Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Problem using -partbegin with periodic boundary conditions
  • Greetings,

    After running DualSPHysics for 40 seconds (let's call this "Run A" ), I am running DualSPHysics again for another 40 seconds (let's call this "Run B") using the last timestep of Run A as the first timestep of Run B via the partbegin option.

    Run A has a TimeOut of 0.1 and TimeMax is 40 seconds, so 400 bi4 files are produced. The directory where the new results for Run B will be stored is declared as a variable ("dircontinue") in the batch script, so DualSPHysics is called as folows:

    %dualsphysics% %dirout%/%name% %dircontinue% -svres -gpu -partbegin:Part_0400 %dirout%

    DualSPHysics gets far enough to show "PartBegin=400" in the output, but after the "Loading initial state of particles..." message, I get an error from JPartsLoad4:

    [Initialising JSphGpuSingle v0.70 07-02-2018 10:57:50]
    PartBegin=400
    PartBeginDir="CaseBoom_out"
    PartBeginFirst=400
    **Basic case configuration is loaded
    **Special case configuration is loaded
    Loading initial state of particles...

    *** Exception (JPartsLoad4::CheckConfig)
    Text: Data file does not match the periodic configuration of the case.


    I have periodic BCs in both the x and the y for both Run A and Run B, which both use the same CaseDef XML. If I turn off the periodic BCs in the CaseDef, Run B does run, but I need the periodic BCs. I'm not sure if this is a bug or user error, but if anyone can provide guidance about how to get past this problem, I would be most grateful.

    -Nick
  • Hi,

    I also had that issue ... as far as I remember there is a bug related to loading cases with X and Y periodics... it was somewhere written in the forum ... but I cant find it right now ... best H
  • That was an error that we tried to solve in v4.2
    Please Nick, can you tell me if the error still appears in the beta version of 4.2

    Alex
  • I ran it in v4.2 (171110 beta) and it works! Many thanks for the code improvements and for suggesting that I run it in the latest version.