Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update flow past a backward facing step example #1389

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Nov 27, 2024
Merged

Conversation

lpsaavedra
Copy link
Collaborator

@lpsaavedra lpsaavedra commented Nov 27, 2024

Description

The post-processing scripts were not working for this example and the example was long and hard to follow. This PR refactors the example by limiting it to two Reynolds numbers: 100 and 1000. To summarize:

  • All the parameters are revisited to ensure correct convergence for both cases.
  • The folders and parameter files are renamed so that it is clear for which Reynolds they are.
  • The results are limited to: visualizing the velocity profiles (with streamlines to identify eddy after step and zoom in plots, all in one figure), reporting the reattachment point for the last step and its relative error in comparison to reference data, and comparing the obtained velocity distribution at the outlet to the analytical solution.
  • The post-processing scripts are fixed so that they work for both Reynolds number by just changing the appropriate flag when running the script. Moreover, the number of vtu files is no longer hardcoded and can be found automatically by the script.

Checklist (will be removed when merged)

See this page for more information about the pull request process.

Code related list:

  • Lethe documentation is up to date
  • Copyright headers are present and up to date
  • The branch is rebased onto master
  • Code is indented with indent-all and .prm files (examples and tests) with prm-indent
  • Links are added to parent .rst files
  • The example is following the standard format

Pull request related list:

  • Labels are applied
  • There are at least 2 reviewers (or 1 if small feature) excluding the responsible for the merge
  • The PR description is cleaned and ready for merge

@lpsaavedra lpsaavedra added Ready for review Example Next release PR that would need to be merged before the next release labels Nov 27, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@voferreira voferreira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice images! All clear. I added small suggestions but nothing fancy.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lovely!

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lovely! (1)

Comment on lines +23 to +24
- Parameter file for the base case (:math:`\mathrm{Re} = 100`): ``Reynolds100_steady.prm``
- Parameter file for the higher-Reynolds case (:math:`\mathrm{Re} = 1000`): ``Reynolds1000_steadybdf.prm``
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the two prm file should end with or without bfd at the end.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no I think this is fine right now no?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The reason for this is that both cases are solved differently (see simulation control section). The Reynolds 100 case is solved as a steady problem, while the second one uses steady bdf.


For the case where :math:`\textrm{Re}=1000`, replace the name of the parameter file by ``Reynolds1000_steadybdf.prm``.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same thing here, with or without the bfd

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nah I think this is ok right now. Because steadybdf is the name of the method

Copy link
Contributor

@blaisb blaisb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One tiny typo, then ready for merge

Comment on lines +23 to +24
- Parameter file for the base case (:math:`\mathrm{Re} = 100`): ``Reynolds100_steady.prm``
- Parameter file for the higher-Reynolds case (:math:`\mathrm{Re} = 1000`): ``Reynolds1000_steadybdf.prm``
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no I think this is fine right now no?


For the case where :math:`\textrm{Re}=1000`, replace the name of the parameter file by ``Reynolds1000_steadybdf.prm``.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nah I think this is ok right now. Because steadybdf is the name of the method

@lpsaavedra
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thank you for your review, I have applied all the comments and I will mark this as ready to merge :)

@blaisb blaisb merged commit 8977e0a into master Nov 27, 2024
4 checks passed
@blaisb blaisb deleted the update_backward_step branch November 27, 2024 20:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Example Next release PR that would need to be merged before the next release Ready for review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants