August 30, 2024 at 8:14 am
Rémi Gérard-Marzan
Bbp_participant

Hello Sampat, Ashish and Ashtutosh. First off, thank you all for helping me sort out this problem.

The following image shows another one of my projects, where I have instanciated the module 13 times.

The following picture shows that the "Start Time" and "End Time" of instance 13 have been correctly defined. First patch is "no" and last patch is "yes" since it is the last one, and the start time and end time have been precisely computed so that, given the velocity of the beam and the length of the path, the ACT is active just long enough for the beam to travel the whole path without overflowing. Past experiences have shown me that this was a source of errors. And, as you can see, the injected flux is of the order of 2e5 W/m² (downwards, which means it takes negative values when projected onto axis Z).

The following picture displays the directional along Z heat flux during the transient thermal analysis. What is of interest here is the red line, which shows the minimum value attained anywhere in the model, at each time step. Of course, since the beam injects 2e5 W/m² in the -Z direction, the beam location itself makes up for that minimum heat flux value most of the time. You can see how the red line hovers around -0.8~1.6e-5 W/m² between 0 and 3000s.

But then, it abruptly falls off starting from 3511s - right when instance 13 of the ACT should kick in. Which, to me, indicates that all previous ACT instances have worked just fine, and then the 13th fails for some reason.

And to answer your three questions, Sampat:

  1. All start and end times for all 13 instances are correctly defined. It so happens that they do not overlap, though for previous works I have been able to make several ACTs activate at the same time without any issue.
  2. The following picture displays that for all instances that are neither the first nor the last, "First" and "Last" are set to No. For the first one however, it is "Yes" and "No" respectively.

This raises another question from me, however: what does "correctly defined" mean exactly, for you?