Skip to content

Conversation

d-montgomery
Copy link
Contributor

This PR migrates and updates the original PeleMP validation tests for single droplet evaporation. It includes:

  • Additional validation cases from Nomura et al., Wong & Lin, and Runge et al.
  • Updated input parameters, validation data, and figure generation
  • Documentation included in PelePhysics PR #581

I will be working on adding new features in PelePhysics for calculating liquid fuel properties, which should help the results from the Nomura et al. case.

nomura_res_2025
wonglin_res_2025
daif_res_2025
runge_simple_res_2025

@d-montgomery d-montgomery requested a review from baperry2 June 4, 2025 15:50
Copy link
Collaborator

@baperry2 baperry2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about calling this case SingleDropEvap to be more clear?

To ensure this doesn't break, it should run in the CI. Probably the best way to do this is to add the base case to the CMake tests in ci.yml. That would leave the python part untested but ensure the Pele part keeps working. To run the python stuff you'd have to choose one of the faster cases and run that in linux.yml.

I get a deltaT iters not converged error for the WongLin case. Didn't run everything to completion but others seem to be working.

@d-montgomery
Copy link
Contributor Author

d-montgomery commented Jun 4, 2025

  • Fix headers in .csv's
  • Clean up transport function call in prob.cpp
  • Rename mechanism in GNUmakefile
  • Point to updated PelePhysics with liquid_fuels_nonreacting mechanism
  • Check if exe includes MPI in Validate.py
  • Add to CI

@d-montgomery
Copy link
Contributor Author

@baperry2, the CI test for SingleDropEvap is failing due to an unused variable, mu_parts in SpraySB.cpp (see line 53). This wasn't triggered previously as the other spray tests have SPRAY_FUEL_NUM = 1.

It does not appear that mu_parts is useful in SpraySB.cpp. Should I delete it entirely or use an amrex::ignore_unused for now?

@baperry2
Copy link
Collaborator

Yeah it's better to just get rid of the unused variables if they are truly unused. amrex::ignore_unused() is more for function arguments and that type of thing where you cant just comment/delete the offending unused variables.

@d-montgomery
Copy link
Contributor Author

Everything seems to be working now. The last step is to merge PelePhysics #581 and update the corresponding submodule in this LMeX PR.

@baperry2 baperry2 enabled auto-merge (squash) June 16, 2025 17:52
@baperry2 baperry2 merged commit 750ec8e into AMReX-Combustion:development Jun 16, 2025
24 checks passed
@d-montgomery d-montgomery deleted the single_drop_test branch July 14, 2025 21:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants