fds-smv - Project Hosting on Google Code

Today 4 min ago issue 939 (Bug with &INIT creating non-physical flow conditions) Status changed by mcgratta - I wish it were relatively straightforward. It's not. There are a number of very difficult issues here -- pressure solver, molecular diffusion, unresolved gradients, and so forth. I just fixed one problem -- the VOLUME FRACTION was initially 0.25 because the converter from MASS to VOLUME FRACTION had not been initialized at time t=0. It is done in the first time step. This just affects the output for the first frame in Smokeview. Easy fix. For the pressure problem, I set DT-0.001 on the TIME line and this allows the pressure field to iterate more quickly to what it should be. The temperature deviation is lessened somewhat by removing DNS=.TRUE. Your cells are 1 cm, so DNS isn't really appropriate and the initial infinitely steep gradient causes some trouble. It might lessen over time. Those Leonard-Jones potential parameters may not be appropriate either without DNS. I will put this issue On Hold. Some of these problems may not be resolved until FDS 6. Status: OnHold I wish it were relatively straightforward. It's not. There are a number of very difficult issues here -- pressure solver, molecular diffusion, unresolved gradients, and so forth. I just fixed one problem -- the VOLUME FRACTION was initially 0.25 because the converter from MASS to VOLUME FRACTION had not been initialized at time t=0. It is done in the first time step. This just affects the output for the first frame in Smokeview. Easy fix. For the pressure problem, I set DT-0.001 on the TIME line and this allows the pressure field to iterate more quickly to what it should be. The temperature deviation is lessened somewhat by removing DNS=.TRUE. Your cells are 1 cm, so DNS isn't really appropriate and the initial infinitely steep gradient causes some trouble. It might lessen over time. Those Leonard-Jones potential parameters may not be appropriate either without DNS. I will put this issue On Hold. Some of these problems may not be resolved until FDS 6. Status: OnHold 38 min ago issue 948 (slice file in Smokeview) commented on by bganeshu48 - I ran the simulation in my windows desktop too. I still have the same problem. The isosurface on the other hand works fine. There is only a problem with the slice file. I ran the simulation in my windows desktop too. I still have the same problem. The isosurface on the other hand works fine. There is only a problem with the slice file. 54 min ago issue 948 (slice file in Smokeview) commented on by bganeshu48 - Ya. I run the simulation in high performance computer (hpc) linux cluster and then copy the smokeview in my windows desktop. Ya. I run the simulation in high performance computer (hpc) linux cluster and then copy the smokeview in my windows desktop. 59 min ago r5148 (FDS Source: Issue 939. Initialize RSUM to handle cases where...) committed by mcgratta - FDS Source: Issue 939. Initialize RSUM to handle cases where INIT is used for species. FDS Source: Issue 939. Initialize RSUM to handle cases where INIT is used for species. 60 min ago issue 948 (slice file in Smokeview) commented on by gforney - The slice file also worked for me. When I ran your case, the slice file size was 7.685MB not 3.1MB. Somehow your slice file got corrupted. Did you run it somewhere else and copy the files back to the computer where you run smokeview? Try re-running your case. The slice file also worked for me. When I ran your case, the slice file size was 7.685MB not 3.1MB. Somehow your slice file got corrupted. Did you run it somewhere else and copy the files back to the computer where you run smokeview? Try re-running your case. 73 min ago issue 948 (slice file in Smokeview) commented on by bganeshu48 - I have 2 GB of RAM and 2.99 Ghz processor I have 2 GB of RAM and 2.99 Ghz processor 90 min ago issue 948 (slice file in Smokeview) commented on by gforney - how much memory does your computer have? how much memory does your computer have? 95 min ago issue 948 (slice file in Smokeview) commented on by bganeshu48 - I am sorry for uploading large files. I use Smokeview version 5.4.6. The problem occurs whenever I click on the load slice file. I am sorry for uploading large files. I use Smokeview version 5.4.6. The problem occurs whenever I click on the load slice file. 100 min ago issue 948 (slice file in Smokeview) changed by mcgratta - The slice file worked for me. What version of Smokeview are you using? Does this problem occur each time you try to load the slice? PS Do not upload large files. Status: MoreInfo Owner: gforney The slice file worked for me. What version of Smokeview are you using? Does this problem occur each time you try to load the slice? PS Do not upload large files. Status: MoreInfo Owner: gforney 108 min ago issue 948 (slice file in Smokeview) reported by bganeshu48 - Please complete the following lines... Application Version: SVN Revision Number: Compile Date: Operating System: Windows XP Describe details of the issue below: I am attaching the input file, smokeview file and the slice file. I am not able to view the slice file in smokeview. I get an error message telling "smokeview.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience." Thanks in advance for your help. Please complete the following lines... Application Version: SVN Revision Number: Compile Date: Operating System: Windows XP Describe details of the issue below: I am attaching the input file, smokeview file and the slice file. I am not able to view the slice file in smokeview. I get an error message telling "smokeview.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience." Thanks in advance for your help. 2 hours ago issue 919 (modify unit string for DEVC) commented on by mcgratta - Nice -- yes, I prefer m3 over m^3 because that is one less character that Smokeview must write out. Plus, who knows if in some other language the ^ sign will cause trouble. Nice -- yes, I prefer m3 over m^3 because that is one less character that Smokeview must write out. Plus, who knows if in some other language the ^ sign will cause trouble. 2 hours ago issue 919 (modify unit string for DEVC) Status changed by drjfloyd - Thanks. Hadn't looked all the way through the QUANTITY list to see in some cases we did m3 and in some cases m^3. I notice you chose m3 over m^3 is that your true preference? I added a verification case to the Miscellaneous called unittest.fds. Does each of the statistics (TIME (with kW and with /s), VOLUME, AREA, and SURFACE). Status: Verified Thanks. Hadn't looked all the way through the QUANTITY list to see in some cases we did m3 and in some cases m^3. I notice you chose m3 over m^3 is that your true preference? I added a verification case to the Miscellaneous called unittest.fds. Does each of the statistics (TIME (with kW and with /s), VOLUME, AREA, and SURFACE). Status: Verified 2 hours ago r5147 (FDS Source: Verification case for unit changes Issue #919) committed by drjfloyd - FDS Source: Verification case for unit changes Issue #919 FDS Source: Verification case for unit changes Issue #919 2 hours ago issue 944 (FDS5 runs fine, but adding EVAC stuff does not - need assist...) commented on by USFireMa...@EarthLink.NET - "no exe for "MPI FDS version 5.4.2 SVN 5140". So you should compile it" Ever watch the act by Abbot and Costello called "Who's on First?", well I feel like the first-baseman's wife who is there to pick up her husband's paycheck ("what is the name of your husband"... "Who"... "your husband"..."yes, what about him. I'm here to pick up his paycheck"..."fine then, what is his name"..."Who"... "your husband"..."yes, what about him. I'm here to pick up his paycheck".........) - actually this paragraph is just a joke, nothing here meant to be insulting, only expressing my frustration. Well, see Comment No.5 above, my reply No.2 regarding wether I actually "should compile it" (with my knowledge base on compiling it's be a really good way to crash my system, heh, heh). All kidding aside, I really appreciate the hard work I know you guys are doing and I'll look forward to the maintenance release for the 32bit mpi version and just play it safe (that's what my main fire modeling XP computer uses anyway). As far as waiting for a 64bit mpi version, no problems as that is for my Vista64 laptop which I mainly use to show the models once completed on the XP machine (laptop is mainly used: to show client/AHJ the smoke control system; to take to court/district attorney/fire investigator to show the crime scene reconstruction in arson cases; to use in my classroom instructions; etc.). BatGirl "no exe for "MPI FDS version 5.4.2 SVN 5140". So you should compile it" Ever watch the act by Abbot and Costello called "Who's on First?", well I feel like the first-baseman's wife who is there to pick up her husband's paycheck ("what is the name of your husband"... "Who"... "your husband"..."yes, what about him. I'm here to pick up his paycheck"..."fine then, what is his name"..."Who"... "your husband"..."yes, what about him. I'm here to pick up his paycheck".........) - actually this paragraph is just a joke, nothing here meant to be insulting, only expressing my frustration. Well, see Comment No.5 above, my reply No.2 regarding wether I actually "should compile it" (with my knowledge base on compiling it's be a really good way to crash my system, heh, heh). All kidding aside, I really appreciate the hard work I know you guys are doing and I'll look forward to the maintenance release for the 32bit mpi version and just play it safe (that's what my main fire modeling XP computer uses anyway). As far as waiting for a 64bit mpi version, no problems as that is for my Vista64 laptop which I mainly use to show the models once completed on the XP machine (laptop is mainly used: to show client/AHJ the smoke control system; to take to court/district attorney/fire investigator to show the crime scene reconstruction in arson cases; to use in my classroom instructions; etc.). BatGirl 2 hours ago issue 947 (MATL HoC ) commented on by mcgratta - Good idea. I added the comment to the FDS User's Guide section that discusses this file. Our discussion here is searchable via the FDS home page. Good idea. I added the comment to the FDS User's Guide section that discusses this file. Our discussion here is searchable via the FDS home page. 2 hours ago r5146 (FDS User Guide: Include comment that BURN_RATE in _hrr.csv f...) committed by mcgratta - FDS User Guide: Include comment that BURN_RATE in _hrr.csv file is the non-adjusted value. FDS User Guide: Include comment that BURN_RATE in _hrr.csv file is the non-adjusted value. 2 hours ago r5145 (FDS Verification: Modify water_evaporation case to exploit n...) committed by mcgratta - FDS Verification: Modify water_evaporation case to exploit new UNIT selecting feature. FDS Verification: Modify water_evaporation case to exploit new UNIT selecting feature. 2 hours ago issue 919 (modify unit string for DEVC) commented on by mcgratta - I committed the fixes. Try your test case again to make sure I didn't break something. Run in debug mode to make sure all is well. I used water_evaporation.fds as the test case. You might want to try another. If all is well, mark as Verified. Thanks. K I committed the fixes. Try your test case again to make sure I didn't break something. Run in debug mode to make sure all is well. I used water_evaporation.fds as the test case. You might want to try another. If all is well, mark as Verified. Thanks. K 2 hours ago r5144 (FDS Source: Issue 919. Fix a few bugs in UNIT selecting rout...) committed by mcgratta - FDS Source: Issue 919 . Fix a few bugs in UNIT selecting routine. FDS Source: Issue 919 . Fix a few bugs in UNIT selecting routine. 3 hours ago issue 939 (Bug with &INIT creating non-physical flow conditions) commented on by williamson.justin.wade - I must admit that I am a bit confused by your decision to ignore this issue. As I see it, this is a simple Verification exercise for the &INIT group. If the function cannot pass a simple verification test, then it is broken and needs to be either fixed or removed. The initial instability is quite large in the case that I originally posted. The temperature changes from 20C to 6-60C in a single time step purely based on the weakness of the pressure initialization. Do you find this acceptable in a scenario with no energy generation or heat transfer? As I see it, there is a relatively straightforward way to solve the issue. The initial pressure field (t=0) does not recognize the initial density field. The pressure solver needs to be invoked during the initialization process for a static (constant velocity, since you can also specify U0, V0, and W0) fluid. That way the pressure at t=0 is roughly the same as at the first time step. This should greatly reduce the instability that is produced at the first time step. I must admit that I am a bit confused by your decision to ignore this issue. As I see it, this is a simple Verification exercise for the &INIT group. If the function cannot pass a simple verification test, then it is broken and needs to be either fixed or removed. The initial instability is quite large in the case that I originally posted. The temperature changes from 20C to 6-60C in a single time step purely based on the weakness of the pressure initialization. Do you find this acceptable in a scenario with no energy generation or heat transfer? As I see it, there is a relatively straightforward way to solve the issue. The initial pressure field (t=0) does not recognize the initial density field. The pressure solver needs to be invoked during the initialization process for a static (constant velocity, since you can also specify U0, V0, and W0) fluid. That way the pressure at t=0 is roughly the same as at the first time step. This should greatly reduce the instability that is produced at the first time step. 4 hours ago issue 919 (modify unit string for DEVC) commented on by mcgratta - There are a few minor bugs I found while verifying this. If you also find, hold off until I commit. K There are a few minor bugs I found while verifying this. If you also find, hold off until I commit. K 4 hours ago issue 944 (FDS5 runs fine, but adding EVAC stuff does not - need assist...) commented on by tkorhon1 - Well, there is no exe for "MPI FDS version 5.4.2 SVN 5140". So you should compile it. Kevin is probably making a maintenance release (fds 5.4.3?) during this week, so that will have the MPI exe. I'm not going to compile a win64 version. I should update my compiler before. I got a new one last week, but haven't had time to install it yet. TimoK Well, there is no exe for "MPI FDS version 5.4.2 SVN 5140". So you should compile it. Kevin is probably making a maintenance release (fds 5.4.3?) during this week, so that will have the MPI exe. I'm not going to compile a win64 version. I should update my compiler before. I got a new one last week, but haven't had time to install it yet. TimoK 4 hours ago issue 919 (modify unit string for DEVC) changed by drjfloyd - Added a CHANGE_UNITS function to func.f90. It will modify the DV%UNIT string to change units when an integral statistic is chosen. It will cease execution if an inappropriate integral method is chosen (e.g. a time integral for a quantity that is not a rate) Status: Fixed Labels: OpSys-All Added a CHANGE_UNITS function to func.f90. It will modify the DV%UNIT string to change units when an integral statistic is chosen. It will cease execution if an inappropriate integral method is chosen (e.g. a time integral for a quantity that is not a rate) Status: Fixed Labels: OpSys-All 4 hours ago r5143 (FDS Source: Add logic to change DEVC%UNITS when a STATISTICS...) committed by drjfloyd - FDS Source: Add logic to change DEVC%UNITS when a STATISTICS is used. Will stop execution if an inappropriate STATISISTIC is chose (e.g. TIME INTEGRAL when QUANTITY isn't a rate) FDS Source: Add logic to change DEVC%UNITS when a STATISTICS is used. Will stop execution if an inappropriate STATISISTIC is chose (e.g. TIME INTEGRAL when QUANTITY isn't a rate) 4 hours ago r5142 (FDS Source: removed a debug write) committed by drjfloyd - FDS Source: removed a debug write FDS Source: removed a debug write 5 hours ago issue 944 (FDS5 runs fine, but adding EVAC stuff does not - need assist...) commented on by USFireMa...@EarthLink.NET - Is there a downloadable exe for "MPI FDS version 5.4.2 SVN 5140" or must one compile it? Is there a downloadable exe for "MPI FDS version 5.4.2 SVN 5140" or must one compile it? 5 hours ago r5141 (smokeview: update devices.svo) committed by gforney - smokeview: update devices.svo smokeview: update devices.svo 10 hours ago issue 907 (Bugs during calculation of vent flow direction) commented on by deyviii - Sorry for the delay, please give me few more days to answer. Sorry for the delay, please give me few more days to answer. 10 hours ago issue 907 (Bugs during calculation of vent flow direction) commented on by deyviii - Sorry for the delay, please give me few more days to answer. Sorry for the delay, please give me few more days to answer. 11 hours ago issue 944 (FDS5 runs fine, but adding EVAC stuff does not - need assist...) commented on by tkorhon1 - MPI FDS version 5.4.2 SVN 5140 seems to be running my own example case for fire+evac nicely (well on win32 at least). TimoK MPI FDS version 5.4.2 SVN 5140 seems to be running my own example case for fire+evac nicely (well on win32 at least). TimoK 11 hours ago r5140 (FDS Source: Added "T(NM)" to COMPUTE_RADIATION(T(NM),NM) in ...) committed by tkorhon1 - FDS Source: Added "T(NM)" to COMPUTE_RADIATION(T(NM),NM) in main_mpi.f90, because someone has added it to main.f90. FDS Source: Added "T(NM)" to COMPUTE_RADIATION(T(NM),NM) in main_mpi.f90, because someone has added it to main.f90. 11 hours ago issue 942 (Extinction criteria in fire.f90) commented on by nish...@mech.nagaokaut.ac.jp - Thanks, Kevin. I am interested in extinction criteria now, and I wanted to modify fig3.4 by myself. Anyway, new approach by combustion_mf2 is absorbing me too. Thanks, Kevin. I am interested in extinction criteria now, and I wanted to modify fig3.4 by myself. Anyway, new approach by combustion_mf2 is absorbing me too. 20 hours ago r5139 (FDS Validation Guide: Error Chapter edits.) committed by mcgratta - FDS Validation Guide: Error Chapter edits. FDS Validation Guide: Error Chapter edits. 20 hours ago issue 947 (MATL HoC ) commented on by giacomo....@libero.it - Dear Kevin, Let me thank you for your reply. Just a few comments. My question rised from FDS User's Guide (pag. 184) which tells that BURN_RATE is the "total mass loss rate of fuel". As the HoC value on the MATL line is used to adjust the fuel mass loss rate external to the pyrolysis model and as only one fuel is allowed in the gas phase, I expected the BURN_RATE column to report the adjusted mass loss rate. Thanks again for your answer, very interesting. I think that other FDS user may take advantage of it; I suggest it should be somewhere in the Discussion Area. Dear Kevin, Let me thank you for your reply. Just a few comments. My question rised from FDS User's Guide (pag. 184) which tells that BURN_RATE is the "total mass loss rate of fuel". As the HoC value on the MATL line is used to adjust the fuel mass loss rate external to the pyrolysis model and as only one fuel is allowed in the gas phase, I expected the BURN_RATE column to report the adjusted mass loss rate. Thanks again for your answer, very interesting. I think that other FDS user may take advantage of it; I suggest it should be somewhere in the Discussion Area. 21 hours ago FDS_Release_Notes (Release Notes for Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS)) Wiki page edited by drjfloyd - Revision r5138 Edited wiki page through web user interface. Revision r5138 Edited wiki page through web user interface. 21 hours ago r5137 (FDS Documentation: Add DEVC_ID to RAMP) committed by drjfloyd - FDS Documentation: Add DEVC_ID to RAMP FDS Documentation: Add DEVC_ID to RAMP 21 hours ago r5136 (FDS Source: Enable use of DEVC_ID for a RAMP. Replaces norm...) committed by drjfloyd - FDS Source: Enable use of DEVC_ID for a RAMP. Replaces normal independent variable for the RAMP with the output of the DEVC. FDS Source: Enable use of DEVC_ID for a RAMP. Replaces normal independent variable for the RAMP with the output of the DEVC. 21 hours ago issue 947 (MATL HoC ) Status changed by mcgratta - I believe the model is working properly. In both cases (with and without HoC on the MATL line) the gas phase reaction is propane (the default) with an HoC of 47281 kJ/kg (this is found in the .out file). If HoC is not specified on the MATL line, then FDS assumes that the fuel gas from the burning PMMA is propane and the HRR=mdot47281. If HoC is specified, it assumes that the fuel gas from the burning PMMA has an HoC of 25200 kJ/kg and the HRR=mdot25200. The reported BURN_RATE in the _hrr.csv file is the actual burning rate of the solid PMMA. The adjustment that is made to the mass loss rate to account for the different HoC is not applied to the BURN_RATE that is printed out. It is a somewhat arbitrary decision to report the non-adjusted burn rate. We do it because if you are testing your pyrolysis model, we want the reported burn rate to be indicative of the material properties, not the HoC. Status: WontFix I believe the model is working properly. In both cases (with and without HoC on the MATL line) the gas phase reaction is propane (the default) with an HoC of 47281 kJ/kg (this is found in the .out file). If HoC is not specified on the MATL line, then FDS assumes that the fuel gas from the burning PMMA is propane and the HRR=mdot47281. If HoC is specified, it assumes that the fuel gas from the burning PMMA has an HoC of 25200 kJ/kg and the HRR=mdot25200. The reported BURN_RATE in the _hrr.csv file is the actual burning rate of the solid PMMA. The adjustment that is made to the mass loss rate to account for the different HoC is not applied to the BURN_RATE that is printed out. It is a somewhat arbitrary decision to report the non-adjusted burn rate. We do it because if you are testing your pyrolysis model, we want the reported burn rate to be indicative of the material properties, not the HoC. Status: WontFix 22 hours ago issue 939 (Bug with &INIT creating non-physical flow conditions) Status changed by mcgratta - I do not believe that what you are seeing has to do with the equation of state. Given that p = rhoTR/W p and T (and R) can remain the same and rho and W can change. I think what you are seeing has to do with the pressure solver. Do the following -- add VECTOR=.TRUE. to one of the SLCF lines. Remove the OPEN boundary lines except for the one at the top. Run the case. In Smokeview Alt-V to get an isometric view, load a vector slice of VOLUME FRACTION. Initially, you should see flow going down the pipe, and up through the top of the tank. This is not physical, but that is a limitation of the pressure solver -- solid boundaries are not completely solid except for external solid boundaries. So there is an initial "leaking" from the tank allowing air to flow down. This phenomena is something we have to live with to solve the pressure as fast as we do. If you see anything else, let me know. Status: WontFix I do not believe that what you are seeing has to do with the equation of state. Given that p = rhoTR/W p and T (and R) can remain the same and rho and W can change. I think what you are seeing has to do with the pressure solver. Do the following -- add VECTOR=.TRUE. to one of the SLCF lines. Remove the OPEN boundary lines except for the one at the top. Run the case. In Smokeview Alt-V to get an isometric view, load a vector slice of VOLUME FRACTION. Initially, you should see flow going down the pipe, and up through the top of the tank. This is not physical, but that is a limitation of the pressure solver -- solid boundaries are not completely solid except for external solid boundaries. So there is an initial "leaking" from the tank allowing air to flow down. This phenomena is something we have to live with to solve the pressure as fast as we do. If you see anything else, let me know. Status: WontFix 22 hours ago issue 947 (MATL HoC ) changed by mcgratta - I'll take a look at it. Status: Accepted Owner: mcgratta I'll take a look at it. Status: Accepted Owner: mcgratta 22 hours ago r5135 (smokeview: update devices.svo with examples of new file form...) committed by gforney - smokeview: update devices.svo with examples of new file format/syntax smokeview: update devices.svo with examples of new file format/syntax 23 hours ago issue 947 (MATL HoC ) reported by giacomo....@libero.it - Please complete the following lines... Application Version: 5.4.2 SVN Revision Number: 4957 Compile Date: 10 19 2009 Operating System: Windows XP Describe details of the issue below: I am running a case with an EXTERNAL FLUX applied to a VENT as I am interested in verifying the consequences of prescribing a HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION on a MATL line. I attach the corresponding input file; it has been run with and without adding the MATL HoC. In the case HoC is not prescribed, no REAC has been defined, meaning that the default reaction has been considered. I attach some graphs showing the burning rate of the solid surface (CHID_devc.csv) and the heat release rate and the burn rate (CHID_hrr.csv): HRR is lower in the case a MATL HoC is prescribed (25200 kJ kg-1) but the burn rate looks very similar. Please complete the following lines... Application Version: 5.4.2 SVN Revision Number: 4957 Compile Date: 10 19 2009 Operating System: Windows XP Describe details of the issue below: I am running a case with an EXTERNAL FLUX applied to a VENT as I am interested in verifying the consequences of prescribing a HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION on a MATL line. I attach the corresponding input file; it has been run with and without adding the MATL HoC. In the case HoC is not prescribed, no REAC has been defined, meaning that the default reaction has been considered. I attach some graphs showing the burning rate of the solid surface (CHID_devc.csv) and the heat release rate and the burn rate (CHID_hrr.csv): HRR is lower in the case a MATL HoC is prescribed (25200 kJ kg-1) but the burn rate looks very similar. 23 hours ago issue 942 (Extinction criteria in fire.f90) Status changed by mcgratta - I changed the critical flame temperature expression to use 20 C rather than the ambient temperature. We might eventually replace this routine, but it is easy enough to make the fix. Thanks. Status: Fixed I changed the critical flame temperature expression to use 20 C rather than the ambient temperature. We might eventually replace this routine, but it is easy enough to make the fix. Thanks. Status: Fixed 23 hours ago issue 945 (Dry oxygen) Status changed by drjfloyd - verified. Thanks. Status: Verified verified. Thanks. Status: Verified 23 hours ago r5134 (FDS Source: Issue 942. Use 20+273.15 C rather than TMPA in c...) committed by mcgratta - FDS Source: Issue 942. Use 20+273.15 C rather than TMPA in critical flame temperature routine. FDS Source: Issue 942. Use 20+273.15 C rather than TMPA in critical flame temperature routine. 23 hours ago issue 940 (Changing Heat of Vaporization for water affects Relative Hum...) changed by drjfloyd - The fixed value of H_V in establishing the HUMIDITY has been replaced with the HUMIDITY values that results from the JANAF tables for liquid water and water vapor. The resulting equilibrium vapor fractions are within a few % of the values given by the Goff-Gratch equation used by WMO. Note that in FDS5.5 you should no longer specify H_V and other properties for water evaporation as those properties (and properties for a number of other liquids) are now built into FDS in using temperature dependent tables. Status: Fixed Labels: OpSys-All Application-FDS The fixed value of H_V in establishing the HUMIDITY has been replaced with the HUMIDITY values that results from the JANAF tables for liquid water and water vapor. The resulting equilibrium vapor fractions are within a few % of the values given by the Goff-Gratch equation used by WMO. Note that in FDS5.5 you should no longer specify H_V and other properties for water evaporation as those properties (and properties for a number of other liquids) are now built into FDS in using temperature dependent tables. Status: Fixed Labels: OpSys-All Application-FDS 23 hours ago issue 945 (Dry oxygen) commented on by jukka.va...@vtt.fi - That's fine. My test case was intense in the sense that the HRR to volume ratio was about 22 kW/m3. I made further tests by setting the HRR to a very low value and placing a hot plate above the fire so that most of the vapor was due to drops boiling on the plate. Again, relative humidity went up to 300 %. With a lower HRR to volume ratio and an obstucted fire, it is expected that the error due to no condensation in terms of absolute gas concentrations gets smaller. You can mark this as verified. Thanks. That's fine. My test case was intense in the sense that the HRR to volume ratio was about 22 kW/m3. I made further tests by setting the HRR to a very low value and placing a hot plate above the fire so that most of the vapor was due to drops boiling on the plate. Again, relative humidity went up to 300 %. With a lower HRR to volume ratio and an obstucted fire, it is expected that the error due to no condensation in terms of absolute gas concentrations gets smaller. You can mark this as verified. Thanks. 23 hours ago r5133 (FDS Source: Issue #940. Change fixed H_V in the HUMIDTY cal...) committed by drjfloyd - FDS Source: Issue #940. Change fixed H_V in the HUMIDTY calc to use the JANAF temperature dependent H_V. Apply to both dump.f90 and read.f90 FDS Source: Issue #940. Change fixed H_V in the HUMIDTY calc to use the JANAF temperature dependent H_V. Apply to both dump.f90 and read.f90 23 hours ago r5132 (FDS Validation Guide: Edits to Error Chapter.) committed by mcgratta - FDS Validation Guide: Edits to Error Chapter. FDS Validation Guide: Edits to Error Chapter. 23 hours ago issue 945 (Dry oxygen) changed by drjfloyd - looked some more into #2. The > 100 % appears solely due to not doing condensation. Drops are not evaporating in regions where the atmosphere is saturated. I am going to consider this Issue closed with the fixes made to address #3 and #4 (#1 and #2 result from the assumptions of the evaporation routine) Status: Fixed Labels: OpSys-All Application-FDS looked some more into #2. The > 100 % appears solely due to not doing condensation. Drops are not evaporating in regions where the atmosphere is saturated. I am going to consider this Issue closed with the fixes made to address #3 and #4 (#1 and #2 result from the assumptions of the evaporation routine) Status: Fixed Labels: OpSys-All Application-FDS

issue 944 (FDS5 runs fine, but adding EVAC stuff does not - need assist...) commented on by USFireMa...@EarthLink.NET - "no exe for "MPI FDS version 5.4.2 SVN 5140". So you should compile it" Ever watch the act by Abbot and Costello called "Who's on First?", well I feel like the first-baseman's wife who is there to pick up her husband's paycheck ("what is the name of your husband"... "Who"... "your husband"..."yes, what about him. I'm here to pick up his paycheck"..."fine then, what is his name"..."Who"... "your husband"..."yes, what about him. I'm here to pick up his paycheck".........) - actually this paragraph is just a joke, nothing here meant to be insulting, only expressing my frustration. Well, see Comment No.5 above, my reply No.2 regarding wether I actually "should compile it" (with my knowledge base on compiling it's be a really good way to crash my system, heh, heh). All kidding aside, I really appreciate the hard work I know you guys are doing and I'll look forward to the maintenance release for the 32bit mpi version and just play it safe (that's what my main fire modeling XP computer uses anyway). As far as waiting for a 64bit mpi version, no problems as that is for my Vista64 laptop which I mainly use to show the models once completed on the XP machine (laptop is mainly used: to show client/AHJ the smoke control system; to take to court/district attorney/fire investigator to show the crime scene reconstruction in arson cases; to use in my classroom instructions; etc.). BatGirl

"no exe for "MPI FDS version 5.4.2 SVN 5140". So you should compile it" Ever watch the act by Abbot and Costello called "Who's on First?", well I feel like the first-baseman's wife who is there to pick up her husband's paycheck ("what is the name of your husband"... "Who"... "your husband"..."yes, what about him. I'm here to pick up his paycheck"..."fine then, what is his name"..."Who"... "your husband"..."yes, what about him. I'm here to pick up his paycheck".........) - actually this paragraph is just a joke, nothing here meant to be insulting, only expressing my frustration. Well, see Comment No.5 above, my reply No.2 regarding wether I actually "should compile it" (with my knowledge base on compiling it's be a really good way to crash my system, heh, heh). All kidding aside, I really appreciate the hard work I know you guys are doing and I'll look forward to the maintenance release for the 32bit mpi version and just play it safe (that's what my main fire modeling XP computer uses anyway). As far as waiting for a 64bit mpi version, no problems as that is for my Vista64 laptop which I mainly use to show the models once completed on the XP machine (laptop is mainly used: to show client/AHJ the smoke control system; to take to court/district attorney/fire investigator to show the crime scene reconstruction in arson cases; to use in my classroom instructions; etc.). BatGirl

Today