Fix bug in mechanical constitutive law - #485
Conversation
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request corrects the back stress update calculation in source/MechanicalPhysics.cc by replacing one of the plastic_modulus terms with plastic_strain_increment. There are no review comments, so no additional feedback is provided.
Important
The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.
Rombur
left a comment
Rombur
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code change looks correct and matches the constitutive equation referenced in the documentation. Replacing the second plastic_modulus with plastic_strain_increment also restores the expected dimensional consistency of the back-stress evolution.
The only suggestion I have is to add a regression test covering this constitutive update so that this typo cannot be reintroduced in the future. Otherwise, this looks good to me.
|
For transparency: the review I submitted above was generated by ChatGPT at my request after inspecting the pull request and diff. I reviewed it before posting, but the wording is AI-generated. |
|
@codex review this pull request. |
|
Codex review is not enabled for this repo. Please contact the admins of this repo to enable Codex. |
1 participant
One
plastic_modulusin the constitutive law should beplastic_strain_increment(see here for the equation).