Fixed Defects
| Issues | Short description of the source problem resolved in this version | |
|---|---|---|
| Co-Simulation | FX-18373 | For the Flux-Simulink coupling, the Flux server run by Simulink automatically took all the cores of the machine and required the corresponding licence tokens, thus leading to an error if the customer did not have enough units. Now, the Flux application always runs in mono-core mode when called by Simulink. |
| Data Import/Export context | FX-22033 | While computing forces using the "Generalized projective method", the forces in the reconstructed part of the collection support (imported from OptiStruct) could be oriented in the wrong sense in some specific geometric configurations (e.g., the collection support superimposes on the support for magnetic pressure integration). The issue is now fixed and the forces are correctly oriented. |
| Data Import/Export context | FX-22233 | In the Import / Export context, in case the user had firstly imported from OptiStruct a computation support not aligned with the standard Flux global coordinate system and then exported the forces computed on this support, reimporting and displaying such forces into HyperMesh / OptiStruct could lead to wrongly oriented arrows because the misalignment between the two involved coordinate systems was not taken into account.
Flux 2022 fixes this issue and also offers the possibility to specify in the exported file which coordinate system HyperMesh has to use to display the forces, keeping in mind that the values still remain expressed in terms of the standard Flux global coordinate system. The user can choose the ID number of the HyperMesh coordinate system in the Advanced tab of the OptiStruct export dialog box of Flux. |
| Data Import/Export context | FX-22232 | In Flux previous versions, in the Import / Export context, using an FFT derived data collection type and then displaying the harmonics of such forces in the form of their radial and tangential components could lead to a wrong orientation of the arrows in the data visualizer. Flux 2022 fixes this issue. |
| Documentation | FX-22488 | The formula given for the model material
Rayleigh parabola curve + straight line was not correct in the help of Flux.
The formula has been corrected in the documentation of Flux 2022. |
| Environment | FX-18437 | It was a memory overflow during a sensor computation in Skew application. Now it is fixed. |
| Macros | FX-21393 | The macros ComputeCapacitanceMatrix3D and
ComputeCapacitanceMatrix3D gave an output Excel file with corrupted result. The
TXT resut was correct. These macros has been updated to obtain an Excel output file with correct results. |
| Modeler | FX-22294 | In the case of this project, when we run the resolution of a scenario driven by geometric parameters used in modeler operations, the operations were not replayed in the right order to rebuild the expected device for each step. This led to an error at the the first step of the resolution. With Flux 2022, the modeler operations are now replayed in the right order. |
| Physics | FX-21922 | A bug in the Flux 2D application "Steady State AC Electric coupled with Transient Thermal" which disabled the Joule losses computation during solving has been fixed. Because of this issue, the thermal map remained stable over the time, which is no longer the case with this fix. |
| Physics | FX-21236 | Improvement on the generation of FMU components. In few cases the input and the output were not well sorted which led to wrong results in third-party software such as Activate.
Please note that this fix also solves FX-21204. |
| Physics | FX-21908 | Correction of a bug occurring since release 2021 discovered with an actuator .FLU project with a coil conductor region, a mobile part and a compressible mechanical set. The mesh was imported from another software through a Nastran .bdf file (geometry built using a split angle). When solving in multi-steps (linear motion) there was a bug which stopped the solving process. A warning message was displayed in this case:
Region COIL The total current in the terminal input section (faces) is not equal to the total current in the terminal output section: - either the input and output sections are different - or the current direction is not correct Impossible to valuate regions and material Now, in the case of an imported mesh, when the Method for the computation of J in coil conductor regions in 3D (available from the Solving menu, with the following choices: Solving process options > Edit > Advanced tab) is Automatically specified method which is the default selection, the Method with electric conduction resolution + uniform J norm is actually used during the solving process and when post-processing. The results obtained by version 2021.2.1 and previous versions have a slight difference, because of the change of the used method to compute the current density J in the coil conductor regions in the case of an imported mesh. Difference of 3 % to 4 % have been observed on global quantities. |
| Physics | FX-22194 | There was an issue concerning the new "Method
with electric conduction resolution + uniform J norm" for regions of type "coil
conductor region". This issue occurred when such a region is entirely
described, i.e., which is not cut by either symmetries or periodicities, and
consists of a single volume. While running check physics, the following error
message was displayed: RGRDOL_2 => Wrong number of groups (1) This issue has been corrected. |
| Physics | FX-15670 | When the user described a material with a
Preisach B(H) property using parameters and included them in a parametric
scenario, Flux did not handle the parameter variations correctly, i.e., it got
stuck on the reference values for the parameters. The issue is now fixed: all characteristics of the Preisach model described by 4 parameters of a typical cycle (saturation magnetization, remanent flux density, coercive field strength and squareness factor) can be parameterized with I/O parameters and are now correctly managed during solving and post-processing. |
| Physics | FX-16241 | A bug was detected in Flux 2020 version in projects containing materials with an isotropic hysteretic Preisach B(H) property: depending on the solver options, some intermediate internal data were reset during the Flux solving process, thus leading to inaccurate results for some time steps. This issue is now fixed and the solving process with Preisach models works as expected. |
| Physics | FX-21725 | Improvement on the generation and the export of FMU blocks from Flux in order that third-party software like Activate can better interpolate the output values as a function of the input values, when using these FMUs generated by Flux. |
| Postprocessing | FX-21800 | Correction of a bug occurring since release
2021.1 when trying to change the computation step of the solved scenario while
post-processing. In this case, the following message was displayed: OCRDIR => Retrieval of direct relation aborted RG_R_EVAL_COND_FIL_I_RG => Failed RG_CALC_SECTION_BORNES => Failed ... The bug occurred with a .FLU project which had a coil conductor region and which had been solved: - either in release 2021 or below, - or with the solving option: "Analytical method or by interpolation from lines" in release 2021.1 or 2021.2. |
| Postprocessing | FX-6383 | In Flux 3D, it is now possible to export spatial quantities such as the Joule losses from a Surface Impedance face region in Steady State AC magnetic applications. This export may be performed by selecting the action "Export spatial quantity and formula" in the "Data exchange" menu. This feature is only available in Advanced mode (i.e., this user mode must be selected in the Supervisor before opening the project). |
| Postprocessing | FX-22215 | In Flux 3D, the Bertotti iron losses were wrongly computed for non conducting laminated regions whose local lamination plane was different from Oxy (i.e., lamination oriented along z axis). Now, Bertotti model is correctly applied to all laminated regions, whatever their orientation and their typology (plane or cylindrical) are.
To take benefit of this fixing for laminations oriented along X or Y axis, the user is invited to delete the scenario results and run again the solving process with Flux 2022 version. |
| Solving | FX-21773 | When trying to optimize the force through a path, an error message could arise on axisymetric projects when running Shape Optimization. This bug has been fixed. |
| Solving | FX-22228 | A bug preventing the use of parametric distribution on batch schedulers has been fixed. |
| Solving | FX-21548 | In multiphysic context, transient projects may have different non-linear convergence behavior than when using the classical transient solving from Flux. This has been fixed. |
| Solving | FX-21369 | On some test cases using static initialization, the looseness of the non-linear threshold on the initialization step can results in wrong results. To avoid that, the non-convergence criteria of the static initialization step is now by default, using global convergence without looseness and hardening of the threshold. |
| Solving | FX-17883 | With Flux 2022, we can now solve a 3D transient magnetic project with A-V formulation, static initialization and solid conductors coupled to current sources without error messages. |
| Solving | FX-21359 | On some labels related to Shape Optimization, typos and translations errors had been corrected. |
| Wording | FX-21350 | Improvement on an error message saying that the input formula such as voltage or resistance value is empty for circuit components. |