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

Update controller example 1 #55

Merged

Conversation

uekerman
Copy link
Contributor

Let's go step by step. I updated example 1 to the current planning of the preCICE ecosystem after standardization. Let's try to get this working first and then see which other examples to include as well. There, it could be better to start from scratch again and not take the ones from the old controller.

I did not add run and clean scripts, README, etc, both only the configuration files.

Let's discuss what to do with the topology information:

coupling-scheme:
    max-time: 1e-1 # used for max-time in all coupling schemes
    time-window-size: 1e-3 # used as time-window-size in all coupling schemes (future problem: how to handle different time-window-sizes) 
    relative-accuracy: 1e-4 # used to create relative-convergence-measure tags where necessary
participants:
    Fluid: SU2 # "Fluid" is the name of the participant, "SU2" the solver. Here, the solver name is only used for the folder name
    Solid: Calculix
exchanges:
    - from: Fluid
      from-patch: interface
      to: Solid
      to-patch: surface
      data: Force
      type: strong # if there is at least one strong exchange between two participants in each direction, then we need an implicit coupling scheme
    - from: Solid
      from-patch: surface
      to: Fluid
      to-patch: interface
      data: Displacement
      type: strong

@Toddelismyname Toddelismyname mentioned this pull request Jan 17, 2025
17 tasks
@Toddelismyname Toddelismyname merged commit 842722d into precice-forschungsprojekt:main Jan 17, 2025
1 check failed
@uekerman
Copy link
Contributor Author

What I forgot as rules above:

  • From the name of a data field, you can conclude which mapping constraint is needed. Any "force" needs "conservative", anything else "consistent".
  • From this information, you can conclude the mapping direction
    • consistent -> read
    • conservative -> write
      (there are potential exceptions from the latter rule, but let's ignore at this stage)

@uekerman uekerman deleted the update-examples branch January 20, 2025 09:53
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