# Problem with update strain rheology **URL:** \ **Category:** ASPECT\ **Created:** [August 1, 2023, 7:41pm UTC](https://community.geodynamics.org/t/problem-with-update-strain-rheology/3057 "2023-08-01T19:41:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 13
**Author:** ![jbnaliboff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58956e/32.png) [@jbnaliboff](https://community.geodynamics.org/u/jbnaliboff)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2023, 3:00am UTC](https://community.geodynamics.org/t/problem-with-update-strain-rheology/3057/13 "2023-08-15T03:00:48Z")
Hi @sibiao, > Yes, I tried the new version with merging of the PR from Rene. The continental\_extension cookbook also works on my system, for both deal.ii 9.4.2 and 9.5.1! Thanks for confirming! I will go back and check to see whether the continental extension cookbook test would crash using the `FEFieldFunction` class if we ran it for a few more time steps. This may be useful for future error-proofing. > Furthermore, I revisited the plastic strain test as mentioned earlier. Notably, when I initialized the plastic strain value to 0.01, which is the same as the value of plastic strain increment or reaction term. I noticed that the expected value and observed old solution are generally consistent now. Interesting, can you post the output from these tests? I’m not entirely sure what is causing this differences between the FEFieldFunction`and`FEPointEvaluation` approaches, but it would be good to pinpoint the exact change. I also think it may be worth updating (simplifying) the strain rheology tests to ensure they can be easily compared with analytical solution. > I think this update should be working without problems. I would like to thank both of you for your support and time spent on this issue! Likewise, thanks for highlighting the issue and helping with the testing. Cheers, John --- _[View the full topic](https://community.geodynamics.org/t/problem-with-update-strain-rheology/3057)._