|
[Sponsors] |
November 24, 2016, 11:28 |
mappedField - OF 4.0 vs. OF 2.0
|
#1 |
Member
Pedro Ramos
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 14 |
Hi everyone,
we are trying to write a new inlet boundary condition, starting with the mappedField file. Even if we simply copy the files to a new folder, not changing the code, the new function requires that a mapping information (offset, sampleRegion, etc.) appears in the initial conditions (0/U). We have succeeded in v2.0 but it doesn't work in v4.0. We suppose the aforementioned problem is due to something related with the following note of mappedField of version 4.0 (not present in the version 2.0): Since this condition can be applied on a per-field and per-patch basis, it is possible to duplicate the mapping information. If possible, employ the \c mapped condition in preference to avoid this situation, and only employ this condition if it is not possible to change the underlying geometric (poly) patch type to \c mapped. Does anyone have the same problem? What the ''\c mapped condition'' means and how can it be applied? |
|
Tags |
mapped condition, mappedfield, of4, \c mapped |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OpenFOAM 4.0 Released | CFDFoundation | OpenFOAM Announcements from OpenFOAM Foundation | 2 | October 6, 2017 06:40 |
File format - binary? (plot3d) | Joachim | Main CFD Forum | 15 | January 14, 2015 19:21 |
Viscous forces (interDyMFoam) differ between OF 2.0 and later versions | maxof | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 2 | May 30, 2013 05:17 |
Two way particle coupling in OF 2.0 and the particle reynolds number | preichl | OpenFOAM | 7 | February 9, 2012 16:38 |
CFX 12 in WB 2.0 - Your thoughts? | flattie | ANSYS | 0 | May 13, 2009 20:05 |