Matt and All -
It's fixed in the next version. Use the following:
!------- (r_cyl, z)
!
else if (igeomx == 1 .and. igeomy == 0) then
!
if (xyzswp == 1) then
dytb = 0.5e0 / (ytop - ybot)
do i = nzni, nznf
dxtb = x(i)**2 - x(i-1)**2
if ( dxtb /= 0.e0 ) then
avis(i) = (x(i) * u(i) - x(i-1) * u(i-1)) * 2.e0 / dxtb &
+(uttp(i) + uttp(i-1) - utbt(i) - utbt(i-1)) &
*dytb
avis(i) = - cvisc * avis(i) * (x(i) - x(i-1))
end if
enddo
else
do i = nzni, nznf
dxtb = xtop**2 - xbot**2
if ( dxtb /= 0.e0 ) then
avis(i) = (u(i) - u(i-1)) / (x(i) - x(i-1)) &
+( xtop * (uttp(i) + uttp(i-1)) &
-xbot * (utbt(i) + utbt(i-1))) / dxtb
avis(i) = - cvisc * avis(i) * (x(i) - x(i-1))
end if
enddo
end if
Tomek
--- On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 03:47:23PM -0400, Sean Matt wrote: > Hi All, > > We've recently been checking out the 2D cylindrical coordinates in > FLASH for some stellar wind sims, and we have either found a potential > problem or exposed some of our own ignorance. We'm running on Tru64 (OSF1 > V5.1) using a Compaq fortran compiler (V5.5-1877-48BBF). > So for our axisymmetric setup, we set xmin = 0.0 (xmax = 1.0) and > the xl_boundary_type = "reflecting". If we are supposed to use a > different boundary type, then our problem is our fault. When we use the > reflecting boundary, the problem initializes properly (and writes the > first output files) but crashes during the first timestep. It crashes > with and FPE on line 116 of avisco.F90. Below is the code lines around > line 116: > > do i = 5, nzn4+1 > (line 116) avis(i) = (x(i)*u(i) - x(i-1)*u(i-1)) * 2.0 / & > (x(i)**2 - x(i-1)**2) + & > (uttp(i) + uttp(i-1) - utbt(i) - utbt(i-1)) * & > dytb > avis(i) = - cvisc * avis(i) * (x(i) - x(i-1)) > enddo > > We've tracked down the FPE as a divide by zero. Specifically, > (x(i)**2 - x(i-1)**2) will equal zero for i = 5. This is because, with > the reflecting boundary condition, x(5) = dx/2 and x(4) = -dx/2. The > difference of the squares of these equal and opposite #'s is zero. We can > "get around" this crash by setting our xmin to something like 0.001, but > we think the problem should probably be fixed in the source code. > This actually raises the issue of whether the quantity (x(i)**2 - > x(i-1)**2) is the right formulation for the calculation of the > artificially viscocity. We're not sure why the actual numerical value of > the x coordinate should be relevant, since it is arbitrarily set by the > user (e.g., 201**2-200**2 does not equal 2**2-1**2). Perhaps what is > needed is something like the square of the difference, (x(i) - x(i-1))**2, > but since this is a different quantity, this should be looked at with > care, and we don't know the correct formulation. > > -Sean--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 14:51:33 CDT