Page 1 of 1
cgns issue with v6.1.0
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:17 pm
by daniele
Hello,
Maybe someone can help in solving the weird problem I have...
I run code_Saturne v6.1.0 on two different clusters. The first difference that I find is that in one cluster the CGNS format required by Saturne is HDF, whereas on the other cluster Saturne wants the ADF... Is this linked to the installation options retained?
The real issue I have is that the CGNS HDF mesh is correctly read by the Saturne preprocessor (on one cluster). On the other hand, Saturne gives the following boundary condition error when I run the mesh CGNS ADF (on the other cluster):
Code: Select all
First face with boundary condition definition error
(out of 788794)
has boundary condition type 0, center (-0.0557381, 0.04092, -0.0079226)
cs_boundary_conditions.c:363: Fatal error.
Some boundary condition definitions are incomplete or incorrect.
Looking at the ERROR file, all the boundary faces are of type 0...
I tried to double check, ro recreate the mesh, but could not solve this issue.
Anyone has an idea of what could cause the problem?
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Daniele
Re: cgns issue with v6.1.0
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:39 pm
by Yvan Fournier
Hello,
This seems to be a CGNS installation, and possibly version issue (CGNS may be installed with or without HDF5 support, explaining the different default).
Could you post a "preprocessor.log" for each case ?
Regards,
Yvan
Re: cgns issue with v6.1.0
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:18 am
by daniele
Hello Yvan,
Thanks for your help.
You're right, doing a tkdiff between the two preprocessor.log, the only difference is the CGNS format support.
For the 6.1.0 version requiring HDF and working correctly:
Code: Select all
code_saturne version 6.1.0 (built Fri Jul 17 16:01:17 2020)
CGNS 3.4.0 file format support
MED 4.0.0 (HDF5 1.10.5) file format support
For the 6.1.0 version requiring ADF and giving the BC problem:
Code: Select all
code_saturne version 6.1.0 (built Mon Jun 8 14:33:57 2020)
CGNS 3.2.1 file format support
MED 3.0.8 (HDF5 1.8.20) file format support
To note that the BC error does not appear in the preprocessor.log, but in the listing.
I used to work with ADF format with previous Saturne versions, and never had such problems. Do you see any way to solve the issue, other than re-installing Saturne with the same CGNS format support?
Thank you.
Best regards,
Daniele
Re: cgns issue with v6.1.0
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:06 pm
by Yvan Fournier
Hello,
Could you post the "listing" (run_solver.log) and setup.log file for each case ? Once the file is converted by the preprocessor, there should be no difference. So if the rest of the preprocessor.log is the same, I would expect no issue.
Best regards,
Yvan
Re: cgns issue with v6.1.0
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:50 pm
by daniele
Hello,
I have attached the two listing files, that I have renamed "listing_ok" and "listing_error".
You are right, I should have noticed it, there is something inconsistent in the "listing_error": why does the code look for calculation parameters and perform variables initialization, if it is only a preprocessing calculation?
I therefore made a test: I wrote manually the BC list inside the GUI, and then saved the setup as "mesh preprocessing only". I don't have errors anymore, but the code performs iterations as if it was a "standard computation"!!
What is strange is that the directory created by the code is called "preprocessor_...".
The good thing is that the calculation works fine...
I had never faced this weird behavior before. Have you?
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Daniele
Re: cgns issue with v6.1.0
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 1:17 pm
by Yvan Fournier
Hello,
Do you use cs_user_scripts.py ? The required option could be removed in a user setting, so that could be an explanation.
Otherwise, could you post the XML files for each case ?
Regards,
Yvan
Re: cgns issue with v6.1.0
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2021 3:57 pm
by daniele
Hello,
No, I don't use cs_user_scripts.py.
Attached the setup.xml.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Daniele
Re: cgns issue with v6.1.0
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:57 pm
by daniele
Hello Yvan,
Actually, I think there is something wrong with the specific v610 installation I am testing. I have just found out that user routines are not taken into account by the code: they are compiled, but they are not used...
Best regards,
Daniele