[Wang Changjun]

Recently, I have found that the "begin_c_loop_int_ext" didn't work in my UDF at partitioned boundaries. Who can help me or tell me what should I do? For example, when I used the UDF as below, the UDM-0 didn't change!

thread_loop_c(t, d)
{
begin_c_loop_int_ext(c, t)
{
if (C_PART(c, t) != myid)
{
C_UDMI(c, t, 0) = 1.0;
}
}
end_c_loop_int_ext(c, t)
}

[AlexanderZ]

code seems to be correct
what will happen for this case?

thread_loop_c(t, d)
{
begin_c_loop_int_ext(c, t)
{
if (C_PART(c, t) != myid) C_UDMI(c, t, 0) = 1.0;
else  C_UDMI(c, t, 0) = 2.0;
}
end_c_loop_int_ext(c, t)
}

[Wang Changjun]

Thank you for your reply!

As introduced in Fluent Customization Manual: "For interior cells, the partition ID is the same as the compute node ID. For exterior cells, the compute node ID and the partition ID are different". So, if the macro begin...end_c_loop_int_ext(c, t) work, the UDM-0 of the exterior cell of a partitioned zone would be 1.0. But the result is the UDM-0 value of the entire computational domain is zero in parallel computing.

I tested the functionality of the macro begin...end_c_loop_int_ext(c, t) because in my program I wanted a UDM of a cell at the boundary of a partition zone to have an effect on the cells adjacent to that cell once the UDM reached a specific value. According to the introduction of the macro begin...end_c_loop_int_ext(c, t) in Fluent Customization Manual, this idea is achievable. But it didn't actually work. Just like the UDM values are calculated separately between each partition zone (the loop is in DEFINE_ADJUST macro).

If you have any experience or advice, hopefully you can help me. Lastly, I'm sorry for my poor English and I hope my presentation makes sense to you.

[AlexanderZ]

your code should work from my point of view, based on manual.

but I'm not sure about the concept of your simulation:
partitioning is random (in most cases) so exterior cells (according to my knowledge, which is not that big actually) could be inside domain as well

if your code worked, you would get udmi = 1 on each boundary between partitions, and that boundaries are random

is that what you want?

[Wang Changjun]

Yes, although the code is only a simple test.

In short, the UDM value of a cell in the computing domain is determined by adjacent cells. If this macro (begin_c_loop_int_ext) works normally, there should be no problem with my current program. However, it is now found that the calculation of UDM value is abnormal at the boundary of the partition. After some testing, I found that this macro did not work at the partition boundary according to the manual. Just like the initial code, the UDM value in the cell at the partition boundary has not changed.

[pakk]

Originally Posted by Wang Changjun

As introduced in Fluent Customization Manual: "For interior cells, the partition ID is the same as the compute node ID. For exterior cells, the compute node ID and the partition ID are different". So, if the macro begin...end_c_loop_int_ext(c, t) work, the UDM-0 of the exterior cell of a partitioned zone would be 1.0. But the result is the UDM-0 value of the entire computational domain is zero in parallel computing.

The expected result is that interior cells have UDM-0 value 0, and exterior cells have UDM-0 value 1. Cells close to a boundary are exterior for one partition and interior for another, so which value they have depends on which node you are asking this question.

How did you determine that the UDM-0 value of the entire computational domain is zero in parallel computing? By default, you see only interior cells, so if you use normal methods (for example just plot UDM-0 over your entire domain), you would get a value of 0 everywhere.

Exterior cells are only used to communicate values to/from other partitions, they are meant to be used for post-processing, so you won't see them with the default methods.

[lolno]

i've faced an issue with accessing udmi outside of current partition mesh. The C_UDMI will return 0 whenever i tried to access C_UDMI stored in the boundary partition mesh (neighborhood cell). Do you found a fix for this issue yet?