Author: luis
Date: 2009-10-07 12:15:41 -0700 (Wed, 07 Oct 2009)
New Revision: 15784
Modified:
doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/circular-inclusion.html
doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/circular-inclusion.rst
Log:
Fixed formatting of figures in long/circular-inclusion.rst
It turns out that the second paragraph under a figure:: directive
corresponds to the legend. The first paragraph is the caption.
Modified: doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/circular-inclusion.html
===================================================================
--- doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/circular-inclusion.html 2009-10-07 19:15:36 UTC (rev 15783)
+++ doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/circular-inclusion.html 2009-10-07 19:15:41 UTC (rev 15784)
@@ -13,13 +13,12 @@
<p>Schmid and Podladchikov [Clast] derived a simple analytic solution for
the pressure and velocity fields for a circular inclusion under simple
-shear as in <a class="reference internal" href="#figure-inclusion-setup">Figure [Inclusion-Setup]</a>.</p>
+shear as in <a class="reference internal" href="#figure-1">Figure 1</a>.</p>
<!-- fig:Inclusion-Setup -->
<div align="center" class="figure">
<img alt="Circular Inclusion Geometry" src="images/inclusion_setup.png" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="target" id="figure-inclusion-setup">Figure [Inclusion-Setup]</span></p>
-<div class="legend">
-Schematic for the circular inclusion benchmark</div>
+<p class="caption"><span class="target" id="figure-1">Figure 1</span>:
+Schematic for the circular inclusion benchmark</p>
</div>
<p>The file <tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">input/benchmarks/circular_inclusion/README</span></tt> has instructions
on how to run this benchmark.</p>
@@ -48,50 +47,51 @@
continuous. The pressure discontinuity at the surface of the inclusion
violates that assumption, so the error tends to concentrate near the
surface of the inclusion.</p>
-<p><a class="reference internal" href="#figure-pressure-inclusion">Figure [Pressure-Inclusion]</a> plots the error in the pressure along the
-line [;y=x/2;] for different resolutions. Inside the inclusion near the
-surface, the pressure is consistently wrong. The pressure does not
-converge with higher resolution, giving us a clue that the default
+<p><a class="reference internal" href="#figure-2">Figure 2</a> plots the error in the pressure along the line [;y=x/2;]
+for different resolutions. Inside the inclusion near the surface,
+the pressure is consistently wrong. The pressure does not converge
+with higher resolution, giving us a clue that the default
numerical scheme is not accurate.</p>
<!-- fig:Pressure-Inclusion -->
<div align="center" class="figure">
<img alt="Pressure Field" src="images/inclusion_r8_p.png" style="width: 80%;" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="target" id="figure-pressure-inclusion">Figure [Pressure-Inclusion]</span></p>
-<div class="legend">
-Pressure along the line [;y=x/2;] for resolutions of [;128 \times 128;]
-(blue), [;256 \times 256;] (red), and [;512 \times 512;] (black). The
-inclusion has radius [;r_i=0.1;]. Note that the pressure should be zero
-inside the inclusion, but the numerical solutions consistently
-underestimate the pressure.</div>
+<p class="caption"><span class="target" id="figure-2">Figure 2</span>:
+Pressure along the line [;y=x/2;] for resolutions of
+[;128 \times 128;] (blue), [;256 \times 256;] (red),
+and [;512 \times 512;] (black). The inclusion has radius
+[;r_i=0.1;]. Note that the pressure should be zero
+inside the inclusion, but the numerical solutions
+consistently underestimate the pressure.</p>
</div>
<p>Outside the inclusion, the error is better behaved.
-<a class="reference internal" href="#figure-pressure-error">Figure [Pressure-Error]</a> plots the error in the pressure along
-the line [;y=x/2;] outside the inclusion for different resolutions.
-While there are still problems near the surface, away from the surface
-the solutions are quite good. <a class="reference internal" href="#figure-scaled-pressure-error">Figure [Scaled-Pressure-Error]</a>
-plots the error scaled with resolution, and we can see that
-the error scales linearly with resolution. This gives us confidence
-that, at least away from the inclusion, the code is giving the
-right answer. This kind of result, where the solution is bad
-close to the surface, but good otherwise, is typical for numerical
-solutions of this problem [FD Stokes].</p>
+<a class="reference internal" href="#figure-3">Figure 3</a> plots the error in the pressure along the line [;y=x/2;]
+outside the inclusion for different resolutions. While there
+are still problems near the surface, away from the surface the
+solutions are quite good. <a class="reference internal" href="#figure-4">Figure 4</a> plots the error scaled
+with resolution, and we can see that the error scales linearly
+with resolution. This gives us confidence that, at least away
+from the inclusion, the code is giving the right answer. This kind
+of result, where the solution is bad close to the surface,
+but good otherwise, is typical for numerical solutions of
+this problem [FD Stokes].</p>
<!-- fig:Pressure-Error -->
<div align="center" class="figure">
<img alt="Pressure Error" src="images/inclusion_r8_p_error.png" style="width: 80%;" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="target" id="figure-pressure-error">Figure [Pressure-Error]</span></p>
-<div class="legend">
-Error in the pressure outside the inclusion along the line [;y=x/2;]
-for resolutions of [;128 \times 128;] (blue), [;256 \times 256;] (red),
-and [;512 \times 512;] (black). The inclusion has radius [;r_i=0.1;].</div>
+<p class="caption"><span class="target" id="figure-3">Figure 3</span>:
+Error in the pressure outside the inclusion along
+the line [;y=x/2;] for resolutions of
+[;128 \times 128;] (blue),
+[;256 \times 256;] (red), and
+[;512 \times 512;] (black).
+The inclusion has radius [;r_i=0.1;].</p>
</div>
<!-- fig:Scaled-pressure-error -->
<div align="center" class="figure">
<img alt="Scaled Pressure Error" src="images/inclusion_r8_p_scaled_error.png" style="width: 80%;" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="target" id="figure-scaled-pressure-error">Figure [Scaled-Pressure-Error]</span></p>
-<div class="legend">
-As in <a class="reference internal" href="#figure-pressure-error">Figure [Pressure-Error]</a>, but with the error scaled with [;h;].
+<p class="caption"><span class="target" id="figure-4">Figure 4</span>:
+As in <a class="reference internal" href="#figure-3">Figure 3</a>, but with the error scaled with [;h;].
So the medium-resolution error is multiplied by 2 and the
-high-resolution error is multiplied by 4.</div>
+high-resolution error is multiplied by 4.</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
Modified: doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/circular-inclusion.rst
===================================================================
--- doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/circular-inclusion.rst 2009-10-07 19:15:36 UTC (rev 15783)
+++ doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/circular-inclusion.rst 2009-10-07 19:15:41 UTC (rev 15784)
@@ -4,17 +4,17 @@
Schmid and Podladchikov [Clast] derived a simple analytic solution for
the pressure and velocity fields for a circular inclusion under simple
-shear as in `Figure [Inclusion-Setup]`_.
+shear as in `Figure 1`_.
.. fig:Inclusion-Setup
.. figure:: images/inclusion_setup.png
:alt: Circular Inclusion Geometry
:align: center
- _`Figure [Inclusion-Setup]`
-
+ _`Figure 1`:
Schematic for the circular inclusion benchmark
+
The file ``input/benchmarks/circular_inclusion/README`` has instructions
on how to run this benchmark.
@@ -47,10 +47,10 @@
violates that assumption, so the error tends to concentrate near the
surface of the inclusion.
-`Figure [Pressure-Inclusion]`_ plots the error in the pressure along the
-line [;y=x/2;] for different resolutions. Inside the inclusion near the
-surface, the pressure is consistently wrong. The pressure does not
-converge with higher resolution, giving us a clue that the default
+`Figure 2`_ plots the error in the pressure along the line [;y=x/2;]
+for different resolutions. Inside the inclusion near the surface,
+the pressure is consistently wrong. The pressure does not converge
+with higher resolution, giving us a clue that the default
numerical scheme is not accurate.
.. fig:Pressure-Inclusion
@@ -59,25 +59,26 @@
:align: center
:width: 80%
- _`Figure [Pressure-Inclusion]`
+ _`Figure 2`:
+ Pressure along the line [;y=x/2;] for resolutions of
+ [;128 \\times 128;] (blue), [;256 \\times 256;] (red),
+ and [;512 \\times 512;] (black). The inclusion has radius
+ [;r_i=0.1;]. Note that the pressure should be zero
+ inside the inclusion, but the numerical solutions
+ consistently underestimate the pressure.
- Pressure along the line [;y=x/2;] for resolutions of [;128 \\times 128;]
- (blue), [;256 \\times 256;] (red), and [;512 \\times 512;] (black). The
- inclusion has radius [;r_i=0.1;]. Note that the pressure should be zero
- inside the inclusion, but the numerical solutions consistently
- underestimate the pressure.
Outside the inclusion, the error is better behaved.
-`Figure [Pressure-Error]`_ plots the error in the pressure along
-the line [;y=x/2;] outside the inclusion for different resolutions.
-While there are still problems near the surface, away from the surface
-the solutions are quite good. `Figure [Scaled-Pressure-Error]`_
-plots the error scaled with resolution, and we can see that
-the error scales linearly with resolution. This gives us confidence
-that, at least away from the inclusion, the code is giving the
-right answer. This kind of result, where the solution is bad
-close to the surface, but good otherwise, is typical for numerical
-solutions of this problem [FD Stokes].
+`Figure 3`_ plots the error in the pressure along the line [;y=x/2;]
+outside the inclusion for different resolutions. While there
+are still problems near the surface, away from the surface the
+solutions are quite good. `Figure 4`_ plots the error scaled
+with resolution, and we can see that the error scales linearly
+with resolution. This gives us confidence that, at least away
+from the inclusion, the code is giving the right answer. This kind
+of result, where the solution is bad close to the surface,
+but good otherwise, is typical for numerical solutions of
+this problem [FD Stokes].
.. fig:Pressure-Error
.. figure:: images/inclusion_r8_p_error.png
@@ -85,22 +86,23 @@
:align: center
:width: 80%
- _`Figure [Pressure-Error]`
+ _`Figure 3`:
+ Error in the pressure outside the inclusion along
+ the line [;y=x/2;] for resolutions of
+ [;128 \\times 128;] (blue),
+ [;256 \\times 256;] (red), and
+ [;512 \\times 512;] (black).
+ The inclusion has radius [;r_i=0.1;].
- Error in the pressure outside the inclusion along the line [;y=x/2;]
- for resolutions of [;128 \\times 128;] (blue), [;256 \\times 256;] (red),
- and [;512 \\times 512;] (black). The inclusion has radius [;r_i=0.1;].
-
.. fig:Scaled-pressure-error
.. figure:: images/inclusion_r8_p_scaled_error.png
:alt: Scaled Pressure Error
:align: center
:width: 80%
- _`Figure [Scaled-Pressure-Error]`
-
- As in `Figure [Pressure-Error]`_, but with the error scaled with [;h;].
+ _`Figure 4`:
+ As in `Figure 3`_, but with the error scaled with [;h;].
So the medium-resolution error is multiplied by 2 and the
high-resolution error is multiplied by 4.