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

Extend calculations for having berm as part of input profile #181

Open
ArdtK opened this issue Oct 21, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #218
Open

Extend calculations for having berm as part of input profile #181

ArdtK opened this issue Oct 21, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #218
Assignees
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@ArdtK
Copy link
Contributor

ArdtK commented Oct 21, 2024

No description provided.

@ArdtK ArdtK added this to the Sprint 2024.4.2 milestone Oct 21, 2024
@ArdtK ArdtK changed the title Extend tests for having a berm Extend calculations for having a berm as part of input profile Oct 21, 2024
@ArdtK ArdtK changed the title Extend calculations for having a berm as part of input profile Extend calculations for having berm as part of input profile Oct 21, 2024
@peterdgr
Copy link
Collaborator

Within the different measures the innerslope, inner_berm_width and inner_berm_height are calculated based on the existing dike dimensions and the reinforcement scenario (dh, ds, dp). So far we didn't take the existing berm width into account in the calculations. When there is an existing berm, the question is whether this is meant for piping or macrostability. Depending on that the new dike dimensions should be determined.

New logic needs to be defined and implemented --> @peterdgr
Tests should be added, existing tests should not fail (profiles should still be the same)

@Carsopre Carsopre added the question Further information is requested label Oct 23, 2024
@ArdtK
Copy link
Contributor Author

ArdtK commented Nov 4, 2024

Agreed:

  • Keep branch open as research branch
  • If it works functionally, merge master to branch (Peter/GAP)
  • Then review/refactor branch and fix unittests (GAP)

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants