Skip to content

Add simple SGS to Adami and Morris Viscosity #753

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

Open
wants to merge 42 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

svchb
Copy link
Collaborator

@svchb svchb commented Apr 9, 2025

TGV:
image
image
image
image

This shows the default values give reasonable results

With C_S=0.5:
image
image

@svchb svchb requested review from efaulhaber and LasNikas April 9, 2025 11:30
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 9, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.18182% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 71.13%. Comparing base (6d04215) to head (2f3bbbb).
Report is 58 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/io/write_vtk.jl 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #753      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.53%   71.13%   +0.60%     
==========================================
  Files          96      106      +10     
  Lines        5976     6753     +777     
==========================================
+ Hits         4215     4804     +589     
- Misses       1761     1949     +188     
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 71.13% <98.18%> (+0.60%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@svchb svchb requested a review from LasNikas May 13, 2025 23:29
@svchb svchb requested a review from LasNikas May 14, 2025 10:59
@svchb svchb added the enhancement New feature or request label May 15, 2025
@efaulhaber
Copy link
Member

Can you explain the plots please? What are you showing? Is lower or higher better? And I can't tell the points in the first plot apart.

@svchb
Copy link
Collaborator Author

svchb commented May 18, 2025

Can you explain the plots please? What are you showing? Is lower or higher better? And I can't tell the points in the first plot apart.

These are the csv files plotted you receive when running the TGV validation case so this is time over the error. So lower is better. This is not really an accuracy improving method. So this only shows that the results are reasonable and with tuning results could be improved. I would see this is more as a method to obtain additional stability for high Reynolds number flows or suppressing spurious reflections at adaption level jumps.

@svchb
Copy link
Collaborator Author

svchb commented May 18, 2025

It would also make sense to merge #801 first

@svchb svchb requested a review from efaulhaber May 21, 2025 09:34
@svchb svchb requested a review from efaulhaber May 23, 2025 14:57
efaulhaber
efaulhaber previously approved these changes May 28, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants