New Recycling BC based on interpolation
Hi Michael and Markus, Here is a test case for an unsteady pipe flow with Michael's GambitPipe.rea file which sets inlet Recycling BCs based on interpolation from a cross-section downstream that you specify by a multiple of the inlet normal: http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~obabko/z4.tgz Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Aleks ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:06:48 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Nek5000-users] New Recycling BC method? No worries, just checkin in to see how it was going, thanks for the update! Look forward to trying it out! - Michael
Hi Aleks, thanks for the code, I looked over it and have two questions: -at some point, it is mentioned that this method does not work if nelgt>nelgv. Why is that? I am asking because this will be applied to a conjugate HT problem (although the recycling part is purely concerning flow+convection). Will this problem also occur when only findpts is used instead of intpts? -is there a performance difference between calling intpts as opposed to gs_op (as is done in the turbJet example) every time step for large scale production runs? The latter is what I used in my version. Thanks, Markus [email protected] wrote:
Hi Michael and Markus,
Here is a test case for an unsteady pipe flow with Michael's GambitPipe.rea file which sets inlet Recycling BCs based on interpolation from a cross-section downstream that you specify by a multiple of the inlet normal:
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~obabko/z4.tgz
Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Aleks
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:06:48 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Nek5000-users] New Recycling BC method?
No worries, just checkin in to see how it was going, thanks for the update! Look forward to trying it out!
- Michael
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
Hi Markus, I don't know why this wouldn't work for nelgt > nelgv. I would say we don't know the performance hit yet - I think someone is looking into this question. Performance will of course vary significantly from problem to problem and platform to platform. I suspect that it should not be a major hit --- have you observed otherwise? Paul On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Aleks,
thanks for the code, I looked over it and have two questions: -at some point, it is mentioned that this method does not work if nelgt>nelgv. Why is that? I am asking because this will be applied to a conjugate HT problem (although the recycling part is purely concerning flow+convection). Will this problem also occur when only findpts is used instead of intpts? -is there a performance difference between calling intpts as opposed to gs_op (as is done in the turbJet example) every time step for large scale production runs? The latter is what I used in my version.
Thanks, Markus
[email protected] wrote:
Hi Michael and Markus,
Here is a test case for an unsteady pipe flow with Michael's GambitPipe.rea file which sets inlet Recycling BCs based on interpolation from a cross-section downstream that you specify by a multiple of the inlet normal:
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~obabko/z4.tgz
Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Aleks
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:06:48 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Nek5000-users] New Recycling BC method?
No worries, just checkin in to see how it was going, thanks for the update! Look forward to trying it out!
- Michael _______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
Hi, no, I haven't done any speed comparison. So I take it there is no principal difference between intpts and gs_op in terms of computational cost? I was referring to line 172f of the new recycling BC code: " if (nelgt.ne.nelgv) call exitti $ ('ABORT: interp_v() nelgt.ne.nelgv not yet supported!$',nelgv) " and was wondering if that is due to something in intpts and if so, if the same constraint would apply to findpts. Markus [email protected] wrote:
Hi Markus,
I don't know why this wouldn't work for nelgt > nelgv.
I would say we don't know the performance hit yet - I think someone is looking into this question. Performance will of course vary significantly from problem to problem and platform to platform. I suspect that it should not be a major hit --- have you observed otherwise?
Paul
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Aleks,
thanks for the code, I looked over it and have two questions: -at some point, it is mentioned that this method does not work if nelgt>nelgv. Why is that? I am asking because this will be applied to a conjugate HT problem (although the recycling part is purely concerning flow+convection). Will this problem also occur when only findpts is used instead of intpts? -is there a performance difference between calling intpts as opposed to gs_op (as is done in the turbJet example) every time step for large scale production runs? The latter is what I used in my version.
Thanks, Markus
[email protected] wrote:
Hi Michael and Markus,
Here is a test case for an unsteady pipe flow with Michael's GambitPipe.rea file which sets inlet Recycling BCs based on interpolation from a cross-section downstream that you specify by a multiple of the inlet normal:
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~obabko/z4.tgz
Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Aleks
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:06:48 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Nek5000-users] New Recycling BC method?
No worries, just checkin in to see how it was going, thanks for the update! Look forward to trying it out!
- Michael _______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
Hi Markus, this stuff is all brand new and you are in the leading edge of the testing (since none of us are exercising it in our own applications), so there will be a bit of development as we go forward. We can readily fix interp_v (but I advise using it now in order to identify other issues). interpv is _much_ more expensive than gs_op. However, if one takes 1 part in a million and the other 1 part in 10,000 of the run time, then both are negligible. So the question is really relative to the wall-clock time. Paul On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
no, I haven't done any speed comparison. So I take it there is no principal difference between intpts and gs_op in terms of computational cost?
I was referring to line 172f of the new recycling BC code: " if (nelgt.ne.nelgv) call exitti $ ('ABORT: interp_v() nelgt.ne.nelgv not yet supported!$',nelgv) " and was wondering if that is due to something in intpts and if so, if the same constraint would apply to findpts.
Markus
[email protected] wrote:
Hi Markus,
I don't know why this wouldn't work for nelgt > nelgv.
I would say we don't know the performance hit yet - I think someone is looking into this question. Performance will of course vary significantly from problem to problem and platform to platform. I suspect that it should not be a major hit --- have you observed otherwise?
Paul
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Aleks,
thanks for the code, I looked over it and have two questions: -at some point, it is mentioned that this method does not work if nelgt>nelgv. Why is that? I am asking because this will be applied to a conjugate HT problem (although the recycling part is purely concerning flow+convection). Will this problem also occur when only findpts is used instead of intpts? -is there a performance difference between calling intpts as opposed to gs_op (as is done in the turbJet example) every time step for large scale production runs? The latter is what I used in my version.
Thanks, Markus
[email protected] wrote:
Hi Michael and Markus,
Here is a test case for an unsteady pipe flow with Michael's GambitPipe.rea file which sets inlet Recycling BCs based on interpolation from a cross-section downstream that you specify by a multiple of the inlet normal:
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~obabko/z4.tgz
Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Aleks
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:06:48 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Nek5000-users] New Recycling BC method?
No worries, just checkin in to see how it was going, thanks for the update! Look forward to trying it out!
- Michael _______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
Hi Guys, I worked on the interpolation wrappers over the last months and I am not sure if the new recycling BC is compatible to the latest repo-version? Paul/Aleks: can you comment on that? Now, in the case of CHT (nelgt>nelgv) findpts_eval() won't work! I guess the size of the input field has to match the dimensions of XM1,YM1,ZM1 specified in inpts_setup(). I will talk to James if we can come up with an easy fix for that. Stefan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] on behalf of [email protected] Sent: Sun 7/18/2010 13:53 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Nek5000-users] New Recycling BC based on interpolation Hi Markus, this stuff is all brand new and you are in the leading edge of the testing (since none of us are exercising it in our own applications), so there will be a bit of development as we go forward. We can readily fix interp_v (but I advise using it now in order to identify other issues). interpv is _much_ more expensive than gs_op. However, if one takes 1 part in a million and the other 1 part in 10,000 of the run time, then both are negligible. So the question is really relative to the wall-clock time. Paul On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
no, I haven't done any speed comparison. So I take it there is no principal difference between intpts and gs_op in terms of computational cost?
I was referring to line 172f of the new recycling BC code: " if (nelgt.ne.nelgv) call exitti $ ('ABORT: interp_v() nelgt.ne.nelgv not yet supported!$',nelgv) " and was wondering if that is due to something in intpts and if so, if the same constraint would apply to findpts.
Markus
[email protected] wrote:
Hi Markus,
I don't know why this wouldn't work for nelgt > nelgv.
I would say we don't know the performance hit yet - I think someone is looking into this question. Performance will of course vary significantly from problem to problem and platform to platform. I suspect that it should not be a major hit --- have you observed otherwise?
Paul
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Aleks,
thanks for the code, I looked over it and have two questions: -at some point, it is mentioned that this method does not work if nelgt>nelgv. Why is that? I am asking because this will be applied to a conjugate HT problem (although the recycling part is purely concerning flow+convection). Will this problem also occur when only findpts is used instead of intpts? -is there a performance difference between calling intpts as opposed to gs_op (as is done in the turbJet example) every time step for large scale production runs? The latter is what I used in my version.
Thanks, Markus
[email protected] wrote:
Hi Michael and Markus,
Here is a test case for an unsteady pipe flow with Michael's GambitPipe.rea file which sets inlet Recycling BCs based on interpolation from a cross-section downstream that you specify by a multiple of the inlet normal:
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~obabko/z4.tgz
Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Aleks
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:06:48 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Nek5000-users] New Recycling BC method?
No worries, just checkin in to see how it was going, thanks for the update! Look forward to trying it out!
- Michael _______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________ Nek5000-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
participants (1)
-
nek5000-users＠lists.mcs.anl.gov