-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 841
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
Fixing Warnings #440
Fixing Warnings #440
Conversation
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.
Looks good to me.. just one comment inside the review.
Thanks for cleaning up the warnings for the unused variables and initializations!
else | ||
eps2 = eps1*eps1*eps1; | ||
if (config->GetKind_SlopeLimit_Flow() == VENKATAKRISHNAN_WANG) { | ||
eps1 = 0.03 * (GlobalMaxPrimitive[iVar] - GlobalMinPrimitive[iVar]); |
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.
Looks like the VEKATAKRISHNAN_WANG limiter coefficient is hard-coded. Any reason to make this variable, or does the tuning within this new limiter take care of any required scaling?
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!
There is a good reason for that... my frustration using the original Venkat's limiter. The freedom to choose parameters is a double-edged sword... you have control but you can affect the results. With the original method (2 parameters)... I was able to obtain any result!
For that reason, in this new implementation I decided to hardcode the recommended value for the parameter. So... users will have consisten solutions.
By the way, I have some results that point out to the fact that this version is much better than the original Venkat's limiter (convergence and accuracy)... maybe in the near future we should replace the original one by this one.
Best,
Vivaan
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.
Dear all,
Thanks for the implementation @VivaanKhatri
However, the eps value in VEKATAKRISHNAN_WANG can be view as percentage of the maximum range of the flow field, oscillations exceeding this value are limited. In my opinion, this value should not be hard-coded and we can use the limiter coefficient from the config file. According to Wang's original "A fast nested multi-grid viscous flow solver", the value of 0.05 is a good starting candidate.
Best,
Eduardo
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.
I have added the option LIMITER_COEFF to the VENKATAKRISHNAN_WANG limiter.
Best,
Vivaan
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.
Looks good. We can merge this asap.
Just one small change requested first thought with the console output.
@@ -4458,7 +4458,7 @@ void CConfig::SetOutput(unsigned short val_software, unsigned short val_izone) { | |||
cout << "The reference element size is: " << RefElemLength <<". "<< endl; | |||
break; | |||
case VENKATAKRISHNAN_WANG: | |||
cout << "Venkatakrishnan-Wang slope-limiting method, with constant: " << LimiterCoeff <<". "<< endl; | |||
cout << "Venkatakrishnan-Wang slope-limiting method, with constant: 0.03."<< endl; |
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 adding the coefficient back in.. can you please update these cout statements to print the value of LimiterCoeff again?
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.
Done!
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 these issues.
My compiler is detection tens of warnings, I have fixed most of them.
Best,
Vivaan