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

[WIP] Multizone adjoints for turbomachinery #2446

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

joshkellyjak
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed Changes

This is a cleaned up PR of the fixes needed for multizone adjoints for turbomachinery from the previous PR of @oleburghardt and I's work.

This hopefully is useable, so if you would like to test and report please feel free to contact me on Slack.

TODO:

  • Fix eddy viscosity tape issue in CNSSolver
  • Add turbomachinery objective functions + constraints
  • Include MZ testcase

Related Work

Now closed PR #2317

PR Checklist

Put an X by all that apply. You can fill this out after submitting the PR. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask! We want to help. These are a guide for you to know what the reviewers will be looking for in your contribution.

  • [ X ] I am submitting my contribution to the develop branch.
  • My contribution generates no new compiler warnings (try with --warnlevel=3 when using meson).
  • My contribution is commented and consistent with SU2 style (https://su2code.github.io/docs_v7/Style-Guide/).
  • I used the pre-commit hook to prevent dirty commits and used pre-commit run --all to format old commits.
  • I have added a test case that demonstrates my contribution, if necessary.
  • I have updated appropriate documentation (Tutorials, Docs Page, config_template.cpp), if necessary.

Comment on lines +675 to 677
AD::EndPreacc();

/*--- Max is not differentiable, so we not register them for preacc. ---*/
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the difference between ending the preaccumulation before or after?

}
} else if (Multizone_Problem && DiscreteAdjoint) {
SU2_MPI::Error(string("OUTPUT_WRT_FREQ cannot be specified for this solver "
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
SU2_MPI::Error(string("OUTPUT_WRT_FREQ cannot be specified for this solver "
SU2_MPI::Error("OUTPUT_WRT_FREQ cannot be specified for this solver "

Comment on lines +3425 to +3426
"(writing of restart and sensitivity files not possible for multizone discrete adjoint during runtime yet).\n"
"Please remove this option from the config file, output files will be written when solver finalizes.\n"), CURRENT_FUNCTION);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmmm I'm pretty sure it is possible

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is one for @oleburghardt

Comment on lines -222 to +229
BPressure = config->GetPressureOut_BC();
Temperature = config->GetTotalTemperatureIn_BC();

if (!reset){
AD::RegisterInput(BPressure);
AD::RegisterInput(Temperature);
}

BPressure = config->GetPressureOut_BC();
Temperature = config->GetTotalTemperatureIn_BC();

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are these wrong but not the others that follow the same pattern?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This threw a tagging error, and if I remember correctly it's because in the other sections the variables it accesses are directly used in the solver, whereas in the Giles implementation they are not, creating a mismatch in tags.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we fix it in a way that keeps a clear pattern for doing this type of thing?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can give it a go

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants