Vortex street validation

[efaulhaber]

Second part of #781. Based on #1221.

This is the plot based on the reference files, which I created by running the validation file at the default resolution of 0.05:

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.04%. Comparing base (b3f0e7d) to head (09c70f7).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1223   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.04%   90.04%           
=======================================
  Files         136      136           
  Lines       10595    10595           
=======================================
  Hits         9540     9540           
  Misses       1055     1055           

Flag	Coverage Δ
total	90.05% <ø> (ø)
unit	70.77% <ø> (ø)

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.

[efaulhaber]

@LasNikas @svchb I'm unsure how to validate this example from CI. The highest resolution with acceptable runtime would be 0.2. This runs in 1 minute on a large CPU, so we might be able to get it to run to t=2 in 5-10 minutes in CI, which is already longer than I'd prefer for a CI test. However, the result with this resolution looks like this:

┌ Info: Strouhal number
└   round(strouhal_number, digits = 3) = 0.029
┌ Info: Fraction of the dominant frequency band in the total spectrum
└   round(dominant_band_fraction, digits = 3) = 0.06
┌ Info: C_L_max for the periodic shedding
└   round(maximum(f_lift_cut), digits = 3) = 0.846

┌ Info: C_D_max for the periodic shedding
└   round(maximum(f_drag_cut), digits = 3) = 1.521

Of course, we can validate against these results to detect changes in the codebase, but I'd much prefer testing against a useful Strouhal number.

[efaulhaber]

The simulation at this resolution looks very good though:

[efaulhaber]

Update: I put a velocity probe in the wake of the cylinder, and that looks much nicer for the same low resolution:

I will use this for the validation.