Boundary integration of viscous forces

DanielDoehring commented 3 months ago

Building upon #1812 this PR adds the viscous drag and lift coefficients due to shear stress.

For the viscous NACA0012 test (changed elixir) we match the values given in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2017.07.020

for the viscous drag coefficient very well:

Reference: 1.275e−01, Trixi: 1.24758705e-01

For viscous lift: Reference: −3.945e−03 Trixi: -5.66376473e-03

@Arpit-Babbar please have a look!

github-actions[bot] commented 3 months ago

Review checklist

This 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

[ ] The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
[ ] All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
[ ] No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

[ ] The code can be understood easily.
[ ] Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
[ ] There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
[ ] There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
[ ] The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

[ ] New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
[ ] Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
[ ] Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
[ ] Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
[ ] If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md.

Testing

[ ] The PR passes all tests.
[ ] New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
[ ] New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

[ ] There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
[ ] If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

[ ] The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
[ ] If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results are posted in the PR.

Created with :heart: by the Trixi.jl community.

DanielDoehring commented 3 months ago

Hm, Aqua.jl errors with

Unbound type parameters detected:
[1] analyze(quantity::Union{typeof(enstrophy), AnalysisSurfaceIntegral{Semidiscretization, Variable}}, du, u, t, semi::SemidiscretizationHyperbolicParabolic) where {Semidiscretization, Variable<:VariableViscous} 
@ Trixi ~/work/Trixi.jl/Trixi.jl/src/callbacks_step/analysis.jl:685
Unbound type parameters: Test Failed at /home/runner/.julia/packages/Aqua/9p8ck/src/unbound_args.jl:28
  Expression: isempty(unbounds)
   Evaluated: isempty(Method[analyze(quantity::Union{typeof(enstrophy), AnalysisSurfaceIntegral{Semidiscretization, Variable}}, du, u, t, semi::SemidiscretizationHyperbolicParabolic) where {Semidiscretization, Variable<:VariableViscous} 
@ Trixi ~/work/Trixi.jl/Trixi.jl/src/callbacks_step/analysis.jl:685])

See

https://docs.juliahub.com/Aqua/Hav67/0.8.4/unbound_args/#Unbound-Type-Parameters

codecov[bot] commented 3 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 96.30%. Comparing base (b4fb1db) to head (36e8f4e).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1893 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 89.52% 96.30% +6.78% ========================================== Files 448 448 Lines 35995 36079 +84 ========================================== + Hits 32223 34745 +2522 + Misses 3772 1334 -2438 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/pull/1893/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=trixi-framework) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/pull/1893/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=trixi-framework) | `96.30% <100.00%> (+6.78%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=trixi-framework#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

DanielDoehring commented 3 months ago

I added CI tests. Ready to go from my side, the open comments are meant to be explanatory for the reviewers.

DanielDoehring commented 3 months ago

Hm, I do not understand why the testcase does not do the timestepping: https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/actions/runs/8569475328/job/23485450223?pr=1893#step:8:7498 :thinking:

Locally this runs perfectly fine, but in the CI not a single timestep is taken

Arpit-Babbar commented 3 months ago

Hm, I do not understand why the testcase does not do the timestepping: https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/actions/runs/8569475328/job/23485450223?pr=1893#step:8:7498 :thinking:

Locally this runs perfectly fine, but in the CI not a single timestep is taken

Could it be the same issue as this - https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/pull/1812#pullrequestreview-1947432043

The solution is given by Joshua below.

DanielDoehring commented 3 months ago

Could it be the same issue as this - #1812 (review)

The solution is given by Joshua below.

Ah yeah good idea, let's see what happens!

trixi-framework / Trixi.jl