Mesh update in BaramFlow
Hello,
Is it possible to update a mesh in BaramFlow without starting completely over in Flow with a new mesh? If I define a mesh in BaramMesh, export it to Flow, run the solution, and try to load a new mesh, it only loads the boundaries as Xmin, Xmax, etc. I'd like to generate/update a new mesh and load it back into an existing Flow problem, but it won't do that. Is there a way to do that or link a mesh to a flow problem, so updates occur automatically?
Also, if I try to save the current Flow problem with a different name in the same directory (Baram/Flow), it won't let me and tells me the directory is already in use. Further, when creating a flow problem from Mesh, it won't let me overwrite an existing Flow problem with the same name.
Am I missing a method to do these things, or is there not a method to do them yet?
Many thanks!
Dear Tom Kindl,
When you load a new mesh in baramFlow, the cell zone conditions and boundary conditions are reset, but settings such as general, model, materials, and numerical conditions remain unchanged. There is currently no way to preserve the boundary conditions and cell zone conditions as they are.
Are you asking if the existing settings should be preserved when loading a mesh where the boundary and cell zone are the same? If so, that’s something we’ll need to consider.
Since Baram manages projects using directories, you cannot specify a project name that matches an existing one. The system prevents you from deleting an existing project and creating a new one. This is a safeguard designed to prevent data corruption, but in what situations might this be necessary?
Thanks
Hi,
In baram v26.x, when a new mesh is loaded in baramFlow, the boundary conditions, cell zone conditions, and monitoring settings are being reset.
In previous versions, such as v25.x, if the names of the boundary surfaces and cell zones matched, the settings were applied as-is rather than being reset; however, due to a bug introduced in v26.x, they were being reset.
This is scheduled to be fixed in the next version. And we are currently considering how to handle cases where the names of boundary surfaces do not match exactly but some names are the same.
Thnaks