December 2014 - Nektar-users

3D cases and tetrahedrons/prisms
by Kilian Lackhove 20 Dec '14

20 Dec '14

Hi, i cant get Nektar++ to work with 3D meshes containing tetrahedrons or any other 3D elements with triangular faces. The problem occurs when the local base vertex is the vertex with the largest angle. I first suspected a bug in the APESolver but noticed that the problem occurs with the NavierStokesCFE system as well. The ADRSolver is not affected as far as i can tell. I appended four test cases to demonstrate the problem. Two APE cases with two prismatic elements with the local base vertex in the right angle vertex (APE_3DChannel_1LPrismX_laxFri.xml) and in the 45° angle vertex (APE_3DChannel_1SPrismX_laxFri.xml). The two ther cases use the NavierStokesCFE equations on hexahedrons and prisms. Is there something wrong with my cases setup or is this something that isnt working in nektar++? Cheers, Kilian -- Kilian Lackhove, M.Sc. Fachgebiet für Energie- und Kraftwerkstechnik L1|08 114 Technische Universität Darmstadt Jovanka-Bontschits-Straße 2 D-64287 Darmstadt Germany Tel.: +49 6151 16 - 5186 Fax: +49 6151 16 - 6555 e-mail: lackhove(a)ekt.tu-darmstadt.de

2 3

Noise parameter
by Cuneyt Sert 13 Dec '14

13 Dec '14

Dear Nektar users, Is the noise parameter used in Nektar the same as the classical turbulence intensity (http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Turbulence_intensity)? In Nektar's user guide it says that the noise parameter affects the velocity initial conditions. But we typically need to provide turbulence intensity at the inlets. Does this parameter remain effective at the inlets throughout an unsteady run? Thanks in advance. C. Sert

2 1

Error when compiling Nektar with Blas and Lapack
by Kamil ÖZDEN 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Dear All, I'm trying to install Nektar++ 4.0 to a cluster with the options *NEKTAR_USE_BLAS_LAPACK ON ** ** NEKTAR_USE_SYSTEM_BLAS_LAPACK ON** * with the path of the libraries as follows: * NATIVE_BLAS /truba/sw/centos6.4/lib/blas/netlib-gcc/blas_LINUX.a ** ** NATIVE_LAPACK /truba/sw/centos6.4/lib/lapack/netlib-3.5.0-gcc/liblapack.a * However, I'm getting the following error: *Linking CXX shared library libLibUtilities.so** **/usr/bin/ld: /truba/sw/centos6.4/lib/lapack/netlib-3.5.0-gcc/liblapack.a(dgbtrf.o): relocation R_X86_64_32 against `.rodata' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC** **/truba/sw/centos6.4/lib/lapack/netlib-3.5.0-gcc/liblapack.a: could not read symbols: Bad value** **collect2: ld returned 1 exit status** **make[2]: *** [library/LibUtilities/libLibUtilities.so.4.0.0] Error 1** **make[1]: *** [library/LibUtilities/CMakeFiles/LibUtilities.dir/all] Error 2** **make: *** [all] Error 2* What may be the reason for this problem and how can I solve it? Regards, Kamil

5 22

Peer review of master merge request
by Sherwin, Spencer J 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

Hi, Chris, Dave and I have been exploring ways of improving our master merging process. We are going to test a peer review process where we send out requests to a couple of users to look over the code of a given request. We are going use the gitlab page to keep a record of this process so it is important to put all comments in the “Discussion” tab at the bottom of the merge request. Could I therefore ask you to check: 1) The branch has a recent merge with master 2) The branch passes buildbot 3) The branch meets the coding standard 4) To best of your knowledge, the functionality is not duplicated in the rest of the code and hopefully implemented in a sensible manner If the author needs to update the code at any of these stages then a comment should be added to the discussion tab, the author will then get a notification (as will the assignees and reviewers). When the author has responded to the points raised by the reviewer, he/she will also put a comment in the discussion tab and again all participants will be notified. For individual comment on lines of codes please note there is a way of adding a local comment by clicking on the “+” sign under the changes tab. When the reviewing process is finished the reviewer should put an entry into the discussion that states the review is complete. The assigned “editor” (i.e. Dave, Chris or I) will then get a notification that it is complete and hopefully follow up quickly. Many thanks, Spencer. Spencer Sherwin McLaren Racing/Royal Academy of Engineering Research Chair, Professor of Computational Fluid Mechanics, Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College London South Kensington Campus London SW7 2AZ s.sherwin(a)imperial.ac.uk +44 (0) 20 759 45052

1 0