On 5 July 2010 10:07, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy@xxxxx
<mailto: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
<mailto:yade-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-users>
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
Post to : yade-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
