[cig-commits] r15827 - doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long

[luis at geodynamics.org]

Author: luis
Date: 2009-10-18 00:18:24 -0700 (Sun, 18 Oct 2009)
New Revision: 15827

Modified:
   doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/geomod2008.html
   doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/geomod2008.rst
Log:
Use degree-symbol Unicode character (no need for image)

Modified: doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/geomod2008.html
===================================================================
--- doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/geomod2008.html	2009-10-18 07:18:18 UTC (rev 15826)
+++ doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/geomod2008.html	2009-10-18 07:18:24 UTC (rev 15827)
@@ -27,17 +27,17 @@
 thickness of the material goes to zero. However, analog experiments
 suggest a finite cohesion, so this benchmark specifies a boundary
 cohesion.</p>
-<p>We modeled the wedge using a relatively low viscosity (1Pa cdot s$)
+<p>We modeled the wedge using a relatively low viscosity (1 Pa-s)
 air layer on top. This low viscosity region does not, for the most part,
 affect the dynamics.</p>
 <p>We modeled boundary friction by first fixing the sand to the boundary. We
 then modify the material properties in the element next to the boundary
 so that it provides the correct resistance. So in the bulk, the sand's
-internal angle of friction is $36^{deg}$ weakening to $31^{deg}$, while
+internal angle of friction is 36° weakening to 31°, while
 in the element at the boundary the internal angle of friction is
-$16^{deg}$ weakening to $14^{deg}$. Similarly, in the bulk, the
-cohesion is $10Pa$, while at the boundary the cohesion is $10Pa$
-weakening to $0.01Pa$. If we do not weaken the cohesion, when we try to
+16° weakening to 14°. Similarly, in the bulk, the
+cohesion is 10 Pa, while at the boundary the cohesion is 10 Pa
+weakening to 0.01 Pa. If we do not weaken the cohesion, when we try to
 model an unstable wedge by reducing the internal angle of friction, the
 wedge never collapses on itself.</p>
 <p>Figure [fig:Stable_sri] shows the strain rate invariant after the wall
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
 The bulk translates with almost no deformation, although, as expected,
 the tip deforms. The odd structures at the tip are below the grid
 resolution. Figure [fig:Stable_unstable] shows a simulation when we
-reduce the boundary friction to $1^{deg}$. The wedge quickly becomes
+reduce the boundary friction to 1°. The wedge quickly becomes
 unstable and collapses.</p>
 <div class="figure">
 <img alt="images/Geomod2008_wedge_setup.png" src="images/Geomod2008_wedge_setup.png" />
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@
 <p class="caption">Figure [fig:Stable_unstable]</p>
 <div class="legend">
 Strain rate invariant and velocity arrows for the stable wedge
-benchmark, but with the friction angle reduced to $1^{deg}$. Note that
+benchmark, but with the friction angle reduced to 1°. Note that
 the strain rates are much higher than in Figure [fig:Stable_sri]. The
 wedge collapses almost immediately. The resolution is 512x128, and the
 wedge has translated 0.17 cm.</div>
@@ -220,6 +220,8 @@
 resolution of 512x128. The snapshots are taken at 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, and
 10 cm of shortening.</div>
 </div>
+<!-- degree symbol -->
+<!-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_symbol -->
 </div>
 </div>
 </body>

Modified: doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/geomod2008.rst
===================================================================
--- doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/geomod2008.rst	2009-10-18 07:18:18 UTC (rev 15826)
+++ doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/long/geomod2008.rst	2009-10-18 07:18:24 UTC (rev 15827)
@@ -22,18 +22,18 @@
 suggest a finite cohesion, so this benchmark specifies a boundary
 cohesion.
 
-We modeled the wedge using a relatively low viscosity (1\ Pa \cdot s$)
+We modeled the wedge using a relatively low viscosity (1 Pa-s)
 air layer on top. This low viscosity region does not, for the most part,
 affect the dynamics.
 
 We modeled boundary friction by first fixing the sand to the boundary. We
 then modify the material properties in the element next to the boundary
 so that it provides the correct resistance. So in the bulk, the sand's
-internal angle of friction is $36^{\deg}$ weakening to $31^{\deg}$, while
+internal angle of friction is 36\ |deg| weakening to 31\ |deg|, while
 in the element at the boundary the internal angle of friction is
-$16^{\deg}$ weakening to $14^{\deg}$. Similarly, in the bulk, the
-cohesion is $10\ Pa$, while at the boundary the cohesion is $10\ Pa$
-weakening to $0.01\ Pa$. If we do not weaken the cohesion, when we try to
+16\ |deg| weakening to 14\ |deg|. Similarly, in the bulk, the
+cohesion is 10 Pa, while at the boundary the cohesion is 10 Pa
+weakening to 0.01 Pa. If we do not weaken the cohesion, when we try to
 model an unstable wedge by reducing the internal angle of friction, the
 wedge never collapses on itself.
 
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
 The bulk translates with almost no deformation, although, as expected,
 the tip deforms. The odd structures at the tip are below the grid
 resolution. Figure [fig:Stable_unstable] shows a simulation when we
-reduce the boundary friction to $1^{\deg}$. The wedge quickly becomes
+reduce the boundary friction to 1\ |deg|. The wedge quickly becomes
 unstable and collapses.
 
 .. figure:: images/Geomod2008_wedge_setup.png
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@
    Figure [fig:Stable_unstable]
 
    Strain rate invariant and velocity arrows for the stable wedge
-   benchmark, but with the friction angle reduced to $1^{\deg}$. Note that
+   benchmark, but with the friction angle reduced to 1\ |deg|. Note that
    the strain rates are much higher than in Figure [fig:Stable_sri]. The
    wedge collapses almost immediately. The resolution is 512x128, and the
    wedge has translated 0.17 cm.
@@ -222,3 +222,7 @@
    resolution of 512x128. The snapshots are taken at 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, and
    10 cm of shortening.
    
+.. degree symbol
+.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_symbol
+.. |deg| unicode:: U+00B0
+