Run a simulation, no loading condition, make sure to rotate appropriately, speak to @completegurson.

[dcelisgarza]

https://github.com/dcelisgarza/EasyDD/blob/6f58866aa032d3897dfc709dae345a77229015aa/src/wip/DanielCelisGarza/Accurate_evaluation_of_dislocation_tractions/HeadVsFEM_ReactionForce.m#L4-L4

• Simuations with rotation matrix to get active slip systems, tons of movement.
• Simulations without rotation matrix (little happens, as expected because they are not active slip systems)
• Simulation with numeric tractions. 130 to 150% more dislocation segments than at an equivalent time in the simulation using analytic tractions.
  • mobbcc_bb1, issues at the surface, but reasonable cross slip. This mobility law is much better than the classic one.
  • mobbcc1, chaos ensues, lots of cross slip. A substantially larger number of segments are generated compared to analytic tractions.
• Simulation with analytic tractions.
  • mobbcc_bb1, issues at the surface, but reasonable cross slip. This mobility law is much better than the classic one.
  • mobbcc1, chaos ensues, not as much as with numeric tractions.
• Stop dislocations from exiting the surface or not? Turn them into fixed nodes (label = 7) or let them behave normally?
  • Prevented dislocations from exiting the surface, things got whacky because nodes got turned into fixed nodes.
  • Let dislocations exit the surface, dislocations escaped and it let the network relax.
• Need to decide on how to show the differences at equivalent times, impossible to do at specific times because of the variable step size without forcing a given step size.