|
[Sponsors] |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
New Member
Claus H. Ibsen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 17 ![]() |
There seems to be a bug in porousSimpleFoam in 1.7.x. The porous zone do not increase the pressure drop as much as in 1.6.x.
Furthermore the results of the angledDuct Tutorial is different between 1.6.x and 1.7.x Any idea what has changed? Claus. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 22 ![]() |
I have just run both the explicit and implicit angledDuct cases with both 1.6.x and 1.7.x and get the same results with all of them.
H |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
New Member
Claus H. Ibsen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 17 ![]() |
Thanks for the answer.
I have tested it on 3 machines running OpenSuse 11.3 with the 1.7.x For angledDuct tut the average pressure at the inlet is 2673 Now I have also tested it on a Ubuntu 10.04 with the debian 1.7.0 installation. There the average pressure is 3132. On the Opensuse machines running the 1.6.x I get the (correct) 3132. So something peculiar is happening. Claus. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 22 ![]() |
I ran the tests on a machine running OpenSuSE 11.1 and the all 4 results are correct.
H |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
New Member
Claus H. Ibsen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 17 ![]() |
Just finished testing porousSimpleFoam in 1.7.x on a 11.1 machine. Correct result.
Thanks. Claus. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Serious bug in LES interface | fs82 | OpenFOAM Bugs | 21 | November 16, 2009 08:15 |
Bug in twoPhaseEulerFoam wallfunctions | alberto | OpenFOAM Bugs | 1 | February 9, 2007 14:15 |
Bug reports | Mattijs Janssens (Mattijs) | OpenFOAM | 0 | January 10, 2005 10:05 |
Win XP hot fix bug!!! | Emilio | Siemens | 1 | March 27, 2003 12:06 |
Forum y2k Bug | Jonas Larsson | Main CFD Forum | 1 | January 5, 2000 10:22 |