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

Structural Mechanics small enhancements in solver #1113

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Dec 1, 2017

Conversation

philbucher
Copy link
Member

4 small enhancements:

  1. The user can define auxiliary Variables that are to be added to the ModelPart, no need for doing that manually any more. Especially after the issues in GiDIO segfaults without Variables added #492 . @KratosMultiphysics/fluid-dynamics this might be interesting for you too
  2. Replaced Model{} by Kratos::Model
  3. Removed an unnecessary if (bodies_list is always there since it is in the defaults)
  4. Using VariableUtils().AddDof in the tests

Copy link
Member

@loumalouomega loumalouomega left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks

@philbucher
Copy link
Member Author

@loumalouomega is there a need for the bodies_list?
It seems like this is copied from the fluid stuff, it is not used anywhere
I think problem_domain_sub_model_part_list does the same

Can we remove it? (Maybe first with a warning that it is deprecated and will be removed soon)

@loumalouomega
Copy link
Member

No, and in principle, thanks to the Model class we don't need this any more, this was the things I was meaning when I said that we could simplify the parameters thanks to the Model

@philbucher
Copy link
Member Author

But problem_domain_sub_model_part_list and processes_sub_model_part_list we still need, for the computation of the computing_model_part, right?

Can we remove sth else?

@loumalouomega
Copy link
Member

Normally these submodelparts are defined in the mdpa and can be acceded with the Model, i would need to do some tests to check it

@philbucher
Copy link
Member Author

I know that they are there, but we do not necessarily want to define the computing_model_part with all the SubModelParts that are present in the MainModelPart

Therefore I think it should stay as it is

@loumalouomega
Copy link
Member

Therefore we need to open a discussion with the whole @KratosMultiphysics/structural-mechanics

@philbucher
Copy link
Member Author

ok I will make an issue for that and add a warning abt the bodies_list

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants