yade-users team mailing list archive
-
yade-users team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #03375
Re: Elastic energy
-
To:
yade-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
From:
Janek Kozicki <janek_listy@xxxxx>
-
Date:
Sun, 4 Jul 2010 20:47:40 +0200
-
Face:
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
-
In-reply-to:
<AANLkTimogBnrlhsGTurfBcNGnDG_Maygv_lRvlGpe-1F@mail.gmail.com>
chiara modenese said: (by the date of Sun, 4 Jul 2010 17:27:04 +0000)
> Hi Janek, thanks for your anwer.
> > W=∫k*x*dx = k*x²/2
> > Wᵢ = (Fᵢ+Fᵢ₋₁)*Δxᵢ⁄2
> >
> Not sure to understand the point.
I wanted to say that I was actually doing a numerical integration
with trapezoidal rule instead of using analytical method.
> Using trapezoidal rule, hence working out
> the net work done by the spring in an incremental way, or either taking the
> value of the integral should give you the same result.
This might be not true for slipping - we are entering plastic
behaviour regime. See below.
> Perhaps the mistake is in the computation of the plastic dissipation. But I
> have not found out why :(
I will try again, maybe this time I'll help you?
Let me rewrite this line from elasticEnergy():
energy += 0.5*(phys->normalForce.squaredNorm()/phys->kn + phys->shearForce.squaredNorm()/phys->ks);
into something more readable:
E += (Fn²⁄kn + Fs²⁄ks)⁄2
The normal part Wn =∑ (Fnᵢ+Fnᵢ₋₁)*(xᵢ-xᵢ₋₁)⁄2 should be rather
equivalent to En+=(Fn²⁄kn)⁄2
But slipping might be actually different in those two approaches:
Ws =∑ (Fsᵢ+Fsᵢ₋₁)*(sᵢ-sᵢ₋₁)⁄2
and this: Es+=(Fs²⁄ks)⁄2
That is because the slip distance is implicitly calculated
in formula (Fs²⁄ks)⁄2, because after all:
Fs²⁄ks = (ks*s)²/ks = ks*s²
and I'm afraid that maybe s≠∑(sᵢ-sᵢ₋₁) , because sᵢ is supposed
to follow the slipping path (or slip "trace") on the surface of a
sphere, while s is calculated from current value Fs.
To say in other words, I think that when spheres start to slip on
each other and Fs stays constant, the increment of s which stays
inside constant Fs differs from the path increment on the sphere's
surface slipping path sᵢ-sᵢ₋₁.
I'm not sure if I worded myself clearly.... I hope that you can
understand what I mean?
IIRC Vaclav was calculating somewhere the total accumulated
_geometrical_ path of one sphere on another sphere.
best regards
--
Janek Kozicki http://janek.kozicki.pl/ |
Follow ups
References
-
Elastic energy
From: chiara modenese, 2010-07-02
-
Re: Elastic energy
From: Anton Gladky, 2010-07-02
-
Re: Elastic energy
From: Václav Šmilauer, 2010-07-02
-
Re: Elastic energy
From: chiara modenese, 2010-07-02
-
Re: Elastic energy
From: chiara modenese, 2010-07-02
-
Re: Elastic energy
From: Janek Kozicki, 2010-07-02
-
Re: Elastic energy
From: chiara modenese, 2010-07-02
-
Re: Elastic energy
From: Janek Kozicki, 2010-07-04
-
Re: Elastic energy
From: chiara modenese, 2010-07-04
-
Re: Elastic energy
From: Janek Kozicki, 2010-07-04
-
Re: Elastic energy
From: chiara modenese, 2010-07-04