Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Wrong title, should read: FDS+Evac, Documentation of EVAC_DT_STEADY_STATE vs
EVAC_DT_MAX
Original comment by charlie....@gmail.com
on 4 Jun 2009 at 7:56
Timo will take a look at this.
Original comment by mcgra...@gmail.com
on 8 Jun 2009 at 11:57
Hi Charlie,
I should explain the different time steps better in the manual. There are two
different time steps for the evacuation. One is for the solution of the "social
force" model human movement equations and the other one is used to couple the
evacuation calculation meshes with the fire meshes and also the different
evacuation
meshes with other evacuation meshes.
See evac.f90: Subroutine EVACUATE_HUMANS(Tin,NM,ICYC)
Below are some lines copied from the source code:
! Inputs:
! Tin: End time, this routine makes the move Tin-DT ==> Tin (DT=FDS dt)
! NM: Mesh index
! ICYC: index of the FDS fire time step
Dt_sum = 0.0_EB
HUMAN_TIME_LOOP: Do While ( Dt_sum < DT )
! DT is the fds flow calculation time step.
! Sometimes agent time step is smaller than the fire time step, so
! syncronize the agent clock correctly.
! Tsteps: Time steps of the agent movement algorithm for different meshes,
! which were calculated at the end of the previous main time step.
! DTSP: The present time step for the agent movement algorithm, which may be
! smaller than the FDS main time step DT.
DTSP = Min( (DT-Dt_sum), Tsteps(nm) )
Dt_sum = Dt_sum + DTSP
T = Tin - DT + Dt_sum ! Current time for the agents
If you have no fire meshes, i.e., just an evacuation calculation, then the
EVAC_DT_STEADY_STATE will be the time step for all the meshes (now you have just
evacuation meshes) in the main routine of FDS (inside the main.f90). The main
routine
will call each evacuation mesh with this DT. But this time step is too large
for the
"social force" model time step, so inside the evac.90 a smaller time step is
used,
and the default for this is EVAC_DT_MAX = 0.01 s. But this is also a quite a
long
time step, and it might be that a smaller one is needed for the human movement
algorithm. Then FDS+Evac will reduce the time step DTSP, but it will not reduce
it
too much, the lower limit is the EVAC_DT_MIN (also on some PERS namelist). Note
that
the communication between different evacuation meshes (usually different
floors) is
done using the "FDS time step DT", which is EVAC_DT_STEADY_STATE if there are
no fire
meshes.
If there are fire meshes, then the time step in main.f90 for the evacuation
meshes is
the shorter one of the EVAC_DT_STEADY_STATE and the FDS time step for the fire
meshes. So, if the FDS fire time step is smaller than the EVAC_DT_STEADY_STATE
then
this smaller DT is used to call the evacuation meshes inside the main time loop
in
the main.f90.
Ciao,
Timo
Original comment by tkorh...@gmail.com
on 16 Jun 2009 at 10:12
Well, this does not affect the release of FSD 5.4.0, so I'll change this issue
to
"OnHold". So, I should rewrite the manual at some point. I have added a
reference to
the start of the LaTeX source of the manual (as commented lines), so I'll
remember
this one. Same for the FLOW_FIELD_ID issue...
TimoK
Original comment by tkorh...@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2009 at 7:40
Thank you for the additional explanation. I *think* I understand well enough.
We'll
see if that feeling survives my trying to explain it to someone else...
Original comment by charlie....@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2009 at 1:33
So, I have started to add these to the FDS+Evac manual. So these will be there
on
some day. But this does not have anything to do with the FDS 5.4 release, so
I'll put
"Milestone-FDS_5.5".
TimoK
Original comment by tkorh...@gmail.com
on 4 Aug 2009 at 9:24
I change this to fixed, because I'm right now
updating the FDS+Evac manual and these are there
already. So the next manual will have these. And
the version in the SVN in a couple of hours.
TimoK
Original comment by tkorh...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2010 at 12:43
Verified by looking at web version of Guide (May 5, 2010).
Original comment by gregor.j...@gmail.com
on 18 Sep 2010 at 9:55
Thanks!
TimoK
Original comment by tkorh...@gmail.com
on 20 Sep 2010 at 11:46
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
charlie....@gmail.com
on 4 Jun 2009 at 7:55