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

Added nonequilibrium_stress to ThermoMechanics process #2544

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Jul 5, 2019

Conversation

@zhangning737
Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 27, 2019

I did't create a new test prj file, but it has been tested with old salt cavern model.

Please check the quality of code, also only several lines, thinks.

@zhangning737

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 27, 2019

Hi, I think there should be no conflict, but the check results seem not look so good.
Anything else needs be done to fix that?

@@ -76,6 +78,7 @@ struct ThermoMechanicsProcessData
ParameterLib::Parameter<double> const& reference_solid_density;
ParameterLib::Parameter<double> const& linear_thermal_expansion_coefficient;
ParameterLib::Parameter<double> const& specific_heat_capacity;
ParameterLib::Parameter<double> const* const nonequilibrium_stress;

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@endJunction

endJunction Jun 28, 2019

Member

Move this line one lower, after the thermal_conductivity. This causes warnings otherwise: https://jenkins.opengeosys.org/job/ufz/job/ogs/job/PR-2544/3/gcc/

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@zhangning737

zhangning737 Jun 28, 2019

Author Contributor

OK, changed.

@zhangning737

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 28, 2019

@endJunction Last push fix #2412 , please check the codes.

@endJunction

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 28, 2019

@zhangning737 I've opened another PR (#2549) for the vtk fix. Please don't mix up topics in the PRs.

Also it would be better to create so-called topic branches for the PR's instead of working on your master branch.

@endJunction

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 28, 2019

On this branch I have pushed more changes including docu. Your original code is formatted and squashed into single commit.

@wenqing

wenqing approved these changes Jul 1, 2019

: material_ids(material_ids_),
solid_materials{std::move(solid_materials_)},
reference_solid_density(reference_solid_density_),
linear_thermal_expansion_coefficient(
linear_thermal_expansion_coefficient_),
specific_heat_capacity(specific_heat_capacity_),
thermal_conductivity(thermal_conductivity_),
nonequilibrium_stress(nonequilibrium_stress_),

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@wenqing

wenqing Jul 1, 2019

Member

Please move nonequilibrium_stress(nonequilibrium_stress_) after specific_body_force(specific_body_force_). The appearance order of members in the initializer list must be the same as that of members in the class declaration.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@zhangning737

zhangning737 Jul 1, 2019

Author Contributor

ok, has been changed...

@zhangning737 zhangning737 force-pushed the zhangning737:master branch from 2d7e717 to 2d6d00a Jul 1, 2019

@wenqing

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 1, 2019

ProcessLib/ThermoMechanics/ThermoMechanicsProcessData.h:53: trailing whitespace (blank space after the end of the line).
thermal_conductivity(thermal_conductivity_),

@endJunction

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 1, 2019

@zhangning737 Please restore the original branch 2d7e717 https://github.com/endJunction/ogs/tree/ZN_TmNeqStress, then rebase to the current github.com/ufz/ogs/master. I've fixed already the errors Wenqing is pointing out and several more. Don't throw them away.

@zhangning737

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 1, 2019

@endJunction I think I did something not right, I force-pushed 2d7e717 to 2d6d00a. The problem is before my force-push, I didn't fetch 2d7e717. Apologize!!!
Is there any possibility to restore the branch 2d7e717?

@wenqing

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 1, 2019

@zhangning737 I just sent you an email about how to restore to Dima's branch.

@zhangning737 zhangning737 force-pushed the zhangning737:master branch from 2566499 to 5c77353 Jul 1, 2019

@zhangning737

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 1, 2019

@wenqing thanks for your explanation, updated.

@endJunction endJunction force-pushed the zhangning737:master branch from 5c77353 to 5602c89 Jul 1, 2019

@endJunction
Copy link
Member

left a comment

I copied tests from SD, but they need verification before merge.

@endJunction endJunction force-pushed the zhangning737:master branch 2 times, most recently from ceb4c10 to 1fcbbd5 Jul 5, 2019

@endJunction endJunction force-pushed the zhangning737:master branch from 1fcbbd5 to dc81fde Jul 5, 2019

@endJunction endJunction removed the WIP 🏗 label Jul 5, 2019

@endJunction endJunction merged commit 29ce4b5 into ufz:master Jul 5, 2019

3 checks passed

continuous-integration/jenkins/pr-merge This commit looks good
Details
deploy/netlify Deploy preview ready!
Details
ufz.ogs #20190705.5 succeeded
Details
<linear_thermal_expansion_coefficient>alpha</linear_thermal_expansion_coefficient>
<specific_heat_capacity>cs</specific_heat_capacity>
<thermal_conductivity>lambda</thermal_conductivity>
<specific_body_force>0 -9.81</specific_body_force>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@wenqing

wenqing Jul 5, 2019

Member

Merged but these values have to be set as 0.0 0.0

<linear_thermal_expansion_coefficient>alpha</linear_thermal_expansion_coefficient>
<specific_heat_capacity>cs</specific_heat_capacity>
<thermal_conductivity>lambda</thermal_conductivity>
<specific_body_force>0 -9.81</specific_body_force>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@wenqing

wenqing Jul 5, 2019

Member

Merged but these values have to be set as 0.0 0.0

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@endJunction

endJunction Jul 5, 2019

Member

I don't think so. It's only in the non-equilibrium restart, where the stresses due to gravity are included in the initial non-equilibrium stress. But in the forward tests the gravity is present.
Compare with the SD tests: https://github.com/ufz/ogs/blob/master/Tests/Data/Mechanics/InitialStates/into_initial_state.prj#L21

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@wenqing

wenqing Jul 5, 2019

Member

I see.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.