Skip to content

Conversation

@pcarruscag
Copy link
Member

Proposed Changes

Extends the custom outputs with point probes (nearest point, no interpolation is done).

Related Work

#1907 cc @DonalMcC

PR Checklist

  • I am submitting my contribution to the develop branch.
  • My contribution generates no new compiler warnings (try with --warnlevel=3 when using meson).
  • My contribution is commented and consistent with SU2 style (https://su2code.github.io/docs_v7/Style-Guide/).
  • I have added a test case that demonstrates my contribution, if necessary.
  • I have updated appropriate documentation (Tutorials, Docs Page, config_template.cpp), if necessary.

@bigfooted
Copy link
Contributor

bigfooted commented Feb 5, 2023

Nice!

Since the probe location is taken from the nearest neighbor, should the actual probe location also be written to output?
[edit] the transported variables of all active solvers are written?

@pcarruscag
Copy link
Member Author

I can write the probe location for debugging purposes.
The probes have access to the same things as the custom outputs and they only output one scalar.
So if someone wants to probe the entire flow field they need to define one probe per variable.

@pcarruscag pcarruscag merged commit 95a8487 into develop Feb 6, 2023
@pcarruscag pcarruscag deleted the feature_probes branch February 6, 2023 00:48
@FilipiKunz
Copy link

Hi Pedro, thanks for the probe extraction feature. I'll be looking into it when I get the chance.

I have also worked on this feature since the beginning of this year (for SU2 v7.5.0); on my version, you can set the probes in the .cfg files by directly describing the locations or by a .csv file (if you have many probes, for example). It will also create an output history file for each probe with your specified volume output variables and a probe_information.dat containing the location of the nearest node for that probe (since no interpolation is done). I initially did some workarounds to avoid OOM problems in finding the probe location since I used this in a 400M nodes mesh. I still need to clean up a little bit the additional implementation while keeping/improving the efficiency to avoid a big overhead time in the simulation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants