dumux issueshttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues2019-08-28T09:43:29Zhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/415Implement better tests for freeflow2019-08-28T09:43:29ZKilian Weishauptkilian.weishaupt@iws.uni-stuttgart.deImplement better tests for freeflowThere is a myriad of benchmarks, numerical and analytical solutions for free-flow problems. We should incorporate more of them in our free-flow tests. Thomas and Christoph had some of them for their staggered grid implementation.
Currently, there are two test which come with an analytical solution:
`test_donea` and `test_kovasznay`
Here a some ideas what could be added:
- [ ] Analytical solution for simple stationary 2d channel test (test already exists)
- [ ] [Ghia 1982](https://ac.els-cdn.com/0021999182900584/1-s2.0-0021999182900584-main.pdf?_tid=e9f7486c-d67c-11e7-96b6-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1512121945_6871c2de3e7d5699f53ef718416dc341)
- [x] Transient flow field test with analytical solution
- [ ] Transient flow field test: lid driven cavity
- [ ] Analytical solution for diffusion (mass/energy) tests
- [ ] Ensure same results for mass and mole formulation (see !950)
More suggestions welcome!
- [ ] Improve the description of the tests and the help-message
Could be a job for a HiWi.There is a myriad of benchmarks, numerical and analytical solutions for free-flow problems. We should incorporate more of them in our free-flow tests. Thomas and Christoph had some of them for their staggered grid implementation.
Currently, there are two test which come with an analytical solution:
`test_donea` and `test_kovasznay`
Here a some ideas what could be added:
- [ ] Analytical solution for simple stationary 2d channel test (test already exists)
- [ ] [Ghia 1982](https://ac.els-cdn.com/0021999182900584/1-s2.0-0021999182900584-main.pdf?_tid=e9f7486c-d67c-11e7-96b6-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1512121945_6871c2de3e7d5699f53ef718416dc341)
- [x] Transient flow field test with analytical solution
- [ ] Transient flow field test: lid driven cavity
- [ ] Analytical solution for diffusion (mass/energy) tests
- [ ] Ensure same results for mass and mole formulation (see !950)
More suggestions welcome!
- [ ] Improve the description of the tests and the help-message
Could be a job for a HiWi.3.2https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/760Tests for flashs don't test anything2019-08-29T12:59:01ZBeatrix BeckerTests for flashs don't test anythingThey never fail, just print an error.They never fail, just print an error.3.1Beatrix BeckerBeatrix Beckerhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/752[test] Mpfa not tested in parallel2019-08-28T09:54:51ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.de[test] Mpfa not tested in parallelWe could add the richards parallel test for mpfa too. Solution should be identical to tpfa.We could add the richards parallel test for mpfa too. Solution should be identical to tpfa.3.2https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/761Cleanup explicit flash of implicit 2p2c model2019-08-30T08:46:24ZBeatrix BeckerCleanup explicit flash of implicit 2p2c modelThe volumevariables of the 2p2c model have an explicit flash directly implemented in the volumevariables itself.
* In general I like the idea of a specialized 2p2c flash that is easy to understand and fast, but it shouldn't be included in the volumevariables. I would propose implementing it as a separate class in a separate header, like the other constraintsolvers.
* The flash is only used if `useConstraintSolver` is false and the default is true. For the 2p2c model I would make the flash the default, since it is a faster calculation than using the more general `MiscibleMultiPhaseComposition` constraintsolver which solves a linear system of equations. Maybe we should even completely delete `useConstraintSolver` because in my opinion the solver has no benefit here, it solves the same equations, just less efficiently.
* For the case of one phase we may use the `ComputeFromReferencePhase` constraintsolver since it does exactly what the flash does.
* I don't think the flash is currently tested, so this should be added. It should have the same result as the other constraintsolvers.
What do you think? Another solution could be to delete the flash code and always use the solvers that we already have, but as mentioned above, I prefer having a 2p2c-specific flash.
There are a few points that I'm not sure of, maybe @holle can comment on this:
* In my opinion this flash is not as correct as it could be because it uses the assumption that vapor pressure of the liquid component and partial pressure of the liquid component in the gas phase are the same. This is only the case if we neglect the presence of other components in the gas phase. There is an equally quick method to calculate the mass fractions without using this assumption, see the 2p2c flash of the sequential models.
* It seems that the flash assumes that we deal with one liquid and one gas phase and that the liquid phase is the first phase. I think the 2p2c flash of the sequential models doesn't have this constraint.
* There seems to be a bug in the case that only the first phase is present, in the calculation of the mole fraction of the first component in the second phase. A multiplication with the mole fraction of the first component in the first phase is probably missing.The volumevariables of the 2p2c model have an explicit flash directly implemented in the volumevariables itself.
* In general I like the idea of a specialized 2p2c flash that is easy to understand and fast, but it shouldn't be included in the volumevariables. I would propose implementing it as a separate class in a separate header, like the other constraintsolvers.
* The flash is only used if `useConstraintSolver` is false and the default is true. For the 2p2c model I would make the flash the default, since it is a faster calculation than using the more general `MiscibleMultiPhaseComposition` constraintsolver which solves a linear system of equations. Maybe we should even completely delete `useConstraintSolver` because in my opinion the solver has no benefit here, it solves the same equations, just less efficiently.
* For the case of one phase we may use the `ComputeFromReferencePhase` constraintsolver since it does exactly what the flash does.
* I don't think the flash is currently tested, so this should be added. It should have the same result as the other constraintsolvers.
What do you think? Another solution could be to delete the flash code and always use the solvers that we already have, but as mentioned above, I prefer having a 2p2c-specific flash.
There are a few points that I'm not sure of, maybe @holle can comment on this:
* In my opinion this flash is not as correct as it could be because it uses the assumption that vapor pressure of the liquid component and partial pressure of the liquid component in the gas phase are the same. This is only the case if we neglect the presence of other components in the gas phase. There is an equally quick method to calculate the mass fractions without using this assumption, see the 2p2c flash of the sequential models.
* It seems that the flash assumes that we deal with one liquid and one gas phase and that the liquid phase is the first phase. I think the 2p2c flash of the sequential models doesn't have this constraint.
* There seems to be a bug in the case that only the first phase is present, in the calculation of the mole fraction of the first component in the second phase. A multiplication with the mole fraction of the first component in the first phase is probably missing.3.1Beatrix BeckerBeatrix Beckerhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/751[test] Unit test intersectspointgeometry incomplete2019-08-28T09:54:58ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.de[test] Unit test intersectspointgeometry incompletepoint-tetrahedron and point-pyramid is not tested
Maybe a dedicated unit test for this header would be good and easy to implement.point-tetrahedron and point-pyramid is not tested
Maybe a dedicated unit test for this header would be good and easy to implement.3.2https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/682Test tabulation doesn't actually test anything2019-08-28T08:55:19ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.deTest tabulation doesn't actually test anythingNo matter if success is false or true the test always returns 0 exit code.No matter if success is false or true the test always returns 0 exit code.3.2https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/753[tests] Newon line search not tested in test suite2019-08-28T09:54:42ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.de[tests] Newon line search not tested in test suiteWe could just enable if for some test, ideally where it also improves convergence.We could just enable if for some test, ideally where it also improves convergence.3.2https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/546[el2p] compare new implementation with the one on 2.12 release2019-08-28T09:34:47ZDennis GlĂ¤ser[el2p] compare new implementation with the one on 2.12 releaseWe introduce a new implementation of the el2p model in !1157. Before merging, we should test if the model produces similar results than the old pdelab implementation.We introduce a new implementation of the el2p model in !1157. Before merging, we should test if the model produces similar results than the old pdelab implementation.3.2https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/573Check the viscosity calculation of the component water in gas mixtures2019-08-08T08:26:38ZGabi SeitzCheck the viscosity calculation of the component water in gas mixturesThe viscosity of gas mixtures is calculated by the single component viscosities of the gas components (e.g. using Wilke's method).
The single component viscosity of water is currently calculated as a function of the water vapor pressure. This is now questioned for the cases, when vapor pressure and partial water pressure differ (e.g. at high temperatures). The viscosity of gas mixtures is calculated by the single component viscosities of the gas components (e.g. using Wilke's method).
The single component viscosity of water is currently calculated as a function of the water vapor pressure. This is now questioned for the cases, when vapor pressure and partial water pressure differ (e.g. at high temperatures). Gabi SeitzGabi Seitzhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/649[Freeflow][test][angeli] No convergence against analytical solution for first...2019-03-25T16:46:05ZMelanie Lipp[Freeflow][test][angeli] No convergence against analytical solution for first time stepThe solution does not properly converge for the first time step. The pressure solution is really weird for very small time steps (as the 10^(-12) that is currently used). It becomes less and less weird the larger the first time step is taken. But even for an initial time step of e.g. 10^(-2) the solution is an unsymmetrical version of what it is supposed to be.The solution does not properly converge for the first time step. The pressure solution is really weird for very small time steps (as the 10^(-12) that is currently used). It becomes less and less weird the larger the first time step is taken. But even for an initial time step of e.g. 10^(-2) the solution is an unsymmetrical version of what it is supposed to be.https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/739Unit test for compositional flash2019-09-18T07:30:04ZBeatrix BeckerUnit test for compositional flashThere is none currentlyThere is none currently3.1Beatrix BeckerBeatrix Becker