part_attenuation plot unclear

[gforney]

Simo,

The part_attenuation case in Verification/Radiation/ runs fine with lates code, and
the verification script processes the results.  But the plot just shows some lines
and the "Reference" in the legend is not shown.  Can you guys take a look at this as
soon as you can?  We are really trying to get all the cases cleaned up and ready for
release.  We need all the developers engaged and running the verification suite daily
at this stage.

Thanks!
Randy

Original issue reported on code.google.com by randy.mcdermott on 2012-03-19 20:16:44

[gforney]

I'm taking a look.

Kevin, I noticed you had assigned SURF_IDs to the two particle groups with no SPEC_ID.
Is this mandatory now? Is the droplet heat transfer/evaporation routine in part going
away completely, or is there some other reason?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by shostikk on 2012-03-20 10:53:04

[gforney]

There are two kinds of particles that do not require a SURF_ID. The first is a liquid
droplet which is indicated by a SPEC_ID. The second is MASSLESS. All others need a
SURF_ID because the logic of processing particles has become too complicated. Now,
all particles with SURF_IDs are processed in the same wall.f90 routines as obstruction
boundaries. Liquid droplets are still processed in part.f90. I would like to process
all vege particles in wall.f90 too.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcgratta on 2012-03-20 12:02:35

[gforney]

OK. Topi will look at the radiation part. The problem must be in the calculation of
abs. and scattering coefficients, now when the particles are not identified as liquid
droplets anymore.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by shostikk on 2012-03-20 12:04:46

[gforney]

This identifies liquid droplets:

LAGRANGIAN_PARTICLE_CLASS(I)%SURF_INDEX==DROPLET_SURF_INDEX

All particles have a SURF_ID. Those that are not explicitly specified are given either
MASSLESS_PARTICLE_SURF_INDEX or DROPLET_SURF_INDEX. This allows us to initialize particles
more easily, without all these IF .. THEN statements.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcgratta on 2012-03-20 12:12:42

[gforney]

The absorption for the reference case has gone up for some reason. The "Reference" points
were drawn outside the figure. Increasing the Max_Dep limit to 21 brings it back to
the Figure.  So as far as I can see this case is working correctly. I'll commit a updater
verification_data_config once I've looked at the other radiation case.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by Topi.Sikanen on 2012-03-22 08:13:05

[gforney]

With absorption going up I ofcourse mean heatflux going up for the reference case.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by Topi.Sikanen on 2012-03-22 08:19:33

[gforney]

This should be OK.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by shostikk on 2012-11-05 07:33:51

[gforney]

(No text was entered with this change)

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcgratta on 2013-02-26 14:54:56