Improvements to Navier-Stokes demo

.github/workflows/build-publish.yml

@@ -74,6 +74,15 @@ jobs:
           mpirun -n 3 python3 convergence.py
           mpirun -n 3 python3 compiler_parameters.py
 
+      - name: Upload Navier-Stokes DFG 2D 3 plots
+        uses: actions/upload-artifact@v3
+        with:
+          name: DFG2D-3
+          path: chapter2/figures
+          retention-days: 2
+          if-no-files-found: error
+
+
   build-book:
     # The type of runner that the job will run on
     runs-on: ubuntu-latest

chapter2/ns_code2.py

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
 # To be able to solve this problem efficiently and ensure numerical stability, we will subsitute our first order backward difference scheme with a second order backward difference approximation, and use an explicit Adams-Bashforth approximation of the non-linear term.
 #
 # ```{admonition} Computationally demanding demo
-# This demo is computationally demanding, with a run-time up to 25 minutes, as it is using parameters from the DFG 2D-3 benchmark, which consists of 12800 time steps. It is adviced to download this demo and  not run it in a browser. Please also see the last part of the tutorial on how to use `mpirun` to speedup the run-time of the program.
+# This demo is computationally demanding, with a run-time up to 15 minutes, as it is using parameters from the DFG 2D-3 benchmark, which consists of 12800 time steps. It is adviced to download this demo and  not run it in a browser. This runtime of the demo can be increased by using 2 or 3 mpi processes.
 # ```
 #
 # The computational geometry we would like to use is
@@ -42,19 +42,22 @@
 
 # +
 import gmsh
+import os
 import numpy as np
 import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
-import tqdm.notebook
+import tqdm.autonotebook
 
 from mpi4py import MPI
 from petsc4py import PETSc
 
 from dolfinx.cpp.mesh import to_type, cell_entity_type
-from dolfinx.fem import Constant, Function, FunctionSpace, assemble_scalar, dirichletbc, form, locate_dofs_topological, set_bc
-from dolfinx.fem.petsc import apply_lifting, assemble_matrix, assemble_vector, create_vector, set_bc
+from dolfinx.fem import (Constant, Function, FunctionSpace, 
+                         assemble_scalar, dirichletbc, form, locate_dofs_topological, set_bc)
+from dolfinx.fem.petsc import (apply_lifting, assemble_matrix, assemble_vector, 
+                               create_vector, create_matrix, set_bc)
 from dolfinx.graph import create_adjacencylist
 from dolfinx.geometry import BoundingBoxTree, compute_collisions, compute_colliding_cells
-from dolfinx.io import (XDMFFile, distribute_entity_data, gmshio)
+from dolfinx.io import (VTXWriter, distribute_entity_data, gmshio)
 from dolfinx.mesh import create_mesh, meshtags_from_entities
 
 from ufl import (FacetNormal, FiniteElement, Identity, Measure, TestFunction, TrialFunction, VectorElement,
@@ -123,31 +126,30 @@
 # LcMin -o---------/
 #        |         |       |
 #       Point    DistMin DistMax
-res_min = r / 3.7
-res_max = 1.5 * r
+res_min = r / 3
 if mesh_comm.rank == model_rank:
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.add("Distance", 1)
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumbers(1, "EdgesList", obstacle)
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.add("Threshold", 2)
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumber(2, "IField", 1)
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumber(2, "LcMin", res_min)
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumber(2, "LcMax", res_max)
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumber(2, "DistMin", 4*r)
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumber(2, "DistMax", 8*r)
-
-    # We take the minimum of the two fields as the mesh size
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.add("Min", 5)
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumbers(5, "FieldsList", [2])
-    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setAsBackgroundMesh(5)
+    distance_field = gmsh.model.mesh.field.add("Distance")
+    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumbers(distance_field, "EdgesList", obstacle)
+    threshold_field = gmsh.model.mesh.field.add("Threshold")
+    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumber(threshold_field, "IField", distance_field)
+    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumber(threshold_field, "LcMin", res_min)
+    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumber(threshold_field, "LcMax", 0.25 * H)
+    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumber(threshold_field, "DistMin", r)
+    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumber(threshold_field, "DistMax", 2 * H)
+    min_field = gmsh.model.mesh.field.add("Min")
+    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setNumbers(min_field, "FieldsList", [threshold_field])
+    gmsh.model.mesh.field.setAsBackgroundMesh(min_field)
 
 # ## Generating the mesh
-# We are now ready to generate the mesh. However, we have to decide if our mesh should consist of triangles or quadrilaterals. In this demo, to match the DFG 2D-3 benchmark, we use quadrilateral elements. This is done by recombining the mesh, setting three gmsh options. 
+# We are now ready to generate the mesh. However, we have to decide if our mesh should consist of triangles or quadrilaterals. In this demo, to match the DFG 2D-3 benchmark, we use second order quadrilateral elements.
 
 if mesh_comm.rank == model_rank:
-    gmsh.option.setNumber("Mesh.RecombinationAlgorithm", 8)
-    gmsh.option.setNumber("Mesh.RecombineAll", 2)
+    gmsh.option.setNumber("Mesh.Algorithm", 8)
+    gmsh.option.setNumber("Mesh.RecombinationAlgorithm", 2)
+    gmsh.option.setNumber("Mesh.RecombineAll", 1)
     gmsh.option.setNumber("Mesh.SubdivisionAlgorithm", 1)
     gmsh.model.mesh.generate(gdim)
+    gmsh.model.mesh.setOrder(2)
     gmsh.model.mesh.optimize("Netgen")
 
 # ## Loading mesh and boundary markers
@@ -161,7 +163,7 @@
 # Following the DGF-2 benchmark, we define our problem specific parameters
 
 t = 0
-T = 1 #8                    # Final time
+T = 8                       # Final time
 dt = 1/1600                 # Time step size
 num_steps = int(T/dt)
 k = Constant(mesh, PETSc.ScalarType(dt))        
@@ -210,11 +212,11 @@ def __call__(self, x):
 # -
 
 # ## Variational form
-# As opposed to [Pouseille flow](./ns_code1.ipynb), we will use a Crank-Nicolson discretization, and an explicit Adams-Bashforth approximation.
+# As opposed to [Pouseille flow](./ns_code1.ipynb), we will use a Crank-Nicolson discretization, and an semi-implicit Adams-Bashforth approximation.
 # The first step can be written as
 #
 # $$
-# \rho\left(\frac{u^*- u^n}{\delta t} + \frac{3}{2} u^n \cdot \nabla u^n - \frac{1}{2} u^{n-1} \cdot \nabla u^{n-1}\right) - \frac{1}{2}\mu \Delta( u^*+ u^n )+ \nabla p^{n-1/2} = f^{n+\frac{1}{2}} \qquad \text{ in } \Omega
+# \rho\left(\frac{u^*- u^n}{\delta t} + \left(\frac{3}{2}u^{n} - \frac{1}{2} u^{n-1}\right)\cdot \frac{1}{2}\nabla (u^*+u^n) \right) - \frac{1}{2}\mu \Delta( u^*+ u^n )+ \nabla p^{n-1/2} = f^{n+\frac{1}{2}} \qquad \text{ in } \Omega
 # $$
 #
 # $$
@@ -263,13 +265,12 @@ def __call__(self, x):
 
 f = Constant(mesh, PETSc.ScalarType((0,0)))
 F1 = rho / k * dot(u - u_n, v) * dx 
-F1 += inner(1.5 * dot(u_n, nabla_grad(u_n)) - 0.5 * dot(u_n1, nabla_grad(u_n1)), v) * dx
-F1 += 0.5 * mu * inner(grad(u+u_n), grad(v))*dx - dot(p_, div(v))*dx
+F1 += inner(dot(1.5 * u_n - 0.5 * u_n1, 0.5 * nabla_grad(u + u_n)), v) * dx
+F1 += 0.5 * mu * inner(grad(u + u_n), grad(v))*dx - dot(p_, div(v))*dx
 F1 += dot(f, v) * dx
 a1 = form(lhs(F1))
 L1 = form(rhs(F1))
-A1 = assemble_matrix(a1, bcs=bcu)
-A1.assemble()
+A1 = create_matrix(a1)
 b1 = create_vector(L1)
 
 # Next we define the second step
@@ -351,18 +352,17 @@ def __call__(self, x):
 # ## Solving the time-dependent problem
 # ```{admonition} Stability of the Navier-Stokes equation
 # Note that the current splitting scheme has to fullfil the a [Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy condition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courant%E2%80%93Friedrichs%E2%80%93Lewy_condition). This limits the spatial discretization with respect to the inlet velocity and temporal discretization.
-# Other temporal discretization schemes such as the second order backward difference discretization or Crank-Nicholson discretization with Adams-Bashforth linearization are better behaved than our simple backward differnce scheme.```
+# Other temporal discretization schemes such as the second order backward difference discretization or Crank-Nicholson discretization with Adams-Bashforth linearization are better behaved than our simple backward difference scheme.
+# ```
+#
 # As in the previous example, we create output files for the velocity and pressure and solve the time-dependent problem. As we are solving a time dependent problem with many time steps, we use the `tqdm`-package to visualize the progress. This package can be install with `pip3`.
 
 # + tags=[]
-xdmf = XDMFFile(MPI.COMM_WORLD, "dfg2D-3.xdmf", "w")
-xdmf.write_mesh(mesh)
-xdmf.write_function(u_, t)
-xdmf.write_function(p_, t)
-
-progress = tqdm.notebook.tqdm(desc="Solving PDE", total=num_steps)
-# If running this as a python script, you should use the Progressbar command below
-# progress = tqdm.tqdm(desc="Solving PDE", total=num_steps)
+vtx_u = VTXWriter(mesh.comm, "dfg2D-3-u.bp", [u_])
+vtx_p = VTXWriter(mesh.comm, "dfg2D-3-p.bp", [p_])
+vtx_u.write(t)
+vtx_p.write(t)
+progress = tqdm.autonotebook.tqdm(desc="Solving PDE", total=num_steps)
 for i in range(num_steps):
     progress.update(1)
     # Update current time step
@@ -371,7 +371,10 @@ def __call__(self, x):
     inlet_velocity.t = t
     u_inlet.interpolate(inlet_velocity)
 
-    # Step 1: Tentative veolcity step
+    # Step 1: Tentative velocity step
+    A1.zeroEntries()
+    assemble_matrix(A1, a1, bcs=bcu)
+    A1.assemble()
     with b1.localForm() as loc:
         loc.set(0)
     assemble_vector(b1, L1)
@@ -403,8 +406,8 @@ def __call__(self, x):
     u_.x.scatter_forward()
 
     # Write solutions to file
-    xdmf.write_function(u_, t)
-    xdmf.write_function(p_, t)
+    vtx_u.write(t)
+    vtx_p.write(t)
 
     # Update variable with solution form this time step
     with u_.vector.localForm() as loc_, u_n.vector.localForm() as loc_n, u_n1.vector.localForm() as loc_n1:
@@ -426,7 +429,7 @@ def __call__(self, x):
     p_back = mesh.comm.gather(p_back, root=0)
     if mesh.comm.rank == 0:
         t_u[i] = t
-        t_p[i] = t-dt/2
+        t_p[i] = t - dt / 2
         C_D[i] = sum(drag_coeff)
         C_L[i] = sum(lift_coeff)
         # Choose first pressure that is found from the different processors
@@ -438,16 +441,17 @@ def __call__(self, x):
             if pressure is not None:
                 p_diff[i] -= pressure[0]
                 break
-# Close xmdf file
-xdmf.close()
+vtx_u.close()
+vtx_p.close()
 # -
 
 # ## Verification using data from FEATFLOW
 # As FEATFLOW has provided data for different  discretization levels, we compare our numerical data with the data provided using `matplotlib`.
-#
 
 # + tags=[]
 if mesh.comm.rank == 0:
+    if not os.path.exists("figures"):
+        os.mkdir("figures")
     num_velocity_dofs = V.dofmap.index_map_bs * V.dofmap.index_map.size_global
     num_pressure_dofs = Q.dofmap.index_map_bs * V.dofmap.index_map.size_global
 
@@ -460,7 +464,7 @@ def __call__(self, x):
     plt.title("Drag coefficient")
     plt.grid()
     plt.legend()
-    plt.savefig("drag_comparison.png")
+    plt.savefig("figures/drag_comparison.png")
 
     fig = plt.figure(figsize=(25,8))
     l1 = plt.plot(t_u, C_L, label=r"FEniCSx  ({0:d} dofs)".format(
@@ -470,7 +474,7 @@ def __call__(self, x):
     plt.title("Lift coefficient")
     plt.grid()
     plt.legend()
-    plt.savefig("lift_comparison.png")
+    plt.savefig("figures/lift_comparison.png")
 
     fig = plt.figure(figsize=(25,8))
     l1 = plt.plot(t_p, p_diff, label=r"FEniCSx ({0:d} dofs)".format(num_velocity_dofs+num_pressure_dofs),linewidth=2)
@@ -479,8 +483,7 @@ def __call__(self, x):
     plt.title("Pressure difference")
     plt.grid()
     plt.legend()
-    plt.savefig("pressure_comparison.png")
-
+    plt.savefig("figures/pressure_comparison.png")
 # -
 
-# We observe an offset in amplitude. This is due to the reduced number of degrees of freedom compared to FEATFLOW. If we change the parameters `res_min` to `r/5`, and `res_max` to `r`, we can obtain a result closer to the FEATFLOW benchmark. It is recommended to convert the notebook to a python-script using [nbconvert](https://nbconvert.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) and using `mpirun -n 4 python3 ns_code2.py` to run the python program distributed over 4 processors. 
+