Closed gforney closed 9 years ago
(No text was entered with this change)
Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcgratta
on 2013-01-16 19:52:35
I'll take a look when I get back in the office next week.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by drjfloyd
on 2013-01-16 20:00:04
Something is amiss with how the particle diameter is getting set and that is the root
cause of the behavior.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by drjfloyd
on 2013-01-18 23:20:47
There was an error in getting the diameter when calculating screen drag when material
properties were given. The routine was picking the thickness of the first layer of
the screen wire rather than the total thickness. The strange behavior was a result
of how the size of that first layer varied with the RADIUS or the SPECIFIC HEAT.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by drjfloyd
on 2013-01-21 15:51:43
Reply to email shown below (note in the future please keep communication in the tracker):
The issue is related to how your MATL and SURF input is being processed. The test
case you submitted is isothermal so the MATL and SURF properties (other than the wire
radius) don't have any effect once the bug is fixed.
Until we release either 6 or RC4 delete your PART, SURF, and MATL lines and add:
&RADI RADIATION=.FALSE./
&SPEC ID='LIQUID', DENSITY_LIQUID=1000., VAPORIZATION_TEMPERATURE=3000., HEAT_OF_VAPORIZATION=1.E10,
SPECIFIC_HEAT_LIQUID=10., MELTING_TEMPERATURE=100./
&PART ID='SCREEN',SPEC_ID='LIQUID', DRAG_LAW='SCREEN', FREE_AREA_FRACTION=0.5, STATIC=.TRUE.,
DIAMETER=35560., MONODISPERSE=.TRUE.,ORIENTATION=1,0,0/
The use of a liquid drop avoids the bug and the properties for the liquid will keep
any evaporation from occurring.
Email from OP:
Good Morning Dr. Floyd,
Thank you for your prompt response regarding my issue tracker post (Issue 1816). Would
it be possible to get an updated executable once the fix is implemented? I'm looking
to continue some testing of screens/meshes for a number of models that we have run
previously and would greatly appreciate the chance to keep going on it as soon as I
can.
Thanks for your time.
Best regards,
Original issue reported on code.google.com by drjfloyd
on 2013-01-22 16:33:53
verified that changing cp by factor of 1E3 doesn't change results
Original issue reported on code.google.com by drjfloyd
on 2013-02-26 19:14:31
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
adrianmilford
on 2013-01-16 19:22:11