[BeamInterpolation] Generalize parameters per edge #169
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
fredroy
added
the
pr: status to review
fredroy
changed the title
fredroy
changed the title
|
I found a problem. I'll remove the draft status when I'm done. EDIT - IMPORTANT: My problem was due to the usage of |
|
Hey @EulalieCoevoet |
|
Yes sorry. I just fixed it and added more tests. |
fredroy
requested changes
Mar 5, 2025
EulalieCoevoet
commented
Mar 11, 2025
fredroy
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2025
fredroy
added
pr: status ready
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We can already set a
defaultYoungModulusanddefaultPoissonRatioper edge.This PR generalizes this option to all parameters:
radiusinnerRadiuslengthYlengthZmassDensity(AdaptiveBeamForceFieldAndMass.inl)Question: Should we remove the options
sideLength,largeRadiusandsmallRadius? They are not used, since square and elliptic cross-section are not implemented.EDIT: If you agree, we should also remove the elliptic and square options from
Data<OptionsGroup> crossSectionShape.