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

Add time-averaged joule heating auxkernel #2

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jvwilliams23
Copy link
Member

I added code for time-averaged joule heating, and made modifications to the example.

The figure below shows some test results, with end_t_temp = ${fparse voltage_period*20} and varying delta_t_temp. The compute time results are below:

  • Black line: 838 s
  • Blue dots: 616 s
  • Green dots: 75 s

pr_fig

@nmnobre nmnobre marked this pull request as ready for review August 20, 2024 09:10
@nmnobre
Copy link
Member

nmnobre commented Aug 20, 2024

Hey @jvwilliams23,

Do you think you could confirm this still produces the same results?
I refactored the code slightly, and can't see any difference, but still.

Regarding the post processors, I think the temperature definitely belongs here, not sure if the power should be moved to the viz branch, what do you reckon?

@jvwilliams23
Copy link
Member Author

Hi @nmnobre

I will check this tomorrow. R.e. power post-processors; I am not sure - it is useful to check the convergence of time-averaged joule heating, and is strongly linked to how well or poorly our sims agree with Apollo. In that sense, it could fall within scope for main.
Maybe once we have a better interpretation of optimal averaging procedure (e.g. number of cycles needed), then it could be moved to viz in future. What do you think?

@nmnobre
Copy link
Member

nmnobre commented Aug 20, 2024

Hi @nmnobre

I will check this tomorrow. R.e. power post-processors; I am not sure - it is useful to check the convergence of time-averaged joule heating, and is strongly linked to how well or poorly our sims agree with Apollo. In that sense, it could fall within scope for main. Maybe once we have a better interpretation of optimal averaging procedure (e.g. number of cycles needed), then it could be moved to viz in future. What do you think?

Okay, sounds good, let's keep it as is for now. on second thought, I think using ElementIntegralVariablePostprocessor might make more sense for P.

I was also just convincing myself that the green dots above should be below the blue dots, but that does seem consistent with the fact we're using implicit time stepping, so I'm happy.

Add separate timestep for EM and temperature solve in Parameters.i

Co-authored-by: Nuno Nobre <[email protected]>
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