Re: Issue with PLE coupling between Code Saturne and Syrthes
Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:48 pm
Hello Yvan,
Thank you for the suggestion and help. Firstly, I should mention that I have finally been able to test the bug fix 0561b6d7 for the async + reverse coupling (https://github.com/code-saturne/code_sa ... bf397bd2e5.), and I can confirm that it fixed the earlier issue. Thank you and apologies for the delay, I didn't check my inbox and missed your earlier message.
Pertaining to the new issue, I had tried altering the starting value for tolerance and conditional to "allow_nonmatching". If I do set a high enough tolerance (around 5) with allow_nonmatching =false, it does locate with no missed cells/or warnings. However, when I check the location of the solid elements, it is not right. Below, I have attached the expected distribution from a python script and that from the present test (please note, presently I am using the area to check, as this is the easiest way to do so with our modified coupling). It would seem with this approach we do not get the warnings any more, but the location is amiss. I have checked the distribution of the area from this test and the one where we activate_nonmatching(and the search extends to infinity), and they are the same. I presume there is still a locating issue, but perhaps buried by using a higher tolerance ? (although I don't quite get how this can be).
Kind regards,
Kenneth
Thank you for the suggestion and help. Firstly, I should mention that I have finally been able to test the bug fix 0561b6d7 for the async + reverse coupling (https://github.com/code-saturne/code_sa ... bf397bd2e5.), and I can confirm that it fixed the earlier issue. Thank you and apologies for the delay, I didn't check my inbox and missed your earlier message.
Pertaining to the new issue, I had tried altering the starting value for tolerance and conditional to "allow_nonmatching". If I do set a high enough tolerance (around 5) with allow_nonmatching =false, it does locate with no missed cells/or warnings. However, when I check the location of the solid elements, it is not right. Below, I have attached the expected distribution from a python script and that from the present test (please note, presently I am using the area to check, as this is the easiest way to do so with our modified coupling). It would seem with this approach we do not get the warnings any more, but the location is amiss. I have checked the distribution of the area from this test and the one where we activate_nonmatching(and the search extends to infinity), and they are the same. I presume there is still a locating issue, but perhaps buried by using a higher tolerance ? (although I don't quite get how this can be).
Kind regards,
Kenneth