-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 236
Changes default AMD poincare coefficient #4494
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
Conversation
You'll have to manually change the coefficient in the regression tests (once those pass we can merge right away). |
made the necessary change |
If you want extra credit, you can expand the discussion in the docstring. You could link the relevant issue or just write a simple independent explanation. |
I think the discussion in #4367 worths some mention in the docstring. Even if it's just a short comment + pointing people to the PR discussion? |
@jagoosw, can you update the docstring to explain why we chose 1/3 vs 1/12 with appropriate references? |
I'm not sure what to put since the references already there support 1/3 just the value was wrong? |
By default: `C = Cν = Cκ = 1/3`, which is appropriate for a finite-volume method employing a | ||
second-order advection scheme, and `Cb = nothing`, which turns off the buoyancy modification term. |
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.
@jagoosw please add text here from the issue, with appropriate citations, that explain why 1/3 is the right choice
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.
Also put in a reference to #4367 which has some relevant plots
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.
The discussion will be an elaboration of this remark:
"I think they're getting there a different way but that in equation 39 they're finding the equivalent of setting it to 1/3?"
lines!(ax, [exp(1), exp(3)], x->(x/exp(1))^(-5/3)*exp(15), color = :red, linestyle = :dash) | ||
|
||
text!(ax, exp(0.8), exp(13); text = L"$E(k)\sim k^{-5/3}$", color = :white) | ||
|
||
Colorbar(fig[1, 2], colormap = :oslo, colorrange = (0, 10), label = "Time (s)") | ||
|
||
k_filt = 1/sqrt(closure.Cν * 3 / (1/(2*minimum_xspacing(grid))^2 + 1/(2*minimum_yspacing(grid))^2 + 1/(2*minimum_zspacing(grid))^2)) | ||
|
||
lines!(ax, ones(2) .* k_filt, [exp(0), exp(10)], color = :red, linestyle = :dash) | ||
|
||
text!(ax, k_filt, exp(10); text = "1/δ") |
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.
lines!(ax, [exp(1), exp(3)], x->(x/exp(1))^(-5/3)*exp(15), color = :red, linestyle = :dash) | |
text!(ax, exp(0.8), exp(13); text = L"$E(k)\sim k^{-5/3}$", color = :white) | |
Colorbar(fig[1, 2], colormap = :oslo, colorrange = (0, 10), label = "Time (s)") | |
k_filt = 1/sqrt(closure.Cν * 3 / (1/(2*minimum_xspacing(grid))^2 + 1/(2*minimum_yspacing(grid))^2 + 1/(2*minimum_zspacing(grid))^2)) | |
lines!(ax, ones(2) .* k_filt, [exp(0), exp(10)], color = :red, linestyle = :dash) | |
text!(ax, k_filt, exp(10); text = "1/δ") | |
lines!(ax, [exp(1), exp(3)], x->(x/exp(1))^(-5/3)*exp(15), color = :red, linestyle = :dash) | |
text!(ax, exp(0.8), exp(13); text = L"$E(k)\sim k^{-5/3}$", color = :white) | |
Colorbar(fig[1, 2], colormap = :oslo, colorrange = (0, 10), label = "Time (s)") | |
k_filt = 1/sqrt(closure.Cν * 3 / (1/(2*minimum_xspacing(grid))^2 + 1/(2*minimum_yspacing(grid))^2 + 1/(2*minimum_zspacing(grid))^2)) | |
lines!(ax, ones(2) .* k_filt, [exp(0), exp(10)], color = :red, linestyle = :dash) | |
text!(ax, k_filt, exp(10); text = "1/δ") |
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.
@jagoosw can you address this?
src/TurbulenceClosures/turbulence_closure_implementations/anisotropic_minimum_dissipation.jl
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…otropic_minimum_dissipation.jl Co-authored-by: Gregory L. Wagner <[email protected]>
Sorry I'm a bit late here. I understand why these changes were made. I'm still a bit confused though: what should this coefficient be for a WENO of order |
No, we don't know. Although I think that combination exhibits the lowest effective resolution (thus increasing computational expense) compared to 2nd order advection + AMD, or WENO only. @xkykai and @simone-silvestri might know more. |
Indeed. AMD + WENO seems to be the most dissipative when compared with 2nd order + AMD and WENO + no SGS closure. |
Following discussion in #4367