-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
Fix BCs and geometry for pinball #195
Conversation
Hello @jcallaham Thank you for the update.
Is it something critical, or this does not substantially change results?
I know that the implementation is inspired by the seminal papers on Pinball.
Wrong w.r.t. to the recent TCFD paper? But right with respect to the legacy papers? I am totally fine with the update, I am just curious about its purpose:) Thank you very much! |
The actuator limits were increased to allow matching the values used in
that article - they hadn't been chosen in a principled way before anyway.
Unfortunately I would say that the other fixes could potentially change
results for the actuated flow. Previously published papers didnt have as
much detail, so basically the new one let me catch these errors, but they
were probably incorrect to begin with. To be safe, I would try re-running
anything with the pinball to be sure nothing changes dramatically. Sorry if
that causes any headaches for you - let me know if you notice any weird
behavior after this.
…On Sat, Oct 5, 2024, 8:40 AM Hosseinkhan Rémy ***@***.***> wrote:
Hello @jcallaham <https://github.com/jcallaham>
Thank you for the update.
Comparing with the recent TCFD article
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00162-024-00693-2> describing
this flow configuration, this PR makes the following changes:
- Sign error in Dirichlet BC for solid-body rotation
Is it something critical, or this does not substantially change results?
- Increase actuator limits on Pinball
I know that the implementation is inspired by the seminal papers on
Pinball.
Why is this increase necessary? Is it solely to match the TCFD article?
- Decrease "tau" value for first-order filter on Pinball
- Fix the cylinder locations (x-locations were slightly wrong)
Wrong w.r.t. to the recent TCFD paper? But right with respect to the
legacy papers?
I am totally fine with the update, I am just curious about its purpose:)
Thank you very much!
Best,
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#195 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG6KRLTJO5C7ZR376AQE5TDZZ7M4DAVCNFSM6AAAAABPJVRIZCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGOJVGA2DIMZWHA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
No worries! and thank you for the details, nothing critical from my side. I might come back with questions later on... By the way, were you able to find a control solution with this sign error on the Pinball? Could this sign problem only affect the signal sign but not the information it contains? @jcallaham Best, |
Yes if you mean a stabilizing control, that was basically what precipitated
finding these issues. Antisymmetric rotation of the two rear cylinders
should now tend to stabilize the flow. If you use something like Re=100
with a control vector of [0, +6, -6] that should stabilize the wake as seen
in the figures in that paper. Note that the paper uses a control term
("b") defined to match the linear velocity of the cylinder, not the angular
velocity, so to reproduce those results in Hydrogym use a value of twice
"b" from the paper.
…On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 10:29 AM Hosseinkhan Rémy ***@***.***> wrote:
No worries! and thank you for the details, nothing critical from my side.
I might come back with questions later on...
By the way, were you able to find a control solution with this sign error
on the Pinball? Could this sign problem only affect the signal sign but not
the information it contains? @jcallaham <https://github.com/jcallaham>
Best,
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#195 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG6KRLS57XXCRWAFKKL3AS3ZZ7ZVNAVCNFSM6AAAAABPJVRIZCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGOJVGA3TKMJXGY>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Hi @jcallaham , I have several questions or remarks regarding this update:
|
Comparing with the recent TCFD article describing this flow configuration, this PR makes the following changes:
The paper also uses a prescribed velocity of (1.0, 0.0) for the free-stream boundary conditions, but I'm leaving as symmetry here. I doubt it makes much of a difference in the dynamics, and I expect symmetry BCs will work better on smaller domains.
C.C. @cl126162 @smokbel @ReHoss