• Skip to main content
  • Skip to search
  • Skip to footer
Cadence Home
  • This search text may be transcribed, used, stored, or accessed by our third-party service providers per our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

  1. Community Forums
  2. OpenLabs
  3. Problems with openLabs

Stats

  • State Verified Answer
  • Replies 12
  • Subscribers 7
  • Views 6917
  • Members are here 0
More Content

Problems with openLabs

sriluta
sriluta over 2 years ago

Hey,

iam using OpenLabs because my inlet boundary conditions change with the time and the azimuth angle in the unsteady Simulation.  So OpenLabs works with SI Units. In the first time, I defined the pressure in bar ( since didn't know that OpenLabs works with SI Units and there the pressure is defined in pascal ). So with the following function implemented in OpenLabs  for the absolut total pressure I didn't got Problems: 

 3.853 + (-0.9863)*cos(tCoord*1.966 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + 0.08183*sin(tCoord*1.966+ 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-0.2735)*cos(tCoord*3.932+ 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + 0.6356*sin(tCoord*3.932+ 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + 0.588*cos(tCoord*5.88 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-0.1489)*sin(tCoord*5.88 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-0.07768)*cos(tCoord*7.864 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-0.2232)*sin(tCoord*7.864 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-0.3242)*cos(tCoord*9.83 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + 0.01536*sin(tCoord*9.83 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + 0.1678*cos(tCoord*11.796+ 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + 0.2214*sin(tCoord*11.796 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + 0.1408*cos(tCoord*13.762 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-0.0754)*sin(tCoord*13.762+ 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-0.1216)*cos(tCoord*15.728 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-0.1922)*sin(tCoord*15.728 + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod)

when I found out that OpenLabs works in SI units, I converted the sizes from bar to pascal and created the new following function: 

390101.438+ (−99956.492)*cos(1.963*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod)+ 9062.116*sin(1.963*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod)+ (−26626.657)*cos(3.927*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod)+63969.754*sin(3.927*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod)+57284.906*cos(5.890*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (−15828.864)*sin(5.890*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (−8525.752)*cos(7.854*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (−21014.003)*sin(7.854*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (−30331.247)*cos(9.817*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod)+2857.566*sin(9.817*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod)+15956.411*cos(11.781*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod)+19562.181*sin(11.781*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod)+11641.815*cos(13.744*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (−6956.443)*sin(13.744*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (−10933.721)*cos(15.708*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (−14834.89)*sin(15.708*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod). 

If I click in OpenLabs at validate labs everything is fine, if I start the Simulation, the Simulation stops from beginning and say there is a problem with OpenLabs. I also defined the functions for the absolut Total Temperature and arctg( Vt/Vz) and there are no Problems but just with the pressure. Now I dont know what to do,

greetings Slight smile

  • Sign in to reply
  • Cancel
Parents
  • Colinda
    0 Colinda over 2 years ago

    Hi

    The expression in Pascal is correct except that "." needs to be removed from the end of the line.

    If that does not work, we need more information:

    Which version are you using? Fidelity 2022.2?

    On which OS version are you running?

    If Linux: which gcc version?

    Please confirm whether you are using line breaks and if so that they are used consistently? Or did you put all in one line?

    What exactly is the error message? Is there more detail in the log?

    Best regards,
    Colinda

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • sriluta
    0 sriluta over 2 years ago in reply to Colinda

    I am now made on an interesting context. When the sizes were given in bar and the coefficients were correspondingly small, there was no error message at all during the simulation. When the function in Pascal and coefficients and numbers became very large the simulation did not run.  Therefore I have thought that it can be because of numbers which are possibly simply too large, but I do not understand why this should be so. For example, I could never exceed the limit of 15 terms, but now I have taken 20 terms. And individual values that are a little larger are reduced and multiplied by 1e1 as you will see in the functions. And now the simulation runs with 20 terms.
    The following 1st function is unprocessed and the 2nd function is processed with 1e1 and does not cause any problems with the simulation: 

    1650.4065 + (-112.848)*cos(1.963*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (4.398)*sin(1.963*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-34.2)*cos(3.927*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (80.262)*sin(3.927*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (69.031)*cos(5.890*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-24.899)*sin(5.890*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-15.064)*cos(7.854*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-23.672)*sin(7.854*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-27.692)*cos(9.817*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (6.149)*sin(9.817*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (15.507)*cos(11.781*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (18.800)*sin(11.781*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (12.292)*cos(13.744*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-7.547)*sin(13.744*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-11.297)*cos(15.708*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-16.009)*sin(15.708*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-7.647)*cos(17.671*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (12.403)*sin(17.671*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (8.697)*cos(19.635*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (7.403)*sin(19.635*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (5.674)*cos(21.598*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-11.008)*sin(21.598*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-8.233)*cos(23.562*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-3.261)*sin(23.562*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-3.985)*cos(25.525*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (8.205)*sin(25.525*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (7.937)*cos(27.489*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (1.267)*sin(27.489*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (0.605)*cos(29.452*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-6.452)*sin(29.452*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-6.257)*cos(31.416*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (0.000)*sin(31.416*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (0.471)*cos(33.379*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (5.023)*sin(33.379*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (4.801)*cos(35.343*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-0.767)*sin(35.343*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-1.866)*cos(37.306*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-3.841)*sin(37.306*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (-2.964)*cos(39.270*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod) + (1.174)*sin(39.270*tCoord + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod)

    1650.4065 + (-11.2848*1e1)*cos(1.963*x) + (4.398)*sin(1.963*x) + (-3.42*1e1)*cos(3.927*x) + (8.0262*1e1)*sin(3.927*x) + (6.9031*1e1)*cos(5.890*x) + (-2.4899*1e1)*sin(5.890*x) + (-15.064)*cos(7.854*x) + (-2.3672*1e1)*sin(7.854*x) + (-2.7692*1e1)*cos(9.817*x) + (6.149)*sin(9.817*x) + (15.507)*cos(11.781*x) + (18.800)*sin(11.781*x) + (12.292)*cos(13.744*x) + (-7.547)*sin(13.744*x) + (-11.297)*cos(15.708*x) + (-16.009)*sin(15.708*x) + (-7.647)*cos(17.671*x) + (12.403)*sin(17.671*x) + (8.697)*cos(19.635*x) + (7.403)*sin(19.635*x) + (5.674)*cos(21.598*x) + (-11.008)*sin(21.598*x) + (-8.233)*cos(23.562*x) + (-3.261)*sin(23.562*x) + (-3.985)*cos(25.525*x) + (8.205)*sin(25.525*x) + (7.937)*cos(2.7489*1e1*x) + (1.267)*sin(2.7489*1e1*x) + (0.605)*cos(29.452*x) + (-6.452)*sin(2.9452*1e1*x) + (-6.257)*cos(3.1416*1e1*x) + (0.000)*sin(3.1416*1e1*x) + (0.471)*cos(3.3379*1e1*x) + (5.023)*sin(3.3379*1e1*x) + (4.801)*cos(35.343*x) + (-0.767)*sin(3.5343*1e1*x) + (-1.866)*cos(3.7306*1e1*x) + (-3.841)*sin(3.7306*1e1*x) + (-2.964)*cos(3.9270*1e1*x) + (1.174)*sin(3.9270*1e1*x)

    You can see what I mean from the color markings. Don't be surprised, I replaced tCoord with x and removed + 2*PI*Time/timePeriod because I wanted to test something in Matlab.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • Colinda
    0 Colinda over 2 years ago in reply to sriluta

    Hi,

    We could not reproduce in Omnis 5.2.
    Could you please send an email to academic-cfd@cadence.com for further investigation?

    Best regards,

    Colinda

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • sriluta
    0 sriluta over 2 years ago in reply to Colinda

    Hey,

    I really dont get it.  I have now restarted the simulation and again taken the function defined in Pascal and there are no more problems. I can even increase the number of terms up to 29 without problems, the only thing that has changed from yesterday to today, the restart of the laptop :D. Yesterday, however, the method mentioned above was the only possible one, maybe the whole thing is due to the fact that the functions are so long, however, it still does not make sense....

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • Dianliang
    0 Dianliang over 2 years ago in reply to sriluta

    Hi, 

    OMNIS allows long expression. The problem is not due to the expression but something else. Next time, if you encounter the same issue, you can check the log file located in the folder _openlabs under the simulation directory.

    Regards,

    Dianliang

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +1 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • sriluta
    0 sriluta over 2 years ago in reply to Dianliang

    ah good to know thx,  one last thing would be, in the analysis context I can see the name of the boundary condition I want to modify. For example: "absoluteTotalTemperature", to write in OpenLabs the command ExistingBc, so in the tutorial of fineOpen there is written Inlet too, is that necessary ? ->ExistingBC: "absoluteTotalPressure", Inlet

    otherwise how can I keep the memory of the simulation smaller or reduce it. Maybe under Simulation/Control -> output Solution every ... time Steps ? 

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • Dianliang
    +1 Dianliang over 2 years ago in reply to sriluta

    You must  provide the information of the boundary that will be customized. Otherwise, OpenLabs cannot know which boundary needs to be changed.

    The "Inlet" in FineOpen tutorial is the name of the boundary.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +2 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Reject Answer
    • Cancel
Reply
  • Dianliang
    +1 Dianliang over 2 years ago in reply to sriluta

    You must  provide the information of the boundary that will be customized. Otherwise, OpenLabs cannot know which boundary needs to be changed.

    The "Inlet" in FineOpen tutorial is the name of the boundary.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +2 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Reject Answer
    • Cancel
Children
  • sriluta
    0 sriluta over 2 years ago in reply to Dianliang

    thx for your response, ah okay not only the boundary condition needs to be named, the boundary too. I want to modify the absolute total pressure and absolut total temperature at the inlet too, therefore i will use the name of the boundary conditions and the boundary inlet too, thx

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
Cadence Guidelines

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.

© 2025 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Cookie Policy
  • US Trademarks
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information