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 validation case val2a #189

Merged
merged 28 commits into from
Oct 30, 2024
Merged

Add validation case val2a #189

merged 28 commits into from
Oct 30, 2024

Conversation

lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator

@lin-yang-ly lin-yang-ly commented Oct 14, 2024

(Ref. #188)
(Ref. #12)

@lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@simopier @chaibhave This is the draft PR for validation case 2a. Just let me know if you have any suggestions or comments for the model I built. That would be helpful for me to build the correct model. Thank you!

@moosebuild
Copy link

moosebuild commented Oct 15, 2024

Job Documentation, step Sync to remote on 4755cf1 wanted to post the following:

View the site here

This comment will be updated on new commits.

@moosebuild
Copy link

moosebuild commented Oct 15, 2024

Job Coverage, step Generate coverage on 4755cf1 wanted to post the following:

Coverage

Coverage did not change

Full coverage report

This comment will be updated on new commits.

@simopier simopier self-assigned this Oct 15, 2024
@simopier simopier added the V&V Relevant to V&V label Oct 15, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@simopier simopier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you @lin-yang-ly.

A couple preliminary comments.

Plus, don't forget to list val-2a in the V&V list in index.md.

test/tests/val-2a/tests Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/tests Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/tests Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/comparison_val-2a.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/comparison_val-2a.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/comparison_val-2a.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/gold/val-2a_TMAP4_out.e Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/gold/val-2a_TMAP7_out.e Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/val-2a.i Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/comparison_val-2a.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@lin-yang-ly lin-yang-ly marked this pull request as ready for review October 15, 2024 17:15
@lin-yang-ly lin-yang-ly marked this pull request as draft October 15, 2024 17:15
@lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@simopier I just updated the PR with your comments. Just let me know if you have more suggestions!

@lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@simopier @chaibhave I just upload the updated model. The result is finally close to the experimental result. The two figures below are the permeation flux on the right side based on data from TMAP4 and TMAP7, respectively. The result based on TMAP4 is close to experiment, except for the small bumps around 9000s and 15000s. However, the result based on TMAP7 is far away from experiment. I think it is because lots of data from TMAP7 are wrong.

val-2a_comparison_TMAP4
val-2a_comparison_TMAP7

Based on current result, I think

  1. I can continue to study why there is small bumps around 9000s and 15000s.
  2. In fact, the time of implantation start and stop in TMAP4 is wrong as well. Thus, I am thinking about only compare with experiment in one model only using correct data from TMAP4 or TMAP7, instead of comparing in two models with error data everywhere. Because our main purpose in this case is validating the experiment result instead of verifying TMAP4 or TMAP7.

Just let me know if you have any suggestions about that. Thank you all a lot for helping me figure this out!

@lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Better Results for TMAP4:
val-2a_comparison_TMAP4

and TMAP7:
val-2a_comparison_TMAP7

@chaibhave
Copy link
Collaborator

Better Results for TMAP4: val-2a_comparison_TMAP4

and TMAP7: val-2a_comparison_TMAP7

Looking good! It would be helpful if you add what changes made the results better when you show the updated figures.

@lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Better Results for TMAP4: val-2a_comparison_TMAP4
and TMAP7: val-2a_comparison_TMAP7

Looking good! It would be helpful if you add what changes made the results better when you show the updated figures.

Thank you for the suggestion! I used the recombination flux instead of diffusion flux to compare with experimental results in the updated figures. Because only recombination flux ($K_r C^2$) really permeates out of the sample.

@lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Morning @simopier , I just removed the data and model from TMAP7, now it is ready for review!

Copy link
Collaborator

@simopier simopier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great stuff! I left quite a few comments, but you're getting very close. Let's discuss this.

Thank you for your hard work, @lin-yang-ly!

doc/content/verification_and_validation/index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/gold/experiment_data_paper.csv Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/gold/val-2a_TMAP4_out.csv Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/val-2a_base.i Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/val-2a_base.i Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/tests Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/tests Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/tests Show resolved Hide resolved
@lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lin-yang-ly commented Oct 25, 2024

@simopier I finally solved the issue about different number on time column of csvdiff test. I used the larger tolerance and a constant time step in the test case.

Besides, I have several questions for the PR:

Do we need to add exodus test for heavy case? The reason why I ask is I found the exodus file is around 500 MB in heavy case with finer mesh and time step.

I try the adaptivity mesh method from the input file you sent to me, and I found the adaptivity mesh is not as good as the previous one. Because the previous mesh is the hand-crafted refined mesh. However, the adaptivity mesh may not find the reasonable mesh as soon as possible. This makes the running time longer than previous. The simulation may need at least two days to calculate the final results. Do you think we should keep current adaptivity mesh or turn back to the hand-crafted refined mesh?

Except for these questions, the PR is ready for review.

use constant time step

update tolerance

update tolerance 2

high tolerance with low time step

loose tolerance

lower tolerance

mum to nm for better converge

update output parameters

alter time step

update time step

update time step

maybe very high tolerance

A test for better performance

roll back

Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Pierre-Clement Simon <[email protected]>
Copy link
Collaborator

@simopier simopier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems like you override a previous commit that contained my suggestions. I unresolved these few conversations. Please make sure not to do it in the future.

I added some more suggestions and requests, mostly for the documentation.

The last thing we need to figure out if how to reduce the tolerance (and potentially increase the time step) of this case. I'll work on it and let you know if I figure something out.

doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/comparison_val-2a.py Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/val-2a.i Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lin-yang-ly commented Oct 28, 2024

Morning @simopier, I just updated the PR with your comments. Just let me know if you have more suggestions!

@simopier simopier marked this pull request as ready for review October 28, 2024 17:20
Copy link
Collaborator

@simopier simopier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A couple more comments. Getting close!

doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/comparison_val-2a.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/val-2a.i Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thank you, PC! Just updated with your comments. Ready for review again!

- use AD to improve convergence
- tighten tolerances
- increase max time step to reduce computational time
- remove heavy tests since the test now runs in less than 3 seconds
- update documentation
- regold
Copy link
Member

@cticenhour cticenhour left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@simopier asked me to leave a few small comments on top of his last commit, and I found a few more items that should be addressed. This looks great overall!

doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/tests Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/tests Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/tests/val-2a/tests Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/content/verification_and_validation/val-2a.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lin-yang-ly
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@simopier asked me to leave a few small comments on top of his last commit, and I found a few more items that should be addressed. This looks great overall!

Thank you for the comments! @cticenhour

Copy link
Collaborator

@simopier simopier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me! Thank you for this contribution, @lin-yang-ly!!

@simopier
Copy link
Collaborator

@cticenhour, it's ready for your final review.

@cticenhour cticenhour merged commit aee97ea into idaholab:devel Oct 30, 2024
9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
V&V Relevant to V&V
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants