12 10:28 | henry | Resolution | open => no change required |
2019-08-12 10:28 | henry | Note Added: 0010674 |