Distortions preventing activation of a block

[Wendy-Ji]

Hello,

I have an issue with distortions, and I was wondering if there were methods to try and work around it.

I have two blocks on top of each other (see image below). Block 1 is initially active in my simulation, while block 2 remains inactive. During the simulation, block 1 distorts a lot in a particular area (see image below), and when block 2 is activated the simulation gets stuck "computing user objects" in that timestep, with the below message outputting to the console.

I can see that the locations of the points listed are in the distorted area. I think that means the problem is block 2 not being able to activate due to the distortions in block 1. I'm not sure whether there's a way to fix this since block 1's distortion is actually of an appropriate magnitude for the simulation, so I can't reduce block 1's distortion. I have tried reducing the timestep to be very small at activation, but the simulation still hangs.

Thank you.

  Elem Information
   id()=2331, unique_id()=168965, subdomain_id()=1, processor_id()=53
   type()=HEX20
   dim()=3
   n_nodes()=20
   mapping=LAGRANGE_MAP
    0  Node id()=9351, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 2.37145,   -2.269, -38.3085)
    DoFs=(0/0/275262) (0/1/275263) (0/2/275264) (1/7/262852)
    1  Node id()=9147, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 2.09799, -3.10608, -37.9542)
    DoFs=(0/0/275115) (0/1/275116) (0/2/275117) (1/7/262803)
    2  Node id()=9120, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 2.00998, -2.31283, -37.6624)
    DoFs=(0/0/275034) (0/1/275035) (0/2/275036) (1/7/262776)
    3  Node id()=9352, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 2.35643, -2.13912, -37.7668)
    DoFs=(0/0/275265) (0/1/275266) (0/2/275267) (1/7/262853)
    4  Node id()=9363, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 1.84578, -2.27778, -38.6534)
    DoFs=(0/0/275298) (0/1/275299) (0/2/275300) (1/7/262864)
    5  Node id()=9151, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 1.66212,  -3.1482, -38.3011)
    DoFs=(0/0/275127) (0/1/275128) (0/2/275129) (1/7/262807)
    6  Node id()=9124, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 1.53093, -2.34074, -37.9025)
    DoFs=(0/0/275046) (0/1/275047) (0/2/275048) (1/7/262780)
    7  Node id()=9364, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 1.81164, -2.13912, -38.0013)
    DoFs=(0/0/275301) (0/1/275302) (0/2/275303) (1/7/262865)
    8  Node id()=14028, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 2.24997, -2.70639, -38.1523)
    DoFs=(0/0/276009) (0/1/276010) (0/2/276011) (1/7/263101)
    9  Node id()=9150, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 2.04966, -2.56707,  -37.882)
    DoFs=(0/0/275124) (0/1/275125) (0/2/275126) (1/7/262806)
    10  Node id()=14021, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=(  2.2662, -2.59456,  -37.669)
    DoFs=(0/0/275988) (0/1/275989) (0/2/275990) (1/7/263094)
    11  Node id()=9356, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 2.41833, -2.13796, -38.0901)
    DoFs=(0/0/275277) (0/1/275278) (0/2/275279) (1/7/262857)
    12  Node id()=9367, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 2.10915, -2.27299, -38.4796)
    DoFs=(0/0/275310) (0/1/275311) (0/2/275312) (1/7/262868)
    13  Node id()=9153, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=(  1.8878, -3.12478, -38.1332)
    DoFs=(0/0/275133) (0/1/275134) (0/2/275135) (1/7/262809)
    14  Node id()=9125, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 1.76106, -2.30363, -37.7898)
    DoFs=(0/0/275049) (0/1/275050) (0/2/275051) (1/7/262781)
    15  Node id()=9369, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 2.08403, -2.13912,  -37.884)
    DoFs=(0/0/275316) (0/1/275317) (0/2/275318) (1/7/262870)
    16  Node id()=14027, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 1.76083, -2.72492, -38.4912)
    DoFs=(0/0/276006) (0/1/276007) (0/2/276008) (1/7/263100)
    17  Node id()=9154, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 1.60005, -2.65017,  -38.164)
    DoFs=(0/0/275136) (0/1/275137) (0/2/275138) (1/7/262810)
    18  Node id()=14020, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 1.74276, -2.59456, -37.8949)
    DoFs=(0/0/275985) (0/1/275986) (0/2/275987) (1/7/263093)
    19  Node id()=9368, processor_id()=53, Point=(x,y,z)=( 1.86374, -2.13801, -38.3803)
    DoFs=(0/0/275313) (0/1/275314) (0/2/275315) (1/7/262869)
   n_sides()=6
    neighbor(0)=2332
    neighbor(1)=38218
    neighbor(2)=1653
    neighbor(3)=2325
    neighbor(4)=1706
    neighbor(5)=2330
   hmin()=0.359448, hmax()=1.33632
   volume()=0.183383
   active()=1, ancestor()=0, subactive()=0, has_children()=0
   parent()=nullptr
   level()=0, p_level()=0
   refinement_flag()=DO_NOTHING
   p_refinement_flag()=DO_NOTHING
   DoFs=(1/0/260542) (1/1/260543) (1/2/260544) (1/3/260545) (1/4/260546) (1/5/260547) (1/6/260548) (1/8/263875)
  Computing User Objects.................................................................................................................................

[GiudGiud]

Hello

Using a debugger, following the debugging instructions on our website you should be able to get a backtrace showing what user object is slow/stuck.

Getting a backtrace then continuing several times, you can be somewhat sure of what is being slow

[Wendy-Ji]

I typed yes and let it run until it stopped. When I typed bt I got the same error as before

Assertion `residuals.size() == input_row_indices.size()' failed
The number of residuals should match the number of dof indices
at /home/jiw/packages/moose/framework/build/header_symlinks/Assembly.h, line 3011
[82] /home/jiw/packages/moose/framework/build/header_symlinks/Assembly.h, line 3011, compiled Apr 23 2025 at 20:52:23
Abort(1) on node 82 (rank 82 in comm 0): application called MPI_Abort(MPI_COMM_WORLD, 1) - process 82
[Inferior 1 (process 2717862) exited with code 01]
(gdb) bt
No stack.
(gdb)

[GiudGiud]

you need to type bt after it hits the breakpoint

If you continue after the breakpoint the backtrace is gone

[GiudGiud]

Alternatively use a breakpoint on mooseAssert on top of one on MPI_Abort

[Wendy-Ji]

What should the breakpoint look like? It reaches the error, then immediately exits? I get this when I type y initially

(gdb) b MPI_Abort
Function "MPI_Abort" not defined.
Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) y
Breakpoint 1 (MPI_Abort) pending.

[GiudGiud]

This is fine though I would have expected it to be found. Maybe a typo