FElupe Submission

[adtzlr]

Submitting Author: Andreas Dutzler (@adtzlr)
All current maintainers: (@adtzlr)
Package Name: FElupe
One-Line Description of Package: Finite element analysis for continuum mechanics of solid bodies.
Repository Link: https://github.com/adtzlr/felupe
Version submitted: v9.0.0
EiC: @cmarmo
Editor: TBD
Reviewer 1: TBD
Reviewer 2: TBD
Archive: TBD
JOSS DOI: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD

---

Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package

• I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package after should it be accepted.
• I have read and will commit to package maintenance after the review as per the pyOpenSci Policies Guidelines.

Description

• Include a brief paragraph describing what your package does:

FElupe is a Python finite element analysis package focusing on the formulation and numerical solution of nonlinear problems in continuum mechanics of solid bodies. Easy-to-learn classes are provided to simulate the nonlinear deformation of hyperelastic solid bodies, see Getting Started. The constitutive material formulation of a hyperelastic solid body may be defined by its strain energy density function only (gradient and hessian are carried out by optional automatic differentiation). Strain energy functions for selected hyperelastic models are included. FElupe has only few dependencies, is a pure Python package but is also efficient enough for rubber-like structures. Several extension packages exist, e.g. to use a different automatic differentation backend or an interactive plot window.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories.
  Check out our package scope page to learn more about our
  scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):

  • Data retrieval
  • Data extraction
  • Data processing/munging
  • Data deposition
  • Data validation and testing
  • Data visualization¹
  • Workflow automation
  • Citation management and bibliometrics
  • Scientific software wrappers
  • Database interoperability

Domain Specific

• Geospatial
• Education

Community Partnerships

If your package is associated with an
existing community please check below:

• Astropy:My package adheres to Astropy community standards
• Pangeo: My package adheres to the Pangeo standards listed in the pyOpenSci peer review guidebook

• For all submissions, explain how and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):

  • Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

FElupe is great for teaching, scientific research as well as for mid-sized industry-problems related to the deformation of solid bodies. It has already been used in scientific articles which are listed in the README.

• Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?

Yes, there is scikit-fem, FEniCS, GetFEM and probably some others. While scikit-fem is definitely lightweight and easy-to-install, I found out that it is typically too slow for running hyperelastic simulations, e.g. the deformation of a rubber-like solid (see also my initial questions / posts in kinnala/scikit-fem#616). FEniCS on the other hand has a great community but the install-entry-barrier is much higher compared to a pure PyPI Python package. The same also applies for GetFEM, because both projects provide Python packages for their compiled code. I was looking for a more lightweight Python package but also efficient enough for simulating typical rubber-like structures. Hence, I started working on FElupe in 2021.

Instead of assembling general weak forms like scikit-fem and FEniCS, FElupe follows a more Abaqus-like UMAT (user material) approach for constitutive material formulations of solid bodies, see e.g. ConstitutiveMaterial or Hyperelastic.

• If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

#211

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• uses an OSI approved license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• contains a tutorial with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration setup, such as GitHub Actions CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication Options

• Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process does not guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS.
• The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's submission requirements: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria.
• The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or in inst/.
  Note: Will be added soon - not present in the submitted v9.0.0.
• The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.4817406

Note: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

• Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• I have read the author guide.
• I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years and can help find a replacement for the maintainer (team) if needed.

Please fill out our survey

• Last but not least please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us track
  submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers
  and editors to fill this out.

P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

The editor template can be found here.

The review template can be found here.

Footnotes

1. Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. ↩