Skip to content
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

Adding post-processing routines to compute surface forces #659

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 3, 2024

Conversation

bernardopacini
Copy link
Contributor

@bernardopacini bernardopacini commented Jul 2, 2024

Purpose

Previous post-processing used a routine to compute force on a geometry in a specific direction and only ran for one time step. This new routine computes the forces normalized by area over the specified patches, without specifying a specific direction. This is then written to a file that can be opened when visualizing the case. This can later be used to compute additional data. The utility runs on the time steps specified by the user, or runs all the time steps if the time option is not set by the user.

Type of change

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (non-backwards-compatible fix or feature)
  • Code style update (formatting, renaming)
  • Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
  • Documentation update
  • Other (please describe)

Testing

I have tested this on some cases, but would appreciate more people testing it! I did not add any automated testing.

Checklist

  • I have run unit and regression tests which pass locally with my changes
  • I have added new tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added necessary documentation

@bernardopacini bernardopacini added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 2, 2024
@bernardopacini bernardopacini requested a review from friedenhe July 2, 2024 01:33
@bernardopacini bernardopacini self-assigned this Jul 2, 2024
@bernardopacini
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is a draft because I would like to fully replace the existing calcForcePerS utilities with these versions. @friedenhe let me know if you are okay with these new versions and if yes, I will update the PR to replace the old routines with these ones.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 2, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 42.09%. Comparing base (cd2b115) to head (3ca3f96).

Current head 3ca3f96 differs from pull request most recent head 3206637

Please upload reports for the commit 3206637 to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #659      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   40.64%   42.09%   +1.45%     
==========================================
  Files         115      208      +93     
  Lines       11722    18397    +6675     
==========================================
+ Hits         4764     7745    +2981     
- Misses       6958    10652    +3694     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@bernardopacini
Copy link
Contributor Author

I went ahead and replaced the previous implementation with the new functionality. @friedenhe please let me know if this new version works for you, and if so, I'll convert this from draft. If you are able to test it for some cases too, that would be helpful.

@friedenhe friedenhe marked this pull request as ready for review July 3, 2024 17:22
@friedenhe friedenhe requested a review from a team as a code owner July 3, 2024 17:22
@friedenhe friedenhe merged commit 7441216 into mdolab:main Jul 3, 2024
12 checks passed
@bernardopacini bernardopacini deleted the bpacini/postpro-forces branch July 3, 2024 18:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants