2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Omar SobhandClaude Fable 5	4bd98b5264	rtx-cfd + rtx-fsi: the added-mass piston — partitioned FSI on the real ALE fluid ... The first coupled fluid-structure computation in the workspace, verified against a closed form, and the first time rtx-fsi's added-mass claims run against a real discretised fluid rather than a linear model map. ALE extensions: per-side boundaries (Velocity / SlipWall / PressureOutlet) and moving boundary lines. A moving Velocity side is a material wall whose prescribed normal velocity must equal the line's own motion; a pressure outlet takes Dirichlet p' = 0 in the projection (replacing the Neumann anchor) with a zero-gradient predictor on its faces. Fluid half verified alone (tests/ale_piston_channel.rs): prescribed piston motion, slip walls, outlet. The incompressible rigid column is exact DISCRETELY - continuity forces every u to the wall's discrete velocity (8e-12) and the projected pressure is exactly linear with gradient rho times the wall's backward-difference acceleration (2.5e-9). Coupled benchmark (rtx-fsi/tests/piston_added_mass.rs): elastic piston (Newmark average acceleration) against added mass rho*L*H at mass ratio 6.25, rtx-fsi's Subiterated driving a real fluid/structure pass per step: - plain staggered diverges in 7 subiterations (Causin-Gerbeau-Nobile on a real solver); - Aitken converges at 3.0 subiterations/step onto T = 1.07009 vs the closed form 1.06999 - 9.8e-5 relative, halving with dt; - outlet flux matches the piston sweep to ~1e-9 every step. Discrete-analysis finding: Newmark beta scales the staggered added-mass threshold - the iteration gain is beta*m_a/(M + K*beta*dt^2), so the continuous ratio 2.5 CONVERGES at beta = 1/4 (gain 0.625, measured ~17 passes/step) and the benchmark needs ratio 6.25 (gain 1.56). Two real defects found and fixed, twelfth and thirteenth of the campaign: 1. rtx-cfd ale::advance re-stamped boundary faces at t_old from the current boundary function, which in a coupling loop carries the NEW interval's wall velocity - the predictor's old state had interior u = w0 but wall face u = w1, leaving an O(dt) pressure artifact confined to the wall-adjacent cells (p exact to 6e-11 everywhere except the wall cell at 4.7e-5). The start-of-step boundary faces are whatever the previous step's end-of-step application left there. 2. rtx-fsi aitken_factor guarded its denominator - a SQUARED residual- difference norm - against a bare f64::EPSILON, silently disabling Aitken below residual ~1e-8 and degrading to unit relaxation exactly in the well-converged regime; the repulsive fixed point then amplified 1e-9 residuals back up and the coupling diverged. Third instance of the absolute-threshold species (NNLS, ECSW). The guard is relative now; aitken_is_scale_invariant pins it at initial residual 1e-9. rtx-cfd 293 green (+1), rtx-fsi 29 green (+3). rtx-fsi's lib gains only the relative guard; the coupling layer still depends on no solver (rtx-cfd is a dev-dependency of its tests). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <[email protected]>	2026-08-20 06:10:13 -07:00
Omar SobhandClaude Fable 5	259c5baa63	rtx-cfd: ALE on a moving tensor-product grid, DGCL-exact by construction ... The first brick of the Turek-Hron frontier: PISO (explicit conservative predictor + SOR projection) generalised to a staggered grid whose x- and y-lines move arbitrarily each step while the domain boundary stays fixed. The discretisation choice that carries everything: time-averaged face areas (A^n + A^{n+1})/2 in both the fluid fluxes and the face-swept volumes. For tensor-product motion the discrete geometric conservation law then holds as an algebraic identity, so uniform flow is a machine-precision fixed point, not a truncation-order one: - DGCL test: uniform (0.7, -0.4) on a 16x12 grid with interior lines wiggling out of phase, 400 steps: max deviation 7.9e-15 (~35 ulp). Negative control with end-of-step areas (per-step cell error exactly dw*dh/V, the cross term the identity absorbs): 1.5e-2 - a 1e12 separation, so the test can fail. - Degeneracy: zero motion on a uniform grid vs fixed-grid PISO over Taylor-Green steps: max difference 2.2e-16 - one ulp - pinning every geometric generalisation to the verified implementation. - Physics under motion: Taylor-Green on the wiggling mesh, L2 error 2.42e-2 -> 1.07e-2 (n=16 -> 32, order 1.17); moving-mesh error at n=32 sits below the fixed-mesh 1.1532e-2 (PISO's published value to four digits); energy decay unchanged by the motion. One trap documented in the test: the projection's inner-stop floor (0.1 * tolerance * reference_flux) at an engineering tolerance lets a one-sweep partial p' accumulate into p, whose gradient perturbs the velocities at ~1e-11 with the geometry blameless. The DGCL run must use a rounding-level tolerance because machine-precision preservation is the claim under test. Measured: 3.6e-11 at tol 1e-9, 7.9e-15 at 1e-13. Incompressibility needs no mesh-velocity term: subtracting the GCL from moving-cell mass conservation leaves plain div(u) = 0 on the current geometry, so the projection is the fixed-grid one with non-uniform coefficients. 292 rtx-cfd tests green (288 + 4). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <[email protected]>	2026-08-20 05:31:12 -07:00