[fedvasu]

Hi Forum,

I am porting my code from OF-6 to OF-dev (latest)

what are the implications of of this commits

https://github.com/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM...c39005b2091117

https://github.com/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM...c39005b2091117

mesh.solver is no longer present, then how can i specify that for this equation this particular solver settings, I have two separate pressure equations and I have two different settings in fvSolution but for second equation is constructed using a copy of the original pressure how can I tell OF to use the settings for the other equation?

[massive_turbulence]

Originally Posted by fedvasu

Hi Forum,

I am porting my code from OF-6 to OF-dev (latest)

what are the implications of of this commits

https://github.com/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM...c39005b2091117

https://github.com/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM...c39005b2091117

mesh.solver is no longer present, then how can i specify that for this equation this particular solver settings, I have two separate pressure equations and I have two different settings in fvSolution but for second equation is constructed using a copy of the original pressure how can I tell OF to use the settings for the other equation?

It would help if you posted the pressure equations, the fvSolutions and whatever is necessary to see the problem.

[fedvasu]

Originally Posted by massive_turbulence

It would help if you posted the pressure equations, the fvSolutions and whatever is necessary to see the problem.

Main pressure equation

// Pressure corrector
    fvScalarMatrix pEqn
    (
        fvm::ddt(psi, p)
        + fvc::div(phiHbyA)
        - fvm::laplacian(rhorAUf, p)
        ==

        fvOptions(psi, p, rho.name())
    );

    fvOptions.constrain(pEqn);

    pEqn.solve(mesh.solver(p.select(pimple.finalInnerIter())));

    if (pimple.finalNonOrthogonalIter())
    {
        phi = phiHbyA + pEqn.flux();
    }

other pressure equation, variable named pressure

fvScalarMatrix pressureEqn
            (
	            fvm::laplacian(rhorAUf, pressure)
	            - fvm::ddt(psi, pressure)
	            ==
                Rm_
                //Rm_TA
            );

            pressureEqn.setReference(pressureRefCell, pressureRefValue);
            pressureEqn.solve(mesh_.solver("pressure")); //how would I give this info?

            if (nonOrth == nNonOrthCorr)
            {
		        phiFVstage3 =  -pressureEqn.flux();
            }

[massive_turbulence]

Originally Posted by fedvasu

// Pressure corrector
    fvScalarMatrix pEqn
    (
        fvm::ddt(psi, p)
        + fvc::div(phiHbyA)
        - fvm::laplacian(rhorAUf, p)
        ==

        fvOptions(psi, p, rho.name())
    );

    fvOptions.constrain(pEqn);

    pEqn.solve(mesh.solver(p.select(pimple.finalInnerIter())));

    if (pimple.finalNonOrthogonalIter())
    {
        phi = phiHbyA + pEqn.flux();
    }

fvScalarMatrix pressureEqn
            (
	            fvm::laplacian(rhorAUf, pressure)
	            - fvm::ddt(psi, pressure)
	            ==
                Rm_
                //Rm_TA
            );

            pressureEqn.setReference(pressureRefCell, pressureRefValue);
            pressureEqn.solve(mesh_.solver("pressure")); //how would I give this info?

            if (nonOrth == nNonOrthCorr)
            {
		        phiFVstage3 =  -pressureEqn.flux();
            }

What would be wrong with doing this in the second one

fvScalarMatrix pressureEqn
            (
	            fvm::laplacian(rhorAUf, pressure)
	            - fvm::ddt(psi, pressure)
	            ==
                fvOptions(???)
            );

fvOptions.constrain(pressureEqn);

Is it because that would only check the same object file as before in the 1st or because you would overwrite variables needed from the 1st call?

[fedvasu]

Originally Posted by massive_turbulence

What would be wrong with doing this in the second one

fvScalarMatrix pressureEqn
            (
	            fvm::laplacian(rhorAUf, pressure)
	            - fvm::ddt(psi, pressure)
	            ==
                fvOptions(???)
            );

fvOptions.constrain(pressureEqn);

Is it because that would only check the same object file as before in the 1st or because you would overwrite variables needed from the 1st call?

My RHS is not 0 or given through fvOptions.

Anyway it seems, this is a API simplification it seems,
pEqn.solve() will find apply the fvSolution settings for the appropriate variable automatically.

This hasn't affected me at all. (adversley or otherwise).

I would mark this thread solved, if anyone with intimate knowledge of the API can definitively answer this.