Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add flexibility to nonconservative BCs #2200
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add flexibility to nonconservative BCs #2200
Changes from 7 commits
e2e2c20
1e925fc
31f1e0a
eb1ccdd
e4bc181
8c5d2fc
c2b44ae
b60eaf1
d7dce5e
840fa9e
2baa52a
cd2186b
7a326fe
f9b19c3
c35cff9
26a756a
307197d
8a1a3d5
5068717
06b881e
4d112a4
ecaf306
1bd0184
51505aa
d26925e
9b4e384
8332bbe
53d8a14
a9e3823
f27b8cf
05bff32
7f4ff1a
8e5af14
bf24011
cf31fe9
6f80ffa
dfe1116
d24578e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
This comment would possibly need added to where the factor of 0.5 scaling occurs.
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 am also not very content that we have to expose this to the user in order to specify the boundary condition, but I don't see a better way to accomplish this. I definitely think that we should comment this to give some explanation where the factor
0.5
comes from and that it is not specific to any boundary condition.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 agree with all of you. I'm also not a huge fan of the factor
0.5
. We may alternatively return a tuple from the boundary conditions for non-conservative systems and multiply by 0.5 inside the solver. As an example:What do you think?
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 like this idea, since it doesn't require knowledge about the implementation aspect of adding the
0.5
to create the boundary condition. It should work well for the BCs that are currently implemented, but I am not sure what this would look like for the new type of boundary condition that you plan to add. Would you then only set theflux_
part and set thenoncons_
part to zero?I think it would be helpful to include a specific example with such a new BC in the PR to better understand and evaluate what the implementation should look like.
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 also like this idea with the documentation of how it would work in practice from Patrick's comment above. That is, for something like the standard shallow water equations the jump in the bottom topography is zero at the physical boundary (typically) so one's new boundary condition could compute the conservative flux pieces and then have
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.
Shouldn't we set a true nonconservative flux here instead of
flux_lax_friedrichs
?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.
You are right, I remember I had some problems with this type test, and apparently I might have changed that accidentally, because in one of the previous commits it was already there. Thanks for catching that!
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.
See comment above