yade-users team mailing list archive

[chiara modenese <c.modenese@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 5 July 2010 10:07, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy@xxxxx> wrote:

> Janek Kozicki said:     (by the date of Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:26:08 +0200)
>
> > where U_tot is shearDisp. I may be wrong, though - just an idea.
> > The graph is still  wrong, but it looks a little bit better.
>
> yes.. I know that this is wrong.

Yes Janek, it is wrong because u_tot in the equations I wrote is an
increment (note the dot over the letter u). We agree that it must be an
increment and that the formulation has to be incremental.


> But maybe we could identify what assumption is wrong if we find the answer:
> why with this modification the graphs are better? The plastic dissipation
> doesn't go through the
> roof, but actually looks like an averaged value of what it should be.
>
I do not know yet. I am playing with this, please do let me know if you find
an explanation..
I am having exaclty the same problem with the non linear law HM, where I
worked out all the contributions (even the elastic ones) incrementally
(trapezoidal rule). Again with no friction seems fine, but if sliding occurs
then plastic dissipation increases dreadfully. Why??

>
> Did you notice that kinetic energy becomes too high just after the
> friction angle is set to 25?
>
> --
> Janek Kozicki                               http://janek.kozicki.pl/  |
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-users>
> Post to     : yade-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-users>
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>