Skip to content

Conversation

@EvertBunschoten
Copy link
Member

@EvertBunschoten EvertBunschoten commented Jun 23, 2023

Proposed Changes

Introduction of mixture fraction transport equation to flamelet species solver. This allows for solving partially premixed, laminar combustion problems with heat transfer. The controlling variable names are generalized and have to be specified in the configuration file, such that they can be matched to the controlling variable names in the table.
Additionally, the output writing for the flamelet variables has been generalized such that it can generate all the necessary outputs for any number of controlling variables.

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.

  • 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.

@EvertBunschoten EvertBunschoten self-assigned this Jun 23, 2023
@pcarruscag pcarruscag changed the base branch from master to develop June 23, 2023 12:49
@pcarruscag pcarruscag changed the title Feature new flamelet[WIP] [WIP] Feature new flamelet Jun 23, 2023
@pcarruscag pcarruscag marked this pull request as draft June 23, 2023 12:49
/*--- The controlling variables are progress variable and total enthalpy ---*/
n_control_vars = 2;
/*--- The controlling variables are progress variable, total enthalpy, and optionally mixture fraction ---*/
//n_control_vars = nSpecies - n_user_scalars;

Check notice

Code scanning / CodeQL

Commented-out code

This comment appears to contain commented-out code.
@bigfooted
Copy link
Contributor

@EvertBunschoten That's great, thanks!

Can you first make sure that the regression tests run again? Now, all existing flamelet regression tests fail.

@EvertBunschoten
Copy link
Member Author

@EvertBunschoten That's great, thanks!

Can you first make sure that the regression tests run again? Now, all existing flamelet regression tests fail.

The regression tests for flamelet now complete nominally again

@EvertBunschoten EvertBunschoten marked this pull request as ready for review July 11, 2023 08:45
@EvertBunschoten EvertBunschoten changed the title [WIP] Feature new flamelet Feature new flamelet Jul 11, 2023
@pcarruscag
Copy link
Member

Help me out with this PR #2077

@bigfooted
Copy link
Contributor

bigfooted commented Jul 15, 2023

@EvertBunschoten there was a bug that I noticed this week. When we get the enclosing triangle of the lookup point, we sometimes fail to get a proper intersection using set_intersection. We can then take one of the adjacent triangles instead. I only noticed it for one very specific lookup table and setup, so it is a pretty rare occurrence.
[edit] this was for a 2D case, that I tested.

Copy link
Member

@pcarruscag pcarruscag left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, minor comments below + Wally's about consistency of variable names if possible.

@EvertBunschoten
Copy link
Member Author

I implemented most of the reviewers suggestions. The only suggestion I left unchanged is the upper-case consistency issue raised by Wally. Since it is an optional output and it depends on the controlling variable names the user provides, I think it would be more intuitive to keep the font case consistent between the names under CONTROLLING_VARIABLE_NAMES and the corresponding RMS_ outputs.

@pcarruscag
Copy link
Member

I'm fine with the consistency with the user input. Is the dry run mode working ok for these variables?

@EvertBunschoten
Copy link
Member Author

I'm fine with the consistency with the user input. Is the dry run mode working ok for these variables?

Yes. Both for direct and adjoint the RMS, BGS, and MAX of the controlling variables show up in dry run mode as they're listed in the configuration file.

@EvertBunschoten EvertBunschoten merged commit 02da4b6 into develop Jul 21, 2023
@EvertBunschoten EvertBunschoten deleted the feature_new_flamelet branch July 21, 2023 19:13
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.

5 participants