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

Pressure acceleration for BoundaryModelDummyParticles #234

Closed
LasNikas opened this issue Oct 4, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed

Pressure acceleration for BoundaryModelDummyParticles #234

LasNikas opened this issue Oct 4, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@LasNikas
Copy link
Collaborator

LasNikas commented Oct 4, 2023

As discussed in #223, it is not clear which formulation for the approximation of the pressure gradient has to be used here

@inline function pressure_acceleration(pressure_correction, m_b, particle, particle_system,

There are either

  1. Symmetric formula: p_a/rho_a^2 + p_b/rho_b^2
  2. density-weighted pressure: p_ab = (rho_b*p_a + rho_a*p_b)/(rho_a + rho_b)
  3. or (p_a + p_b) / (rho_a * rho_b)

The 1st one has to be used for SummationDensity and the 3rd one for ContinuityDensity, right?
The second one is the one which Adami uses for his boundary model and is also used for edac scheme and the edac-boundary pressure acceleration.

My suggestion is to dispatch pressure_acceleration on the different pressure gradient formulations and not for the boundary model at all. That is, we don't have to distinguish if the neighbor system is a boundary system or not. But this could be a problem with the BoundaryModelMonaghanKajtar, right? Do we find a solution here?

@svchb
Copy link
Collaborator

svchb commented Oct 4, 2023

Yes the same formulation has to be used in the boundary and rhs.
If we are at it as discussed in #132 we should also at the formulation average pressure version. Anyway I only wanted to add the mathematical correct version for SummationDensity and ContinuityDensity. We should probably move these forms than to a common place. But the current version if Erik fixes them in his PR as I discussed with him this should be mathematically correct.

@efaulhaber
Copy link
Member

efaulhaber commented Jan 4, 2024

All these questions have been answered in #132. Also see the corresponding tests.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants