D modeling =============== This modeling is based on modeling A. The type of element chosen for the mesh is the only difference between these two models. Characteristics of the mesh ---------------------------- We discretize the structure into 6 finite elements TETRA4 The interface is present within these 6 elements through the level sets. .. image:: images/1000000000000239000004238C5733C18C337071.jpg :width: 2.9634in :height: 4.302in .. _RefImage_1000000000000239000004238C5733C18C337071.jpg: **Figure** 5.1-a **: Mesh** Boundary conditions ---------------------- The boundary conditions are those of modeling A: we embed the nodes on the lower face and we impose a displacement of the nodes on the upper face. Analytical resolution --------------------- The analytical solution is the one presented in modeling A [§ :ref:`2.3 `]: all the degrees of freedom following :math:`x` and :math:`y` are zero and all the degrees of freedom following :math:`z` are equal to :math:`\mathrm{uz}/2`, where :math:`\mathrm{uz}={10}^{-6}` Tested sizes and results ------------------------------ We test the values of the displacement just below and above the interface after convergence of the iterations of the operator STAT_NON_LINE. We check that we find the values determined in [§ :ref:`2.3 `]. .. csv-table:: "**Identification**", "**Reference**", "**Tolerance**" "DX for all nodes just below the interface", "0.00", "1.0E-16" "DY for all nodes just below the interface", "0.00", "1.0E-16" "DZ for all nodes just below the interface", "0.00", "1.0E-16" "DX for all nodes just above the interface", "0.00", "1.0E-16" "DY for all nodes just above the interface", "0.00", "1.0E-16" "DZ for all nodes just above the interface", "1.0E-6", "1.0E -9%" To test all the nodes at once, we test the MINIMUM and the MAXIMUM of the column. Comments ------------ We notice the discontinuity of the field of movement when crossing the interface, which is possible thanks to the enrichment of the elements with the Heaviside degree of freedom.