[vale] web/content/docs/benchmarks.

web/content/docs/benchmarks/EhlersDamage/EhlersDamage/index.md

@@ -5,5 +5,5 @@ title = "Ehlers plastic-damage coupled model"
 
 ## Introduction
 
-We implemented and isotropic damage evolution law coupled to Ehelers plastic theory. The yield surface is formulated in the effective stress space and damage grows as a function of plastic strain.
+We implemented an isotropic damage evolution law coupled to Ehlers plastic theory. The yield surface is formulated in the effective stress space and damage grows as a function of plastic strain.
 For detailed reference, refer to the implementation manual.

web/content/docs/benchmarks/bgr_verification_examples/heatconduction/index.md

@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ These benchmark examples test the implementation of
 heat conduction process with analytical solutions
 presented by Vogel/Massmann.
 
-A detailed description can be found in the ogs Benchmark books.
-The following table links the ogs problem descriptions with its corresponding
+A detailed description can be found in the OGS Benchmark books.
+The following table links the OGS problem descriptions with its corresponding
 chapters in the benchmark books.
 
 | Book/Chapter | Benchmark name |

web/content/docs/benchmarks/bgr_verification_examples/hydromechanics/index.md

@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ These benchmark examples test the implementation of
 hydromechanics process with analytical solutions
 presented by Vogel/Massmann.
 
-A detailed description can be found in the ogs Benchmark books.
-The following table links the ogs problem descriptions with its corresponding
+A detailed description can be found in the OGS Benchmark books.
+The following table links the OGS problem descriptions with its corresponding
 chapters in the benchmark books.
 
 | Book/Chapter | Benchmark name |

web/content/docs/benchmarks/bgr_verification_examples/liquid_flow/index.md

@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ These benchmark examples test the implementation of
 liquid flow process with analytical solutions
 presented by Vogel/Massmann.
 
-A detailed description can be found in the ogs Benchmark books.
-The following table links the ogs problem descriptions with its corresponding
+A detailed description can be found in the OGS Benchmark books.
+The following table links the OGS problem descriptions with its corresponding
 chapters in the benchmark books.
 
 | Book/Chapter | Benchmark name |

web/content/docs/benchmarks/bgr_verification_examples/mechanics/index.md

@@ -14,8 +14,8 @@ These benchmark examples test the implementation of
 small deformations process with analytical solutions
 presented by Vogel/Massmann.
 
-A detailed description can be found in the ogs Benchmark books.
-The following table links the ogs problem descriptions with its corresponding
+A detailed description can be found in the OGS Benchmark books.
+The following table links the OGS problem descriptions with its corresponding
 chapters in the benchmark books.
 
 | Book/Chapter | Benchmark name |

web/content/docs/benchmarks/bgr_verification_examples/thermohydromechanics/index.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ This is one of the benchmark examples with analytical solutions presented
 A detailed description about this benchmark can be found in section 10.1 of
  the book
 [Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical-Chemical Processes in Fractured Porous Media: Modelling and Benchmarking From Benchmarking to Tutoring](https://www.opengeosys.org/books/bmb-4/),
- one of the ogs Benchmark books (see the reference list below).
+ one of the OGS Benchmark books (see the reference list below).
 
 <!--
 These benchmark examples test the implementation of

web/content/docs/benchmarks/bgr_verification_examples/thermomechanics/index.md

@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ These benchmark examples test the implementation of
 thermomechanics process with analytical solutions
 presented by Vogel/Massmann.
 
-A detailed description can be found in the ogs Benchmark books.
-The following table links the ogs problem descriptions with its corresponding
+A detailed description can be found in the OGS Benchmark books.
+The following table links the OGS problem descriptions with its corresponding
 chapters in the benchmark books.
 
 | Book/Chapter | Benchmark name |

web/content/docs/benchmarks/creep-after-excavation-bgra/CreepAfterExcavation/index.md

@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ The parameters of the BGRa creep model are $A=0.18\, \mbox{d}^{-1}$,
 $m=5$, $Q=54 \mbox{ kJ/mol}$ for the rock salt. For the cap rock, $A$ is set to zero.
 
 The width
-and the height of of the domain are 300 m and 340 m, respectively. The
+and the height of the domain are 300 m and 340 m, respectively. The
 height of the cap rock portion is 40 m. The drift to be excavated has a
 radius of 50 m.
 

web/content/docs/benchmarks/creepbgra/BGRaVerificationExamples/index.md

@@ -16,8 +16,8 @@ author = "Jan Thiedau"
 These benchmark examples test the implementation of the
 BGRa creep law with analytical solutions presented by Vogel/Massmann.
 
-A detailed description can be found in the ogs Benchmark books.
-The following table links the ogs problem descriptions with its corresponding
+A detailed description can be found in the OGS Benchmark books.
+The following table links the OGS problem descriptions with its corresponding
 chapters in the benchmark books.
 
 |Benchmark name   | Book/Chapter|

web/content/docs/benchmarks/creepbgra/CreepBGRa/index.md

@@ -135,8 +135,8 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
   -2G\dfrac{Q}{R} {{\int}_{\Omega} \dfrac{b}{T^2} {\left\Vert{\mathbf s}^{n+1}\right\Vert}^{m-1}  \mathbf{B}^T  {\mathbf s}^{n+1} \mathrm{d} \Omega}
 \end{aligned}
 
-*Note*: The above rate form of stress integration is implemented in ogs6.
- Alternatively, one can use a absolute stress integration form, which can be found in the attached
+*Note*: The above rate form of stress integration is implemented in OGS.
+ Alternatively, one can use an absolute stress integration form, which can be found in the attached
  [PDF](doku_BGRa.pdf).
 
 ## Example
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ $$\begin{gathered}
 { \epsilon}=-\dfrac{{ \sigma}_0}{E}-Ae^{-Q/RT}{ \sigma}_0^m t
 \end{gathered}$$
 
-The problem is solved as axisymmterical one. Therefore
+The problem is solved as an axisymmetric one. Therefore
 $$\begin{gathered}
 { \epsilon_z}=-\dfrac{{ \sigma}_0}{E}-Ae^{-Q/RT}{ \sigma}_0^m t
 \end{gathered}$$
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ solution is shown in the following figure:
 A short python snippet, to compute the values.
 <details>
 <summary>
-Insert this into Paraview's ProgrammableFilter:
+Insert this into ParaView's ProgrammableFilter:
 </summary>
 
 ```python

web/content/docs/benchmarks/elliptic/drainage_diffusion/index.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ project = "/Elliptic/cube_1x1x1_SteadyStateDiffusion/drainage_excavation.prj"
 
 ## Problem description
 
-We present the drainage of an excavation benchmark in this [this PDF](../web/content/docs/benchmarks/liquid-flow/drainage_LiquidFlow.pdf).
+We present the drainage of an excavation benchmark in [this PDF](../web/content/docs/benchmarks/liquid-flow/drainage_LiquidFlow.pdf).
 
 Here's an impression of the problem and its results:
 

web/content/docs/benchmarks/elliptic/elliptic-dirichlet-volumetric-source-term/index.md

@@ -61,9 +61,9 @@ To start the simulation (after successful compilation) run:
 ogs square_1e2_volumetricsourceterm.prj
 ```
 
-OGS writes the computed results (pressure, darcy velocity) into the output file
+OGS writes the computed results (pressure, Darcy velocity) into the output file
 `square_1e2_volumetricsourceterm_pcs_0_ts_1_t_1.000000.vtu`, which can be
-directly visualized and analysed in paraview for example.
+directly visualized and analysed in ParaView for example.
 
 The output on the console will be similar to:
 

web/content/docs/benchmarks/elliptic/elliptic-dirichlet/index.md

@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ As of now a small portion of possible inputs is implemented; one can change:
 
 The geometries used to specify the boundary conditions are given in the `square_1x1.gml` file.
 
-The input mesh `square_1x1_quad_1e2.vtu` is stored in the VTK file format and can be directly visualized in Paraview for example.
+The input mesh `square_1x1_quad_1e2.vtu` is stored in the VTK file format and can be directly visualized in ParaView for example.
 
 ## Running simulation
 
@@ -109,4 +109,4 @@ A major part of the output was produced by the linear equation solver (LIS in th
 
 ## Results and evaluation
 
-![The result can be visualized with Paraview.](square_1e2_pcs_0_ts_1_t_1.000000.png)
+![The result can be visualized with ParaView.](square_1e2_pcs_0_ts_1_t_1.000000.png)

web/content/docs/benchmarks/elliptic/elliptic-neumann/index.md

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ As of now a small portion of possible inputs is implemented; one can change:
 
 The geometries used to specify the boundary conditions are given in the [square_1x1.gml](https://gitlab.opengeosys.org/ogs/ogs/-/blob/master/Tests/Data/Elliptic/square_1x1_SteadyStateDiffusion/square_1x1.gml) file.
 
-The input mesh `square_1x1_quad_1e2.vtu` is stored in the VTK file format and can be directly visualized in Paraview for example.
+The input mesh `square_1x1_quad_1e2.vtu` is stored in the VTK file format and can be directly visualized in ParaView for example.
 
 ## Running simulation
 
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ To start the simulation (after successful compilation) run:
 ogs square_1e2_neumann.prj
 ```
 
-It will produce some output and write the computed result into the `square_1e2_neumann.vtu` for visualization with Paraview.
+It will produce some output and write the computed result into the `square_1e2_neumann.vtu` for visualization with ParaView.
 
 The output on the console will be similar to the following one (ignore the spurious error messages "Could not find POINT..."):
 

web/content/docs/benchmarks/elliptic/elliptic-pde-with-dirichlet-and-nodal-source-term/index.md

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ The main project file is `square_1e6_with_nodal_sources.prj`. It describes the p
 
 The geometries used to specify the boundary conditions and the source term are given in the `square_1x1.gml` file.
 
-The input mesh `square_1x1_quad_1e6.vtu` is stored in the VTK file format and can be directly visualized in Paraview for example.
+The input mesh `square_1x1_quad_1e6.vtu` is stored in the VTK file format and can be directly visualized in ParaView for example.
 
 ## Running simulation
 
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ To start the simulation (after successful compilation) run:
 ogs circle_1e6_axi.prj
 ```
 
-It will produce some output and write the computed result into a data array of the written vtu file.
+It will produce some output and write the computed result into a data array of the written VTU file.
 
 ## Results and evaluation
 

web/content/docs/benchmarks/elliptic/elliptic-robin/index.md

@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ $$
 \left.\frac{\partial h}{\partial n}\right\rvert_{x=0} = -h'(x)|_{x=0}.
 \end{equation*}
 $$
-From the evaluation of the the Robin-type boundary condition it follows
+From the evaluation of the Robin-type boundary condition it follows
 $$
 \begin{equation*}
 \left.\frac{\partial h}{\partial n}\right\rvert_{x=0} = -A = \alpha (h_0 - h(0)) = \alpha (h_0 - B).

web/content/docs/benchmarks/elliptic/poisson_equation/index.md

@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ ogs square_1e3_poisson_sin_x_sin_y.prj
 
 It will produce some output and write the computed result into the
 `square_1e3_volumetricsourceterm_pcs_0_ts_1_t_1.000000.vtu`, which can be
-directly visualized and analysed in paraview for example.
+directly visualized and analysed in ParaView for example.
 
 The output on the console will be similar to the following on:
 

web/content/docs/benchmarks/heat-transport-bhe/3D_2U_BHE/index.md

@@ -52,13 +52,13 @@ All the other parameters adopted in the model is same as the ones used in the sc
 
 For the benchmark a FEFLOW model is presented.
 The mesh used in the OGS model is directly converted from the FEFLOW model mesh, to ensure that there is no influence to the comparison results from the mesh side.
-Both the FEFLOW and ogs model mesh can be found in the ogs GitLab (<https://gitlab.opengeosys.org/ogs/ogs/-/merge_requests/3426>).
+Both the FEFLOW and OGS model mesh can be found in the OGS GitLab (<https://gitlab.opengeosys.org/ogs/ogs/-/merge_requests/3426>).
 
 ## FEFLOW Input Files
 
 ## Results
 
-The computed resutls from scenario by adopting the fixed inflow boundary condition are illustracted in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
+The computed results from scenario by adopting the fixed inflow boundary condition are illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
 The OGS numerical outflow temperature over time was compared against results of the FEFLOW software as shown in the Figure 1. And the vertical distributed temperature of circulating water was presented in Figure 2 after operation for 3300 s.
 The comparison figures demonstrate that the OGS numerical results and FEFLOW results can match very well and the biggest absolute error of outflow temperature is 0.20 $^{\circ}$C after 360 s' operation, while such error decreases to 0.037 $^{\circ}$C after 3600 s' operation. The maximum relative error of vertical temperature is 0.019 \% after operation for 3300 s.
 
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ The comparison figures demonstrate that the OGS numerical results and FEFLOW res
 Figure 2: Comparison of vertical temperature distribution from scenario by adopting the fixed inflow boundary condition
 
 Figure 3 shows the vertical distributed temperature of circulating fluid after operation for 3300 s by adopting different power boundary conditions in OGS and FEFLOW models.
-Compared to the resutls computed from the OGS model with using a fixed power boundary condition (illustrated as the blue and green line), A 0.18 $^{\circ}$C difference is found for the averaged vertical temperature from the FEFLOW model (illustrated as the dotted line).
+Compared to the results computed from the OGS model with using a fixed power boundary condition (illustrated as the blue and green line), A 0.18 $^{\circ}$C difference is found for the averaged vertical temperature from the FEFLOW model (illustrated as the dotted line).
 The reason to the results difference is due to the different power boundary condition type adopted in the two software.
 In FEFLOW the power boundary condition is based on the outlet temperature calculated from the last time step (non-iterative).
 Compared to it, the default power boundary condition adopted in the OGS `Heat_Transport_BHE` process is based on the outlet temperature calculated from the current time step (with-iterative).

web/content/docs/benchmarks/heat-transport-bhe/3D_3BHEs_array/index.md

@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ Two different pipe network setup were constructed for this benchmark.
 
 * A one-way pipe network (see Figure 1a)
 
-In this setup, the refrigerant mass flow rate is given in $kg/s$, as this is the default setting in the TESPy model (see ./pre/3bhes.py).
+In this setup, the refrigerant mass flow rate is given in $kg/s$, as this is the default setting in the TESPy model (see `./pre/3bhes.py`).
 After being lifted by the pump, the refrigerant inflow will be divided into 3 branches by the splitter and then flow into each BHEs.
 Because of this configuration, the inflow temperature on each BHE will be the same.
 The refrigerant flowing out of the BHEs array will be firstly mixed at the merging point and then extracted for the heat extraction through the heat pump.
@@ -107,9 +107,9 @@ In this figure, the difference between the total heat extraction rate of all BHE
 
 In comparison to the one-way setup, the closed-loop network shows a slightly different behaviour.
 The evolution of inflow refrigerant temperature and flow rate entering the BHE array is shown in Figure 5.
-With the decreasing of the working fluid temperature over the time, the system flow rate dereases gradually.
+With the decreasing of the working fluid temperature over the time, the system flow rate decreases gradually.
 Figure 6 depicts the thermal load shifting phenomenon with the closed-loop model.
-Except for the thermal shifiting behavior among the BHEs, the averaged heat extraction rate of all BHEs (black line) increases slightly over the time.
+Except for the thermal shifting behavior among the BHEs, the averaged heat extraction rate of all BHEs (black line) increases slightly over the time.
 This is due to the fact that additional energy is required to compensate the hydraulic loss of the pipe.
 
 {{< img src="Soil_temperature.png" width="200">}}
@@ -134,8 +134,12 @@ Figure 6: Evolution of the heat extraction rate of each BHE with close loop netw
 
 ## References
 
+<!-- vale off -->
+
 [1] Diersch, H. J., Bauer, D., Heidemann, W., Rühaak, W., & Schätzl, P. (2011). Finite element modeling of borehole heat exchanger systems: Part 1. Fundamentals. Computers & Geosciences, 37(8), 1122-1135.
 
 [2] Francesco Witte, Ilja Tuschy, TESPy: Thermal Engineering Systems in Python, 2019. URL: <https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02178>. doi:10.21105/joss.02178.
 
 [3] Webpage of the High-Level Interface in CoolProp. URL: <http://www.coolprop.org/coolprop/HighLevelAPI.html>.
+
+<!-- vale on -->

web/content/docs/benchmarks/heat-transport-bhe/3D_BHE_GW_advection/index.md

@@ -90,8 +90,7 @@ and analytical solution match very well as the maximum relative error of
 ground temperature is less than 0.2 \%. The largest difference is found near
 the BHE node towards which the analytical solution approaches infinity.
 
-{{< img src="temperature_soil_2years.png"
-width="150">}}
+{{< img src="temperature_soil_2years.png" width="150">}}
 
 Figure 2: Ground temperature distribution after two years at $z=-7$ m.
 
@@ -102,6 +101,8 @@ singularity of the analytical solution at the BHE node.
 
 ## References
 
+<!-- vale off -->
+
 [1] Diao, N., Li, Q., & Fang, Z. (2004). Heat transfer in ground heat
 exchangers with groundwater advection. International Journal of Thermal
 Sciences, 43(12), 1203-1211.
@@ -113,3 +114,5 @@ groundwater advection. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 50(12),
 
 [3] P. Eskilson, Thermal analysis of heat extraction boreholes, Ph.D. Thesis,
 University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 1987.
+
+<!-- vale on -->