-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 117
Fix vortex street elixir #2360
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
Fix vortex street elixir #2360
Conversation
Review checklistThis checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging. Purpose and scope
Code quality
Documentation
Testing
Performance
Verification
Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community. |
Ah yeah mea culpa, I did not normalize density to 1 here 😬 |
I was wondering why you vary the density at a constant pressure. Seems more common to do the opposite. |
I just changed it to use constant density. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2360 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 96.93% 96.93%
=======================================
Files 500 500
Lines 41499 41499
=======================================
Hits 40226 40226
Misses 1273 1273
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
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 for fixing this issue! Some tests fail; could you please update them as required?
@DanielDoehring Could you please revies this PR?
Yeah probably I was looking at some incompressible flow example, where the only solution fields are pressure and velocity. Thanks for fixing this! |
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! Looks good to me. The error values change that drastic because density is now 1 and not~0.41 what it was before.
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!
The elixir computed the kinematic viscosity, but then incorrectly used it as dynamic viscosity.
This resulted in an incorrect Reynolds number of ~180. I fixed the calculation and changed the Reynolds number in the elixir to 200 to produce similar results.