output the simulation results cannot be visualized #22
Comments
|
I can't reproduce this error, could you provide more information about the
simulation settings?
wang ***@***.***> 于 2023年12月15日周五 下午2:32写道：
… Thank you very much for your contribution. I encountered an issue while
using the program. I noticed that when using the gridToVTK function to
output the simulation results, the simulated velocity cannot be visualized
in ParaView, while solid and rho have no problems, as shown in the figure
below. I hope to receive your assistance.
82efc61ce2701e8432760c357a464f3.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/151709787/bd486523-ae9d-4f5d-8056-bd12455dafd4>
b9662d0a067461d38d6817be8c7b980.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/151709787/e6df78da-3a7c-4b1f-b079-307a02955877>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#22>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQGQ2YRAT3T4DBS3L3DYJRNPXAVCNFSM6AAAAABAWRG3RGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGA2DGOBTGQZDQMI>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
I have not modified any of your code and ran the example-porous-medium module directly. Following the original code, I set to output a vtk file every 2000 time steps. In this file, I can visualize solid and rho, but I cannot visualize velocity. The specific code is as follows: |
|
Sorry I'm running the script in repo, example_porous_medium.py I got everything fine: what backend are you using? CPU or GPU/CUDA? |
|
Oh, sorry. Because I usually like to use the volume in Paraview to visualize the distribution of the flow field, so I also used volume in this case. I want to know if your code can be used to visualize the flow field distribution with volume. |
|
That's not the job of code, it's the job of paraview or similar
visualization tool. You can use streamline function then visualize the
velocity field. Check paraview mannual for.more.information. The out put
vtr file already contain all informantion for visualization. Just keep in
mind if you want to visual vector field, you need to run the simulation
long enough to get the fully developed field.
wang ***@***.***> 于 2023年12月17日周日 上午8:09写道：
… Oh, sorry. Because I usually like to use the volume in Paraview to
visualize the distribution of the flow field, so I also used volume in this
case. I want to know if your code can be used to visualize the flow field
distribution with volume.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#22 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQGEZDPQ7AR3Q3D36JTYJ2SDZAVCNFSM6AAAAABAWRG3RGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNJZGA3DQMZRGQ>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
thanks |
|
Hello, Professor Yang. I have another question to ask you. When calculating permeability, I applied the following settings: imposing periodic boundary conditions and pressure gradient, with a density of 1 on the left and 0.99 at the outlet. I calculated the permeability using the formula: actual permeability = calculated value * resolution * resolution. However, I obtained a very high permeability. Could you please advise on why this might be happening? I appreciate your guidance |
|
What's your calculated value and resolution?
…On Mon, 25 Dec 2023 at 14:02, wang ***@***.***> wrote:
Hello, Professor Yang. I have another question to ask you. When
calculating permeability, I applied the following settings: imposing
periodic boundary conditions and pressure gradient, with a density of 1 on
the left and 0.99 at the outlet. I calculated the permeability using the
formula: actual permeability = calculated value * resolution * resolution.
However, I obtained a very high permeability. Could you please advise on
why this might be happening? I appreciate your guidance
image.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/151709787/227aeb9b-eaa1-4481-be58-7ecb7c15f56b>
image.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/151709787/b1199554-61c4-4055-ab84-2ef7a4bfd525>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#22 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQBF3E7GHX7NSS72LWDYLGBNZAVCNFSM6AAAAABAWRG3RGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNRYHE4TONZZG4>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
I used your file, the 131131131 image as mentioned in your paper（img_ftb131）, with a permeability of 789md. However, my calculated values are as follows, and they even diverge. When converting the calculated values to actual values, according to the correct conversion relationship (actual permeability = calculated value * resolution * resolution, with a resolution of 7.5 micrometers), the actual permeability is less than 1 square micrometer. In this case, the calculated values are very high. Do I need to make modifications to the original file when using your data, such as changing 255 to 1? |
|
The best way of calculating permeability is to mirror the geometry first
then use periodic boundary conditions, and apply bodyforce in one direction
to replace pressure drop. This will insure the stability of calculation.
You can try above setup and let's see what happens
…On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 at 02:41, wang ***@***.***> wrote:
I used your file, the 131*131*131 image as mentioned in your
paper（img_ftb131）, with a permeability of 789md. However, my calculated
values are as follows, and they even diverge. When converting the
calculated values to actual values, according to the correct conversion
relationship (actual permeability = calculated value * resolution *
resolution, with a resolution of 7.5 micrometers), the actual permeability
is less than 1 square micrometer. In this case, the calculated values are
very high. Do I need to make modifications to the original file when using
your data, such as changing 255 to 1?
image.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/151709787/d2aad065-f323-4007-bc8a-85115701e8bb>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#22 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQDYK7QVT3UU54VU5HTYLI2MVAVCNFSM6AAAAABAWRG3RGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNRZGIYDQOJVG4>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Hello Professor Yang, I'm not quite sure how to mirror the geometry. After switching to volume force driving, the performance has improved a lot, maintaining roughly the same order of magnitude. However, I still haven't been able to perfectly replicate the data in the literature (789md). Additionally, I'm not entirely clear on the meaning of the following line of code and why f/2 is used. I've also included my code below, and I even attempted to calculate the error, but it seems to be incorrect. |
|
I think f/2 comes from the Guo Force term formulation. Sorry I don't have
time to go deep into your code, can only provide personal advice here.
wang ***@***.***> 于 2024年1月1日周一 上午6:51写道：
… Hello Professor Yang,
I'm not quite sure how to mirror the geometry. After switching to volume
force driving, the performance has improved a lot, maintaining roughly the
same order of magnitude. However, I still haven't been able to perfectly
replicate the data in the literature (789md). Additionally, I'm not
entirely clear on the meaning of the following line of code and why f/2 is
used.
1bbea6510704c4eb9709bf065f9bfff.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/151709787/bc93e360-eb4b-4827-9617-af50a821cab9>
I've also included my code below, and I even attempted to calculate the
error, but it seems to be incorrect.
85e6b9f9fc6af36599df91eba09725b.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/151709787/febf8479-2941-40d1-a9c1-13d8c9d9537e>
9b75bcb260aeddf0bf1af30fea0dc1e.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/151709787/f0bba41e-d1fa-47eb-a912-832860cc546b>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#22 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQF4IXZQBUY3J33JYZLYMJMH5AVCNFSM6AAAAABAWRG3RGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZTGE4DSNRWG4>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Thanks for your help |
Thank you very much for your contribution. I encountered an issue while using the program. I noticed that when using the gridToVTK function to output the simulation results, the simulated velocity cannot be visualized in ParaView, while solid and rho have no problems, as shown in the figure below. I hope to receive your assistance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: