yade-users team mailing list archive

[Luc Scholtès <question210907@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Question #210907 on Yade changed:
https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/210907

Luc Scholtès proposed the following answer:
""With it, the desired porosity which corresponds to the porosity of the real specimen n = 0.40 was reached"
I never understand this, n in the real specimen is 0.40, but what is n in his numerical specimen?"

-> it says that the porosity of his numerical assembly IS EQUAL TO the
one of the real specimen. You have to note that 0.40 is the porosity
after the radius expansion method. The triaxial compression is thus
performed on a sample with initial porosity equal to 0.40.

"In your paper "on capillary stress tensor in wet granular materials",
you even used a smaller friction angle, say 0.2. In my experience, that
will result a very large dilatancy angle, usually larger than 20, but in
experiment it is usually about 10."

-> You have to be careful here. For instance, in my case, I generated
samples (radius expansion) with an interparticle friction angle equal to
0.1 deg, right, this was done so that the sample is as dense as possible
at the end of the compaction phase, BUT, I CHANGED the frictional angle
after the generation phase so that the triaxial compression is performed
on a sample where the interparticle friction angle is equal to 30 deg
(see the difference between compactionFrictionDeg and sphereFrictionDeg
in the trixial test)

"at the last step ,I calibrate for rolling stiffness, in the response,
the macroscopic friction angle doesn't change"

-> I guess this should be the title of your question? I also guess that
you are using Law2_ScGeom6D_CohFrictPhys_CohesionMoment. Am I right?

Luc

-- 
You received this question notification because you are a member of
yade-users, which is an answer contact for Yade.