Perpendicular flap (IGA solid participant G+Smo)

[Crazy-Rich-Meghan]

Perpendicular Flap with G+Smo (IsoGeometric Analysis) and OpenFOAM

NOTE: Stress instead of Force.

This PR is still a draft, because the G+Smo adapter's documentation is still ongoing.

I have added a README.md file to guide users on running the tutorial with G+Smo. It includes detailed instructions for setup and execution.

[uekerman]

Thanks for these great contributions!
I did not yet try it out, but wanted to give some initial tips already.

Guidelines worth checking out:

• tutorials contribution guidelines
• style guide of the preCICE docs.

[uekerman]

I am trying to install and run the case.

I am doing:

git clone gismo ... & cd gismo
mkdir build & cd build
cmake .. -DGISMO_OPTIONAL="gsKLShell;gsPreCICE;gsElasticity;gsStructuralAnalysis"
make solid-gismo-elasticity

and get

make: *** No rule to make target 'solid-gismo-elasticity'.  Stop.

And normal make works and gives me libgismo.so as expected.

I am a bit puzzled. How do I build the solid-gismo.cpp here? How does the adapter know about the available tutorials? Do I need to clone gismo into the tutorial case?

I guess what we need to do is to install the lib / make is discoverable and then add a CMakeLists.txt to the tutorial, which builds the actual solver?

[Crazy-Rich-Meghan]

I am trying to install and run the case.

I am doing:

git clone gismo ... & cd gismo
mkdir build & cd build
cmake .. -DGISMO_OPTIONAL="gsKLShell;gsPreCICE;gsElasticity;gsStructuralAnalysis"
make solid-gismo-elasticity

and get

make: *** No rule to make target 'solid-gismo-elasticity'.  Stop.

And normal make works and gives me libgismo.so as expected.

I am a bit puzzled. How do I build the solid-gismo.cpp here? How does the adapter know about the available tutorials? Do I need to clone gismo into the tutorial case?

I guess what we need to do is to install the lib / make is discoverable and then add a CMakeLists.txt to the tutorial, which builds the actual solver?

Hi Benjamin,

Thanks for testing this! The thing is, if you try to compile the file from the G+Smo side, we are using a different name for the filename since G+Smo and preCICE have different naming rules. On the G+Smo side, the solid participant filename is perpendicular-flap-vertex-gismo.cpp I have also changed the filename to perpendicular-flap-vertex-gismo under this PR.

Since we have multiple CPP files on our side, we cannot use a simple name like solid-gismo-elasticity.cpp. We have discussed this internally and decided that in the next version, we will consolidate everything into a single CPP file. Additionally, we will specify the meshes, boundary conditions, participant names, and other configurations using an XML file.

[uekerman]

With a few minor changes, I was able to run the case. Most importantly, I changed the data mapping constraint for the stresses to "consistent".

I now get:

The missing difference is probably due to the elements or refinement?

Thanks for testing this! The thing is, if you try to compile the file from the G+Smo side, we are using a different name for the filename since G+Smo and preCICE have different naming rules. On the G+Smo side, the solid participant filename is perpendicular-flap-vertex-gismo.cpp I have also changed the filename to perpendicular-flap-vertex-gismo under this PR.

The file perpendicular-flap-vertex-gismo.cpp here is not really needed, right? I now simply copied the executable over. And the name is fine. There is no standard for names of executables. The run.sh only needs to know the name.

I will continue cleaning up the case the next days. Please don't force push.

[uekerman]

I think, we don't need to show all other variants here. One non-linear one (e.g. deal.II) could be enough.
And we need a brief sentence that we have not yet found the reason for the difference.

[uekerman]

@Crazy-Rich-Meghan The results look good now 👍 What did you change?
It seems that the linear and the non-linear version of the code give (nearly?) the same results. Is this correct or a copy-paste issue?

[Crazy-Rich-Meghan]

@Crazy-Rich-Meghan The results look good now 👍 What did you change? It seems that the linear and the non-linear version of the code give (nearly?) the same results. Is this correct or a copy-paste issue?

Hi @uekerman , for the nonlinear version we iterate with Jacobian matrix, and the linear version with stiffness matrix. In principle, if the problem we are solving is a linear problem, the nonlinear time integrator should converge within the first timestep and result should be the same as time-integrator with stiffness matrix, that's why you see they are overlapping.

And we checked the source code from dealii, in linear_elasticity there is no geometric nonlinearlity so we changed a bit from our side.