Skip to content

Add Carreau–Yasuda non-Newtonian viscosity model#1010

Merged
svchb merged 26 commits intotrixi-framework:mainfrom
sherin-joseph:non-newtonian
Feb 24, 2026
Merged

Add Carreau–Yasuda non-Newtonian viscosity model#1010
svchb merged 26 commits intotrixi-framework:mainfrom
sherin-joseph:non-newtonian

Conversation

@sherin-joseph
Copy link
Contributor

modified:   src/TrixiParticles.jl
modified:   src/io/io.jl
modified:   src/schemes/fluid/viscosity.jl
modified:   test/schemes/fluid/viscosity.jl

	modified:   src/TrixiParticles.jl
	modified:   src/io/io.jl
	modified:   src/schemes/fluid/viscosity.jl
	modified:   test/schemes/fluid/viscosity.jl
@sherin-joseph sherin-joseph marked this pull request as draft December 7, 2025 23:52
@svchb
Copy link
Collaborator

svchb commented Dec 8, 2025

Please don't close and reopen the same PR when fixing review comments.

sherin-joseph and others added 3 commits December 11, 2025 14:53
	modified:   docs/src/refs.bib
	modified:   docs/src/systems/fluid.md
	modified:   src/schemes/fluid/viscosity.jl
@sherin-joseph sherin-joseph marked this pull request as ready for review December 11, 2025 15:00
@sherin-joseph sherin-joseph marked this pull request as draft January 15, 2026 14:12
@sherin-joseph sherin-joseph marked this pull request as ready for review January 15, 2026 14:42
@sherin-joseph
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ready for review @efaulhaber

@svchb svchb added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 20, 2026
@svchb svchb requested review from efaulhaber and svchb January 20, 2026 09:01
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 20, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 60.71429% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.30%. Comparing base (67076da) to head (4707a38).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/io/io.jl 0.00% 9 Missing ⚠️
src/schemes/fluid/viscosity.jl 89.47% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1010      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.39%   89.30%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         121      121              
  Lines        8889     8917      +28     
==========================================
+ Hits         7946     7963      +17     
- Misses        943      954      +11     
Flag Coverage Δ
total 89.30% <60.71%> (-0.10%) ⬇️
unit 65.37% <60.71%> (-0.02%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

sherin-joseph and others added 3 commits January 20, 2026 14:47
	modified:   docs/src/systems/fluid.md
	modified:   src/schemes/fluid/viscosity.jl
	modified:   test/schemes/fluid/viscosity.jl
@sherin-joseph
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ready for re-review. @svchb

@svchb svchb self-requested a review February 2, 2026 14:43
svchb
svchb previously approved these changes Feb 2, 2026
sherin-joseph and others added 2 commits February 4, 2026 16:06
Co-authored-by: Erik Faulhaber <[email protected]>
@LasNikas
Copy link
Collaborator

LasNikas commented Feb 5, 2026

It would be nice to have an example file. Is there a corresponding validation in the literature to see the difference to Newtonian fluids?

@sherin-joseph
Copy link
Contributor Author

It would be nice to have an example file. Is there a corresponding validation in the literature to see the difference to Newtonian fluids?

Yes—there's a corresponding validation case in the Vahabi paper mentioned in docs (bubble rise), which is used to highlight differences versus Newtonian behavior. I'm currently working on reproducing that setup and will share the example/inputs once it's in a clean, reusable form.

@sherin-joseph sherin-joseph marked this pull request as draft February 19, 2026 08:18
@svchb svchb marked this pull request as ready for review February 24, 2026 11:36
@svchb
Copy link
Collaborator

svchb commented Feb 24, 2026

@sherin-joseph It never has been a good idea to put a new model and validation into the same PR since the validation takes so much longer. So we should move ahead with this first.

svchb
svchb previously approved these changes Feb 24, 2026
efaulhaber
efaulhaber previously approved these changes Feb 24, 2026
@svchb
Copy link
Collaborator

svchb commented Feb 24, 2026

@sherin-joseph please reformat than we can merge this!

@sherin-joseph sherin-joseph dismissed stale reviews from efaulhaber and svchb via 4388338 February 24, 2026 14:08
@svchb svchb enabled auto-merge (squash) February 24, 2026 14:23
@svchb
Copy link
Collaborator

svchb commented Feb 24, 2026

/run-gpu-tests

@svchb svchb merged commit 0acb886 into trixi-framework:main Feb 24, 2026
16 of 18 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants