December 2021 - Nektar-users

Mattermost members exceeded? other alternatives?, Linear multi-step boundary conditions
by Kurt Sansom 22 Jan '22

22 Jan '22

******************* This email originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx to disable email stamping for this address. ******************* Hi nektar++ community, It seems like I can't join the mattermost as the membership is exceeded. What other alternatives should I consider to get feedback about ideas or questions? It seems like the email list gets minimal attention (historically) especially for someone who is peripherally involved? I would like to throw out some ideas every once in a while, but I'm not sure the best place to put them. My current one has to do with implementing time dependent boundary conditions that are a function of the time stepping method. I.e. for a boundary condition that manages a state similar to a time stepping method should it be constrained to the type and kind of time stepping method. For example, if a Linear multistep method such as adams bashforth is employed. Any boundary condition that uses some derived quantity to define the boundary condition could be defined with a similar method or if you use a different method (Backwards finite difference) wouldn't you lose accuracy at the boundary? How does that affect the global solution? Maybe the broader topic is coupling different fidelity models? Because any time dependent boundary condition that uses derived quantities is essentially solving some kind model and applying it at the boundary. Happy random quandaries, Regards, ~Kurt -- Kurt Sansom

2 1

Regarding a PhD position at Coventry University
by Abhishek Kumar 24 Dec '21

24 Dec '21

******************* This email originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx to disable email stamping for this address. ******************* Hello all, I have got a PhD position at Coventry University with the proposed titled "Advanced stability of fusion-relevant liquid metal flows." The project aims to develop an understanding of how the intense magnetic field influences the onset of turbulence in a 180-degree bend. I have briefly discussed the project in the Nektar++ workshop. If you find anyone interested for the position then please share the information. The application deadline is *31 January 2022*. For the details of the project and application procedure, please follow this link: https://www.coventry.ac.uk/research/research-opportunities/research-student… Best wishes to you and a merry Christmas to you and your families. With regards Abhishek -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abhishek Kumar Assistant Professor (Research) Centre for Fluid and Complex Systems Coventry University, Coventry CV15FB The United Kingdom Web: https://sites.google.com/view/abhishekkir ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Periodic boundaries
by Marc Goldbach 23 Dec '21

23 Dec '21

******************* This email originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx to disable email stamping for this address. ******************* Hi All, I am attempting to run a channel flow simulation with 2 sets of periodic boundaries (inlet/outlet and the spanwise boundaries), but am running into issues. When running the solver, I get the following error: Fatal : Level 0 assertion violation Local copy of allCompPairs not the same for all ranks My boundary conditions are defined as follows: <BOUNDARYREGIONS> C[1]  C[2]  C[3]  C[4]  C[5]  C[6]  </BOUNDARYREGIONS> <BOUNDARYCONDITIONS> <REGION REF="0"> </REGION> <REGION REF="1"> </REGION> <REGION REF="2"> </REGION> <REGION REF="3"> </REGION> ... <\BOUNDARYCONDITIONS> The bash script uses the following commands to convert the mesh and run thet solver: NekMesh -m peralign:surf1=1:surf2=2:dir=x -m peralign:surf1=3:surf2=4:dir=y channel.msh channel.xml srun --mpi=pmix_v3 -N $SLURM_NNODES IncNavierStokesSolver -v --use-scotch channel.xml settings.xml Can anyone provide some help on what needs to be done to correct this? The simulation runs without issues when I have only one set of periodic boundaries specified (at the inlet/outlet). Regards, *Marc Goldbach* PhD Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering University of North Carolina at Charlotte

1 0

issue with FieldConvert
by Shukla, Khemraj 06 Dec '21

06 Dec '21

******************* This email originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx to disable email stamping for this address. ******************* Dear All- I was trying to use FieldConvert on chk field to .dat file with range option. It was converting the file but the extracted cube has the same size as the original file. I will really appreciate your help. Thank you very much! Regards Raj

3 3