yade-users team mailing list archive

[Jan Stránský <question250355@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Question #250355 on Yade changed:
https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/250355

    Status: Open => Answered

Jan Stránský proposed the following answer:
Hi Jerome,

how do you compare the results? average of bodyStressTensors, taking into
account porosity (see [1])..?

the formuals for computation are derived from the assumption of static
equilibrium, so this might be other reason..

cheers
Jan

[1] https://yade-
dem.org/doc/yade.utils.html#yade._utils.bodyStressTensors



2014-06-17 12:21 GMT+02:00 Jérôme Duriez <
question250355@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Question #250355 on Yade changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/250355
>
>     Status: Answered => Open
>
> Jérôme Duriez is still having a problem:
> In fact, the periodic case is the problematic one for me..
>
> In non-periodic cases (using rigid boundaries) bodyStressTensors data
> match rather satisfactorily other stress measurements, obtained with
> getStress(volume) or box-force measurements (these last measurements are
> reasonnably equal).
>
> Whereas, in periodic cases, bodyStressTensors data overestimate by
> around 50% getStress() data... This overestimation can apparently not be
> explained by the discrepancy existing in bodyStressTensors data (among
> the different particles). Could you obtain consistent data with
> getStress() and bodyStressTensors() in periodic cases ?
>
> Thanks !
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are a member of
> yade-users, which is an answer contact for Yade.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

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