[StructApp] Remove inconsistency between static and transient adjoint formulations #12846
+5
−6
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
📝 Description
$R = f - Ku$
$R = Ku -f$
Current situation:
Current implementation of adjoint formulations in structures and their primal counterparts have inconsistencies.
The residual formulation of static structural primals is:
The residual used in adjoint formulation is:
This inconsistency causes problems when we want to exend the same formulation for the transient adjoints, therefore this PR removes the inconsistency and makes the adjoint formulation to follow the residual formulation of the static primals.
The current implementation of the response function in structural mechanics provides the negative partial gradient ($-\frac{\partial J}{\partial u}$ ) to account for the inconsistency in the adjoint formulation.
This PR fixes the responses as well to follow the residual formulation of the primal counterparts.
🆕 Changelog
AdjointFiniteDifferenceBaseElement::CalculateLeftHandSide
matrix with minus 1