-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 166
Knook/multicomponent #4322
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
base: release
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Knook/multicomponent #4322
Conversation
The references are not showing using |
* Small suggestions * Don't mention Gibbs-Duhem without explaining later * Change initial paragraph
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In general looks really impressive. Nice job.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am happy but this is a massive demo so I will bring to today's meeting to check with the others before merging.
:math:`v_i^\text{ref}` are reference velocities that we are free to choose. | ||
Elsewhere on the boundary we enforce :math:`J_i \cdot N = 0`. Finally, instead of specifying | ||
the value of the barycentric velocity :math:`v` on the inflows and outflows, | ||
we enforce :math:`v = \rho^{-1}((J_1 + J_2)\cdot N)N`. Boundary conditions that couple |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The inflow boundaries are normal to the y-axis. However the parabolic inflow has a component in the x-axis. This conflicts with the claim that you had before cross(v, N) = 0
, and the current statement v = (scalar) N
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're right, thanks for catching that -- what we wrote here is correct for the 3D Benzene simulation from my paper but I guess we forgot that the BCs are slightly different in this 2D simulation.
I just pushed a commit that rephrases this paragraph, please resolve if you're happy with it.
Clarify that (1 / specific volume) = density. Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
Minor formatting changes Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
Minor formatting changes Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
Minor formatting changes Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
Minor formatting changes Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
Minor formatting changes Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
Minor wording change Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
Minor formatting changes Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
Minor formatting changes Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
Minor formatting changes Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
Minor formatting changes Co-authored-by: Pablo Brubeck <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
@pbrubeck Thanks for all the suggestions. We are currently failing the tests because, when building the documentation, latex isn't aware of |
Feel free to make the change to support that latex command, or use another symbol |
Demo for multicomponent flows -- microfluidic mixing of hydrocarbons