-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 913
Set MUSCL Reconstruction for NEMO in Develop to use smallest limiter val for all primitives #1428
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
Conversation
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
|
So instead of using arrays, since we are only choosing the smallest limiter value, it seems like we can just store a local variable in computing the Van Albada limiter. Does this look okay?. I have the feeling we want to generalize this for other limiters in the future, but this seems like the most efficien option for an implementation in CNEMOEulerSolver. |
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 9d134dd into a4836f4 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
|
I think this is working now, I'm seeing some non-physical reconstructed points initially for the axi_viscone test case, but these seem to go away after a few hundred iters using Van Albada. The solution looks physical. I'd like to change the regression tests to support these new values, but it would be great if everyone could double-check this before I make that change. |
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 8d3281c into a4836f4 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
pcarruscag
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No need to generalize to other solvers IMO
| su2double dTvedU_i[MAXNVAR] = {0.0}, dTvedU_j[MAXNVAR] = {0.0}; | ||
| su2double Eve_i[MAXNVAR] = {0.0}, Eve_j[MAXNVAR] = {0.0}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fyi these are not heap allocations, static arrays are on the stack and they do not cost anything to allocate.
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
Co-authored-by: Pedro Gomes <38071223+pcarruscag@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Pedro Gomes <38071223+pcarruscag@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Pedro Gomes <38071223+pcarruscag@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Pedro Gomes <38071223+pcarruscag@users.noreply.github.com>
WallyMaier
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM! Thanks for doing this!
Could you possibly post a before and after of a basic test case?
| /*--- Set the default convergence field --- */ | ||
|
|
||
| if (convFields.empty() ) convFields.emplace_back("RMS_DENSITY"); | ||
| if (convFields.empty() ) convFields.emplace_back("RMS_DENSITY_0"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
|
Hi @pcarruscag , I notice that I get very slightly different residuals for the parallel regression running with 2 cores on my laptop vs in the Github regression test. @WallyMaier said this might be due to difference in partitioning, should I just use the residual values from the Github regression so the test passes, or are there other checks I should run? |
|
More likely to be due to compiler differences, yes please take the values from the github tests. |
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
Signed-off-by: jtneedels <jneedels@stanford.edu>
…nto dev_nemo_muscl_fix
WallyMaier
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!

Proposed Changes
Setting MUSCL reconstruction in CNEMOEulerSolver to use the minimum limiter val for all primitives, consistent with the feature_NEMO branch, to try and address issues with non-physical points using MUSCL with the NEMO solver in Develop.
Related Work
PR Checklist
Put an X by all that apply. You can fill this out after submitting the PR. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask! We want to help. These are a guide for you to know what the reviewers will be looking for in your contribution.