Skip to content

Cvode c merge#3

Merged
drummerdoc merged 25 commits intodevelopmentfrom
cvode_C_merge
Mar 18, 2019
Merged

Cvode c merge#3
drummerdoc merged 25 commits intodevelopmentfrom
cvode_C_merge

Conversation

@EnnaDelfen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

** Updated DVODE integration (still in Fortran)
** New CVODE integration (in cpp)
** + new Fuego cPickler to write improved cpp chemistry routines without rwrk/iwrk. Also, write a few new routines needed for cvode wth fancy integration option
NOTE Tests can be done in the Testing folder. ReactEval is with DVODE, and should sum up the two modifs necessary for retro compatibility. ReactEvalCVODE is same test with CVODE and should show how to use the new chemistry integrator. Tutorials and detailed explanations are on the way.
Note that a regtest does should give 0 errors between ReactEval with DVODE before and after this commit ! It is true with a compare on the dumped pltfiles in ReactEval, and an actual RegTest is on the way.

Anne Felden added 11 commits March 11, 2019 13:36
routines to compute other types of reactors (only UV was available but
this is not going to work with PeleLM)
- Add a compile flag to choose DVODE integration, otherwise CVODE is
  chosen (USE_DVODE). Modify Makefiles in Reactions folder accordingly.
- Add an extra parameter to the reactor_init to choose which type of
  reactor to use (choose 1 for retro compatibility). Modify Null and
  Null_air folder for compatibility (but this is a bit unclear in my
  head)
- Put all actual_reactor routines(Fuego, Null, Null_air) in F90
- Add the cpp routines for cvode in Reactions/Fuego folder (not yet
  tested)
in Reaction folder. in particular, add the now mandatory argument to
"actual_reactor_init" routine to choose the type of reactor for the
chemistry integration
difference between initial and reacted states !! We may go back if for
some reason this was a relevant setup, which is why I commit this
separately from everything else
CAREFULL: removal of useless rwrk and iwrk everywhere, so it is
necessary to remove these arguments in all calls to fuego functions
everywhere in dependent codes (like PeleC) !
It is consistent with the DVODE pre existing Tutorial and should be
directly used to compare results.
@drummerdoc
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Can you verify that the PeleC tests work with this merge?

@AnneFelden
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I can tell you they are not going to work as is, since I've added an argument to actual_react_init. I'm running regtests on pelephysics to make sure everything is OK there, and then I'll generate a branch in PeleC to be consistent with my changes if that sounds ok ?

@drummerdoc
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Sure! Note that there seems to be a need for cvode to be installed in order for the PeleC regtests to work. That could be a decision we make as a project, or the cvode inclusion could be conditional at compile time, based on a makefile define that defaults to FALSE.

Might be good to get project input for that decision. If the conditional compiler stuff would be horrendous, that would be useful to know as well.

@drummerdoc
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The next two things that are missing are:

  1. Documentation of what you've added (to go along with documenting the connection between PelePhysics and PeleC that is still largely empty)
  2. Going through and making all the Models compatible with the new stuff (I.e., running Fuego to regenerate all the models so that they would function correctly if selected - not just LiDryer).

(sorry...)

@drummerdoc drummerdoc merged commit ca18ca5 into development Mar 18, 2019
@EnnaDelfen EnnaDelfen deleted the cvode_C_merge branch August 23, 2019 23:18
baperry2 referenced this pull request in baperry2/PelePhysics Aug 26, 2022
drummerdoc pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 28, 2023
* Move the CoveredMask reset flag out of the if statement.

* Add user-defined chemistry tolerances.

* Add a Triple flame in Exec/Cases/TripleFlame
baperry2 referenced this pull request in baperry2/PelePhysics Dec 19, 2024
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.

3 participants