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

A postprocessor that outputs the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor #4369

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Oct 22, 2021

Conversation

anne-glerum
Copy link
Contributor

For all pull requests:

For new features/models or changes of existing features:

  • I have tested my new feature locally to ensure it is correct.
  • I have created a testcase for the new feature/benchmark in the tests/ directory.
  • I have added a changelog entry in the doc/modules/changes directory that will inform other users of my change.

@bobmyhill
Copy link
Member

Could the calculation of the stress tensor be moved into a utilities function? There's quite a lot of code overlap with the Stress visualization function (which is currently in flux; see #4375).

@anne-glerum
Copy link
Contributor Author

I agree that it would make sense not to repeat assembling the stress tensor in different postprocessors. Currently there are 4 pps that could benefit from a utilities function:

stress.cc
shear_stress.cc
maximum_horizontal_compressive_stress.cc
principal_stress.cc

However, I think it falls outside the scope of this current PR to create such a function. Happy to open a new PR of course.

Copy link
Member

@gassmoeller gassmoeller left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks generally ok to me, but I have one question (see above). Ready if you fix this here, or explain why this PR does not need the fix.

@gassmoeller
Copy link
Member

Ready to merge, but I forgot to ask for a changelog entry. Could you add one? Feel free to merge yourself afterwards (or leave me a note so I can merge).

@anne-glerum
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll add the changelog, but should I undo the change in the way the stress is computed when elasticity is used? Seeing that we decided to not change the other stress postprocessors, undoing the last commit would at least make all the stress postprocessors consistent.

@gassmoeller
Copy link
Member

No don't undo the last commit. The current form is correct with the current stress calculation. The fact that it is inconsistent with the other postprocessors is caused by the other postprocessors being wrong at the moment. Let's not break stuff because we decided we will make changes in the future (let's just remember to change this postprocessor when we finally do).

To remember: Related to #4375, #4370

@anne-glerum
Copy link
Contributor Author

Okay, I've added the changelog.

@gassmoeller gassmoeller merged commit ffb9cf8 into geodynamics:master Oct 22, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants