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

Reopen #363: Hydrostatic water column (FSI) #441

Draft
wants to merge 21 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

LasNikas
Copy link
Collaborator

@LasNikas LasNikas commented Mar 5, 2024

No description provided.

@svchb svchb added this to the 0.2 milestone Mar 6, 2024
@efaulhaber efaulhaber removed this from the 0.2 milestone Mar 10, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 3, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.88%. Comparing base (31716f6) to head (37b13e6).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #441   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   68.88%   68.88%           
=======================================
  Files          86       86           
  Lines        5261     5261           
=======================================
  Hits         3624     3624           
  Misses       1637     1637           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 68.88% <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.

@LasNikas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

LasNikas commented Oct 4, 2024

@efaulhaber and @svchb do we need this example or should I close this PR?

@svchb
Copy link
Collaborator

svchb commented Oct 4, 2024

I am fine with adding this example if the results are correct.

@efaulhaber
Copy link
Member

What is this again? Was it the hydrostatic water column resting on an elastic beam?
IIRC, this was a toy example but pretty useless for validation, as the "analytical solution" used simplifications, so that the error is always quite large and it doesn't validate anything, really.

I'm against merging more examples that we don't really need. I prefer having useful validation examples from the literature only. Trixi.jl has too many examples, which makes it really hard for beginners.

@svchb
Copy link
Collaborator

svchb commented Nov 14, 2024

Niklas and I as far as I know are not against having as many examples as possible. But of course we would need to restructure the examples folder structure + docs page at some point.

@LasNikas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

It's a validation example from Sun et al. (2019), as well as from O'Connor and Rogers (2021).

@efaulhaber
Copy link
Member

It's a validation example from Sun et al. (2019), as well as from O'Connor and Rogers (2021).

Please add this as a comment and a description of what that simulation does.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants