Solid material fields missing in silo output
Describe the bug
_Solid_MaterialFields is missing in Silo output while running poromechanics problems
To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior: Re-run the poroelastic case defined by one of the following xmls
- inputFile/multiphysics/PoroElastic_Mendel_FIM.xml
- inputFile/multiphysics/PoroElastic_Terzaghi_FIM.xml
Then verify that the
_Solid_MaterialFieldssuch asstress_11,stress_22etc. are missing
Notes:
This issue seems only happen to the poromechanics coupled solver. Indeed, it is not the case while running the solid mechanics examples. For example, the _Solid_MaterialFields appears while re-running the solid mechanics integrated test located at
- inputFile/solidMechanics/SSLE-QS-beamBending.xml
@sytuannguyen How about other format, such as VTK or HDF5? The described issue has never been seen for the poromechanics wellbore problems.
@jhuang2601 Yeah this is the first time I see this issue happening. I guess it is linked to recent updates of the poromechanics solver.
I reran the tutorial example (inputFiles/poromechanics/PoroElasticWellbore_benchmark.xml) with the recent develop repo and observed the same issue.
@CusiniM @rrsettgast I just checked the VTK output and no issue with that format.
What's our relation to Silo outputs?
@rrsettgast @castelletto1 @white238 @herve-gross
My preference is to support only VTK output and ditch Silo.
@cssherman could you remind me what Visit functionalities are missing in Paraview that justify supporting Silo in the long term?
@castelletto1 - Here's an old thread on this: https://github.com/GEOSX/GEOSX/issues/1402
I'm working with vtk exclusively now myself, and it sounds like @povolny1 has most of his issues resolved.
Based on #1402, I would say we can safely stop supporting Silo outputs.
Let's have the discussion tomorrow in the infrastructure meeting?
any update?