[GeoMechanicsApplication] Revisit and document test element lab #11975

rfaasse · 2024-01-23T12:15:43Z

📝 Description

This PR aims to clean up and add documentation regarding the three tests in the test_element_lab folder. The activities here include:

Cleaning up unnecessary/confusing parameters in the inputs
Adding README.md files

I recommend to look at the rendered versions of the READMEs:

…ieter

… outputs

rfaasse · 2024-01-23T12:57:25Z

Not all codacy issues make sense to fix. There are some that change how the md is rendered, and the current layout is as intended

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab.py

...ations/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/ProjectParameters.json

...oMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/triaxial_comp_6n/Stage_1/ProjectParameters.json

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/README.md

WPK4FEM

Having a description that includes pictures of the mesh and boundary conditions is very illustrative

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/README.md

WPK4FEM · 2024-01-23T13:45:54Z

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/README.md

+
+## Assertions
+In this test, there are two results checks:
+1. It is asserted that the effective stress is -1000000 kPa (?) in the integration points of both elements in the y direction and 0 in the other directions.


Here and on line 16 the (?) can be removed.
0. stress in other directions must be a result of a 0. Poisson's ratio.

Done! And added the bit about the Poisson ratio to clarify this.

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/README.md

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/triaxial_comp_6n/README.md

...ications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM_diff_order/README.md

rfaasse

@WPK4FEM Thanks for your thorough review, I processed most, there are a few discussion points left and the matter of moving part of the descriptions to the image

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/README.md

...ications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM_diff_order/README.md

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/triaxial_comp_6n/README.md

…est setups

…est_element_lab' into geo/11969-revisit-and-document-test_element_lab

WPK4FEM

Nice. Done.

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/custom_strategies/schemes/README.md

...ications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM_diff_order/README.md

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/README.md

mcgicjn2 · 2024-01-26T10:06:45Z

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/README.md

+    -   The X and Y displacement in the bottom two nodes (3 and 4) are fixed.
+    -   The X displacement in all nodes is fixed.
+-   Material:
+    -   The material is described using a linear elastic material with a GeoLinearElasticPlaneStrain2DLaw.


Can you also add the Young's Modulus here, E, here, as this will enable users to assert the displacement below. Due to being Linear Elastic.

This indeed clarifies a lot, added, thanks for the suggestion!

mcgicjn2 · 2024-01-26T10:08:03Z

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/README.md

+1. It is asserted that the effective stress is -1000000 kPa in the integration points of both elements in the y
+   direction and 0.0 in the other directions, due to the Poisson ration being 0.0.
+2. It is asserted that the displacement of one of the top nodes (1) is close to -0.0909090909516868 as a result of the
+   applied line load.


Here you could add the displacement calculation due to Youngs Modulus, E.

I did it for the diff order, for this one, we'll first check if we can get this to linear elastic behavior

mcgicjn2 · 2024-01-26T10:25:10Z

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/README.md

+
+1. It is asserted that the effective stress is -1000000 kPa in the integration points of both elements in the y
+   direction and 0.0 in the other directions, due to the Poisson ration being 0.0.
+2. It is asserted that the displacement of one of the top nodes (1) is close to -0.0909090909516868 as a result of the


I am not sure this is correct -0.0909090909516868 (I think it should be -0.1 = -1.e6/1.e7)

We did a bit more digging here and it turns out it is due to the non-linear behavior of the geometry. Here we have a plot of displacement vs time, where the load ramps up from 0 to -100000000 in this time interval. Since we are using the updatedlagrange element, we see that the displacement is non-linear.

When setting the move_mesh flag to false (making the geometry more linear) we get the following graph:

The reason the diff order element approximately behaved as it should, was because the load was a lot smaller, meaning the displacement was still in the linear region.

For now we propose to keep the result like it is now. I added a line to explain this in the README.md to explain the number.

FYI @WPK4FEM

mcgicjn2 · 2024-01-26T10:26:08Z

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/tests/test_element_lab/oedometer_ULFEM/MeshStructure.svg

Measurements should be added to the diagrams or it should be clearly stated as a unit square in the README.md

Good suggestion, added to the diagrams!

mcgicjn2 · 2024-01-26T10:29:40Z

applications/GeoMechanicsApplication/custom_strategies/schemes/README.md

Remove the result variables from the ProjectParameters.json in oedometer_ULFEM test + oedometer_ULFEM_diff_order test (well in one of them !)

Good catch, I indeed missed one

mcgicjn2

Forgot to tick request changes

…stic material displacement and the actual displacement for the larger applied load

rfaasse added 13 commits January 19, 2024 14:45

Cleaned up the project parameters files for the triaxial_comp_6n test

e03707f

First commit for documentation

bb992a6

Removed the redundant fixed xy part

1282d14

Minor formatting change in ProjectParameters.json

9b86554

Expanded on the test documentation

4579c4b

Added the expected results to the test documentation

ffac002

Removed redundant parameters in test

7aa6106

Elaborated README.md and fixed mistake after discussion with Wijtze P…

7e42458

…ieter

Changed structure to have a white background

4cca194

Added a README for the first Oedometer lab test and removed redundant…

7353f1f

… outputs

Added documentation for the second oedometer test

071202f

Made comments in line with actual inputs

0615dd7

Fixed typ in test comment

027f32d

rfaasse added Documentation GeoMechanics Issues related to the GeoMechanicsApplication labels Jan 23, 2024

rfaasse self-assigned this Jan 23, 2024

rfaasse linked an issue Jan 23, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request

[GeoMechanicsApplication] Revisit test_element_lab.py #11969

Closed

Fix part of the codacy issues

f51a519

rfaasse marked this pull request as ready for review January 23, 2024 12:56

rfaasse requested a review from WPK4FEM January 23, 2024 12:57

rfaasse commented Jan 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

rfaasse requested a review from mcgicjn2 January 23, 2024 13:04

WPK4FEM reviewed Jan 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

Processing review comments Wijtze Pieter

0857a67

rfaasse commented Jan 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

rfaasse and others added 4 commits January 24, 2024 10:38

Update README.md

04fc944

Processing feedback from testing/documentation meeting

6708568

Processing review comments and extending the schematic views of the t…

d7cea71

…est setups

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/geo/11969-revisit-and-document-t…

5893459

…est_element_lab' into geo/11969-revisit-and-document-test_element_lab

rfaasse requested a review from WPK4FEM January 24, 2024 15:40

Changed the number of decimals also in the README.md

b654310

WPK4FEM previously approved these changes Jan 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

mcgicjn2 reviewed Jan 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

mcgicjn2 requested changes Jan 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

rfaasse added 3 commits January 26, 2024 13:34

Processing review comments

d3c06fe

Added water pressure bottom BC, since we're using UPw elements

9e857af

Added explanation for the discrepancy between the expected linear ela…

3c75ec4

…stic material displacement and the actual displacement for the larger applied load

rfaasse dismissed WPK4FEM’s stale review via 3c75ec4 January 26, 2024 14:30

Reduced size of minus sign in one of the formulas

77098e6

rfaasse requested review from mcgicjn2 and WPK4FEM January 29, 2024 08:02

rfaasse added 3 commits January 30, 2024 16:24

Added asserts for different time steps for the non-linear case.

c0fd16d

Fixed typo

69ffa3b

Fix case sensitivity for linux of the test

3a5b112

rfaasse enabled auto-merge (squash) January 31, 2024 15:11

Removed redundant model parts from process-sub-model-part list

a0ab82b

mcgicjn2 approved these changes Feb 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

rfaasse merged commit d3917a3 into master Feb 13, 2024
15 of 17 checks passed

rfaasse deleted the geo/11969-revisit-and-document-test_element_lab branch February 13, 2024 08:57

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[GeoMechanicsApplication] Revisit and document test element lab #11975

[GeoMechanicsApplication] Revisit and document test element lab #11975

rfaasse commented Jan 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

rfaasse commented Jan 23, 2024

WPK4FEM left a comment

WPK4FEM Jan 23, 2024

rfaasse Jan 23, 2024

rfaasse left a comment

WPK4FEM left a comment

mcgicjn2 Jan 26, 2024

rfaasse Jan 26, 2024

mcgicjn2 Jan 26, 2024

rfaasse Jan 26, 2024

mcgicjn2 Jan 26, 2024

rfaasse Jan 26, 2024

mcgicjn2 Jan 26, 2024

rfaasse Jan 26, 2024

mcgicjn2 Jan 26, 2024

rfaasse Jan 26, 2024

mcgicjn2 left a comment

[GeoMechanicsApplication] Revisit and document test element lab #11975

[GeoMechanicsApplication] Revisit and document test element lab #11975

Conversation

rfaasse commented Jan 23, 2024 • edited Loading

rfaasse commented Jan 23, 2024

WPK4FEM left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rfaasse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

WPK4FEM left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mcgicjn2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rfaasse commented Jan 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading