Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

LOADSLICEM reads pressure zone instead of pressure #1433

Closed
obscureed opened this issue Sep 9, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed

LOADSLICEM reads pressure zone instead of pressure #1433

obscureed opened this issue Sep 9, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@obscureed
Copy link

Here are some steps to recreate a bug in smokeview:
(1) Run the attached FDS model in FDS6.7.9. (This is tunnel0003.fds, renamed as tunnel0003.txt, but I have seen this bug in several models.)
(2) Run the attached smokeview script ("smokeview -script pressures.ssf tunnel0003.smv"). I've renamed pressures.ssf as pressures.txt for transfer.

You can see that the script asks for slices of pressure at z=1.8m then z=1.5m, using two methods: first LOADSLICE, and then LOADSLICEM on each of the three meshes. It is relevant that both PRESSURE and PRESSURE ZONE slices are saved at z=1.8m, but only PRESSURE at z=1.5m. For the LOADSLICEM method at z=1.8m (time 2.0s), the resulting image displays the PRESSURE ZONE results, even though PRESSURE was requested.

tunnel0003.txt

pressures.txt
pres-t0001_LOADSLICE_z1p8
pres-t0002_LOADSLICEM_z1p8
pres-t0003_LOADSLICE_z1p5
pres-t0004_LOADSLICEM_z1p5

@obscureed
Copy link
Author

Maybe I should mention that this bug has been around a long time, but I haven't found time to report it until now. It does get in the way of postprocessing sometimes. The LOADSLICEM option is a useful fallback, particularly when a slice seems to have fragmented (maybe into slightly different values near the specified z-value, for example, with multiple meshes at different resolutions). This behaviour of fragmented slices (where LOADSLICE only selects one fragment) is another bug I haven't reported, but I think you're aware of it already.

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor

gforney commented Sep 9, 2022

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor

gforney commented Sep 9, 2022 via email

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor

gforney commented Sep 14, 2022

did the smokeview I posted fix your issue?

@obscureed
Copy link
Author

I've tried that test version of smokeview, and it works on the test case I posted: the result of the script is four images, all showing pressure results, as requested. So I'll mark this issue as closed. Thanks for your efforts!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants