IBBM 2017

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Plugin designed for FEBio 2.3.1 doesn't work on 2.5.1 even after compiling it again

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    3

    Default Plugin designed for FEBio 2.3.1 doesn't work on 2.5.1 even after compiling it again

    I have a material plugin made by my colleague which he uses on his installation of FEBio 2.3.1. The plugin has been compiled and is used on his Mac.
    He has given me the source code for this plugin which I have compiled on my Windows pc using Visual Studio 2013. FEBio successfully loads the plugin, but when attempting to test it on his 'example' feb file FEBio gets stuck performing endless augmentations.

    I was wondering if there was a change between successive FEBio versions or a known difference between VS/Xcode that would cause this to occur.

    Best regards,
    LKF

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH
    Posts
    1,664

    Default

    Hi,

    Is this occurring only with that particular material plugin or with any material? And what augmentations are you talking about? Contact, constraints, material? I'm not aware of any change to the code that would explain this behavior but if you can provide a bit more information, I might be able to provide a better answer.

    Thanks,

    Steve

    FYI: If you have developed a plugin and when you are ready to share it, please consider uploading it to the febio website for others to use.
    Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah
    Scientific Computing and Imaging institute, University of Utah

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I have compiled the 'NeoHookeanPI' template material plugin and that works successfully on its own example feb file, so this is not a problem that occurs with all materials.

    Here is a sample log file showing the typical output of the problematic material http://pastebin.com/dyfPBmxS

    If I do get it successfully working and the original creator approves then I will certainly consider uploading it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH
    Posts
    1,664

    Default

    Interesting. That looks like a bug to me. I'll take a closer look at the code and if it turns out to be a bug, I'll try to fix it before our upcoming 2.6 release. In the mean, I suggest turning off augmented Lagrangian in your material.

    Cheers,

    Steve
    Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah
    Scientific Computing and Imaging institute, University of Utah

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    3

    Default

    The output in my previous post is from a run where the augmented Lagrangian is already disabled (the laugon flag is set to 0).
    Let me know if I can provide any further information.

    Best regards,
    LKF

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH
    Posts
    1,664

    Default

    Interesting. What is causing the augmentations then? Can you attach or send me the input file. I won't be able to run it, but it might give me a better idea on what's going on.

    Thanks,

    Steve
    Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah
    Scientific Computing and Imaging institute, University of Utah

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •