Check List for a core Constitutive Law (wherever it is actually implemented)

[RiccardoRossi]

This issue is to collect what we think should be the requirements for a CL to be considered core (independently of where it is implemented) @tteschemacher @marandra @loumalouomega @KratosMultiphysics/structural-mechanics @KratosMultiphysics/technical-committee

here goes my list (which i'll update over time), also collecting ideas/opinions

• passes the patch test in the StructuralMechanics (with multiple time steps increments with a constant loading, so that we verify that no strain increment implies no increment in stress) - note that if we initialize with the correct displacement solution it should not move out of that
• serialization tests
• capability to Set and Get INTERNAL_VARIABLES vector to allow refinement/derefinement
• capability to use initial strains (we need to decide the exact format)
• test for the "Checks" of the CL as well as test that the available options are set ok
• test for capability to handle different strain/stress measures as I/O
• check that ElasticityTensor is not computed if not required (Essential for efficiency in the explicit case)
• output capabilities are tested

... please propose other stuff and i'll add to this list

[loumalouomega]

The idea is to move the CL to an independent app or to move it to the core?

[RiccardoRossi]

this is not the point of this post. here i am speaking of the requirements that a core CL should have

[loumalouomega]

And what is a core CL?, a CL that can be used across several apps and can be trusted as correctly developed? (not experimental I mean)

[RiccardoRossi]

@loumalouomega i would say that your definition is correct. I would add to the defition: tested against the StructuralMechanicsApplication/FluidDynamicsApplication for compatibility and conformance

[AlejandroCornejo]

Also i would say that those CL should have at least a test in c++ to ensure its future correctness.