[Gmsh] unv format difference.

[Christophe Geuzaine]

Roland Tollenaar wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
> 
> I've listed on the mailing list but while this thread is up still this 
> offline reply still.
> 
>> Can you check in the UNV file and make sure that you have sections 
>> with type "2477" (with label "PERMANENT GROUP")? If you do, maybe we 
>> chose a bad group type in the UNV spec? Which one should we use?
> 2467 by the look of things.
> 
> This is a fragment out of a unv file from gmesh:
> 
> (2412).............
> .........
>       2953      2432      2959      3896
>      26405       111         1         0         7         4
>       2970      2953      2959      3896
>     -1
>     -1
>   2477
>          1         0         0         0         0         0         0 
>       255
> PERMANENT GROUP1
>          7       211         0         0         7        67         0 
>         0
>          7        66         0         0         7       221         0 
>         0
> etc
> 
> 
> Whereas a unv that is saved with groups from Salome (and is convertible 
> with unv2abaqus) looks something like this:
> 
> (2412).............
> .........
>       2953      2432      2959      3896
>      26405       111         1         0         7         4
>       2970      2953      2959      3896
>     -1
>     -1
>   2467
>          0         0         0         0         0         0         0
> 7
> support1
>          7       211         0         0         7        67         0 
>         0
>          7        66         0         0         7       221         0 
>         0
> etc
> 
> 
> I.e. as a layman I would say there are two differences. The 2477 is 2467 
> and the separation line between the groups (the line directly following 
> the type number) starts with zero intead of 1. But after that counts up 
> in the same manner.
> 
>> If I remember correctly we actually change "e" or "E" to "D" on 
>> purpose for the UNV format, as requested by the UNV spec...
> Ouch, this would be a pity. Anyhow Salome gives out "e". Maybe Salome is 
> taking liberties with the .unv format in which case you must check the 
> correct type number. Maybe Gmsh uses the correct number. This would be a 
> bit of a disaster, the "e" or "d" can be sorted out automatically with a 
> script, but replacing the 2477 with 2467 with sed is rather dangerous.

I found this, which seems to corroborate your findings: Salome seems to 
be using a deprecated tag (2467):

http://www.salome-platform.org/forum/?groupid=10&forumid=10&thread=1205


> 
> Please let me know whether I must hack about or whether there might be 
> changes coming to Gmsh in this regard?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Roland.
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Roland Tollenaar.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Roland
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would be highly obliged if you could briefly point out what 
>>>>>>> approach I have to take here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roland Tollenaar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Prof. Christophe Geuzaine
University of Liege, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~geuzaine