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

Misc bug fixes & enhancements. #118

Closed
5 tasks done
samoliverowens opened this issue Nov 25, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed
5 tasks done

Misc bug fixes & enhancements. #118

samoliverowens opened this issue Nov 25, 2020 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request pre-processing
Milestone

Comments

@samoliverowens
Copy link
Contributor

samoliverowens commented Nov 25, 2020

  • Make it possible to specify an initial facet temperature in namoptions.

  • Enable more than 3 wall layers (this is currently hard-coded in initfac and modEB).

  • Output facet dT/dz as well as T.

  • Remove upwards-oriented facets in buildings consisting of stacks of blocks.

  • Vertically flip topo & topomask.

@samoliverowens samoliverowens self-assigned this Nov 25, 2020
@samoliverowens samoliverowens added enhancement New feature or request pre-processing labels Nov 25, 2020
@samoliverowens samoliverowens added this to the 0.2.0 milestone Nov 25, 2020
@samoliverowens
Copy link
Contributor Author

samoliverowens commented Nov 27, 2020

* Allow blocks on the edge of the domain when using the energy balance.

@bss116 I realise I should actually discuss this first - the preprocessing currently doesn't allow facets to sit right on the domain edge when using the energy balance, because it causes problems when calculating view factors between them and the bounding walls. My instinct was to just remove this facets on the edge, because I was working with staggered cubes, and it actually makes some sense in this case because then the half-block on one side of the domain is actually touching the one on the other side due to the periodicity in y.

facets 102(cut)

I was worried about what would happen in other cases, but maybe the ibm might not even 'notice' the missing facets, because it operates on blocks? Let me know what you think about effectively permitting blocks with a side missing, at the moment I think I'll just keep this in my branch.

@bss116
Copy link
Contributor

bss116 commented Nov 27, 2020

Hm I don't know. I think you might be right that it is okay for the IBM, I think there the grid cells get the "block" properties, and the facets (i.e. block walls) are only relevant for the boundary conditions (and a flux into a block does not do anything). But I'm really not sure about this, you'd need to check this carefully before changing. If your only concern is the staggered grid, why not just moving the boxes a bit so you don't split them up at all?

@dmey dmey modified the milestones: 0.2.0, 0.1.0 Dec 11, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request pre-processing
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants