-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
Add interpolation to powder fill example #213
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ | |||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This function misses the copyright notice.
Also, it seems the ability to interpolate would be helpful for other fields, not just density.
@@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ class Particles<MemorySpace, PMB, TemperatureIndependent, BaseOutput, Dimension> | |||
v( pid, d ) = 0.0; | |||
f( pid, d ) = 0.0; | |||
} | |||
type( pid ) = 0; | |||
type( pid ) = 1; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why changing type from 0 to 1?
Why rho = 1 below?
In powder_fill.json, we have: Should these include units? |
// ==================================================== | ||
// Interpolate for consolidation | ||
// ==================================================== | ||
// Do this first to get the coarser grid. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this example suppose to run the powder setting first and then interpolate the final density profile and output to a file? (just making sure I understand)
Also, any reason to choose a coarser grid of half the number of cells per dimension? Is this an arbitrary choice?
Powder to continuum demonstration
Before merging
type
field vs physical/relative density