yade-users team mailing list archive

[chiara modenese <c.modenese@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
>
>>
> Ah... Its is never very clear for me, when people speak about PSD, if they
> consider a uniform scaling will change the PSD or keep it constant.
> Implicitly, I consider that uniform scaling (growth) keeps PSD unchanged,
> and in Yade it doesn't change the result (numerical proof : stress-strain
> curves are the same - theoretical proof from dimensional analysis).
>

Hi, I would be happy if we could add somewhere documentation about the way
we expand the particles in the TT (may I do it? So I avoid to forget about
that). In the current code, the way we expand conducts to a higher size for
the particles, though as Bruno said PSD remains unchanged (yet I have seen
codes where they generate the particles with the real size, then they apply
a uniform reduction and only at that time they expand). In this regard, if
the size of the particles is different than the real ones (say bigger if we
performed expansion as in Yade), has the stiffness of the particles to be
affected by a different calibration? If particles are bigger in size, they
will also have different properties. They will behave say as a collection of
particles. What do you think?

Chiara



>
> If however you really want a precise value of final mean size, you can find
> analytically what is the box size corresponding to your "sieve curve",
> considering the number of particles and expected final porosity (lets say
> ~0.37). Then you'll define this box size instead of default 1x1x1. This is
> all analytic, no trial and error needed, really.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>