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

Add constant strain rate mode #44

Closed
rcarson3 opened this issue Feb 9, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #45
Closed

Add constant strain rate mode #44

rcarson3 opened this issue Feb 9, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #45
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@rcarson3
Copy link
Member

rcarson3 commented Feb 9, 2022

I had a user reach out about needing constant strain rate for some of their exploratory studies. It seems like I could probably follow something like what was discussed in the comment thread at #26 (comment) .

It'll probably take a little bit of work to get a POC going, but I don't think it should be too awful with the changing BCs functionality now within the code.

As a first pass, the easiest version will be something like a forward eulerian version of things where we calculate the velocity conditions based on the previous time step nodal locations. After we get that looking, we can look at more expensive versions like ones that do an iterative approach to calculate at the end time step or mid-time step values.

Additionally, I plan on allowing this took work with meshes that don't have a min at origin. Also, I plan on requiring the user to define what degree of freedoms are free and which ones are constrained to the velocity gradient condition.

As part of this set of calculations, I figured I would also calculate the Eulerian strain for the user as we can easily get out the deformation gradient, and so that value isn't hard to get at all. I figure this would make it much easier for them when calculating post-processing values as they'll automatically have the "true" strain values. If they want the lagrangian strain tensor, they can just get that from the deformation gradient...

@rcarson3 rcarson3 added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 9, 2022
@rcarson3 rcarson3 self-assigned this Feb 9, 2022
@rcarson3
Copy link
Member Author

The setting essential boundary condition portion of things given the current implementation within ExaConstit will end up being trickier than I expected. Since I'd been contemplating redoing the BCs portion of things as part of #41, I guess I ought as well fix it here...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant