Skip to content
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

Flatten solver hierarchy for flow-over-heated-plate #136

Closed
uekerman opened this issue Dec 21, 2020 · 5 comments · Fixed by #154 or #159
Closed

Flatten solver hierarchy for flow-over-heated-plate #136

uekerman opened this issue Dec 21, 2020 · 5 comments · Fixed by #154 or #159
Assignees

Comments

@uekerman
Copy link
Member

uekerman commented Dec 21, 2020

As part of the tutorials restructuring we want to flatten the second (solver) hierarchy. For the flow-over-heated-plate case this is non-trivial.

We currently have: https://github.com/precice/tutorials/tree/restructure/flow-over-heated-plate

- buoyantPimpleFoam-fenics
- buoyantPimpleFoam-nutils 

We want instead:

- images/
- fluid-openfoam/
    - run.sh
- solid-openfoam/
    - run.sh
- solid-calculix/
    - run.sh
- solid-fenics/
    - run.sh
- solid-nutils/
    - run.sh
- precice-config.xml
- clean.sh
- README.md

For the CalculiX case see: #104
The OpenFOAM solid case needs to be ported from the OpenFOAM adapter.

Challenge: one preCICE config needs to fit all. This means dimensions="2" everywhere and the same coupling data names.

Furthermore, we should get similar physical results for all combinations.

For further conventions please copy from the turek-hron-fsi3 structure: https://github.com/precice/tutorials/tree/restructure/turek-hron-fsi3

@MakisH
Copy link
Member

MakisH commented Jan 19, 2021

We also have the nearest-projection OpenFOAM-OpenFOAM cases (fluid and solid). This should probably be a different case in a separate directory flow-over-heated-plate-nearest-projection.

@davidscn davidscn linked a pull request Feb 15, 2021 that will close this issue
2 tasks
@davidscn
Copy link
Member

Should we open a separate issue for the nearest-projection case?
It is currently not part of the restructure project.

@MakisH
Copy link
Member

MakisH commented Mar 11, 2021

Should we open a separate issue for the nearest-projection case?
It is currently not part of the restructure project.

Good point, somehow we don't have it on the list at the moment. It needs to be in a separate directory, as the precice-config.xml will be different. Unless we decide that for any reason we don't want to keep it.

@davidscn
Copy link
Member

We should definitely keep it. What I don't like about it having it as a separate case is the duplication of the case itself. I would also like to point out that the nearest-projection handling in OpenFOAM is very specific: we define separated meshes for reading and writing. So, it is rather unlikely that we will ever have a similar case added (unless we add meshes artificially).

@davidscn
Copy link
Member

Closed via #154 and #159.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants