Strings Utility Module about umat.jl HOT 7 OPEN

Dear @OVGULIU, I don't quite understand. Can you rephrase what you mean? Also, if you can be more specific for example point the lines from the file you are referring.

from umat.jl.

@TeroFrondelius if we want to compare Abaqus results, we have to add line code #include 'strings_module.f90' in gurson_porous_plasticity.f90, is it correct?

from umat.jl.

@OVGULIU I don't know. @jvaara do you remember?

Anyway, @OVGULIU if you will figure it out and will eventually produce comparison results I would appreciate a pull request a lot that we can compare against Abaqus results.

Similar output as here: https://github.com/JuliaFEM/Materials.jl/blob/master/test/test_chaboche/unitelement_results.rpt (also in similar folder test/test_gurson)

from umat.jl.

@TeroFrondelius we may compare the simulation time in Abaqus and Julia by using the same benchmark or?

from umat.jl.

Yes, why not. Most probably Abaqus will be faster than JuliaFEM. In JuliaFEM we currently only have small strains implemented.

from umat.jl.

I would like to check the JuliaFEM 's performance when we use the same Abaqus .inp & umat & cpus.

from umat.jl.

You probably find out that most of the solution time, the code is doing sparse Cholesky factorization, and it's scaling better with respect to the number of threads in ABAQUS than in Julia. Anyway, this would be a very interesting benchmark and hopefully, you can share some results.

from umat.jl.