Yes, I'm happy. ;)
B.
On 17/10/11 08:51, Klaus Thoeni wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> I derived my WireMat from NormShearPhys and indeed it is working fine now. I
> think for now it's the best solution. Let me know if you are happy with this
> solution.
> If in the future we have more cases with normal
Hi Bruno,
I derived my WireMat from NormShearPhys and indeed it is working fine now. I
think for now it's the best solution. Let me know if you are happy with this
solution.
If in the future we have more cases with normal forces only it might be better
to introduce the boolean you mentioned. Bu
Yes, deriving from NormShear would do the "trick". It is suboptimal in
terms of memory usage but the impact will be small.
There could be other ways, like passing an optional bool "hasShear" to
the unbalancedForce function, but it would solve only one specific
problem and if normShearPhys is used e
Hi Bruno,
I just had a look at the code and NormShearPhys is used in many other places
as well. This means that it is always assumend that there is a normal and a
shear force. So probably I should derive WirePhys from NormSherPhys and set ks
and Fs equal to zero.
What do you think?
Klaus
On
Hi Bruno,
I think I finally found something. The unbalancedForce is calculated by summing
the noremal and shear forces stored in NormShearPhys. My WireMatPM has just
normal forces so I used NormPhys. Strange that I can get some values.
I fixed it locally by using NormPhys and the noremal force
Hi,
If you can get 0 after pausing, then it's a good starting point for
debugging. In release build, you may try and check if there are forces
on the bodies.
In debug build (does it give 0 too?) you could set a breakpoint at
Shop.cpp:162 and see what happens line by line, surely the best way.
Bru
Hi,
yes, if you pause the simulation unbalancedForce() is still exactly 0.
Regarding the results for displacements:
- if I run the same file with -j1 I will get exactly the same deformation,
however the the unbalancedForce is not exactly the same
- if I compare the displacements of a case where I
I tried the script and didn't find the problem. It needs more runs
maybe. But first, could you explain how you use the function (in a
periodic engine/ live typing/a command in the script)? It would help
understanding what happens.
Bruno
On 06/10/11 07:53, Klaus Thoeni wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> I ti
Hi Anton,
I tired it already (I know this issue), still the same behaviour. And now
actually I got zero for Bruno's branch as well. Very strange :-(
Not sure what the problem is. Would be great if someone could try if he/she
gets the same behaviour.
Thanks,
Klaus
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 04:30:53 PM
Hi Klaus,
try to start your script with -j1 option.
There are sometimes some issues with "numerical" error in multi-thread mode.
Anton
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Klaus Thoeni wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just wanted to use the function unbalancedForce in one of my scripts. And
> look what is
Hi guys,
I just wanted to use the function unbalancedForce in one of my scripts. And
look what is happening: running the same simulation several times after each
other gives different results for the unbalancedForce. Well either some values
which seem all right or just zero. The script I used i
script2 : indeed, it looks better with damping = 1%. It is still
different in the sense that the sphere detach after some rolling.
It is perhaps correct after all... the sphere can't roll on the facet as
it roll between 2 spheres. But why can it roll with your viscous law then?
I can't explain this
Many thanks to all!
Seems, behaviour is correct. Sorry for false alarm.
The sphere twist and roll without shear.
But if no twisting and rolling friction then no dissipation...
>It should give something similar with CundallStrack, but it doesn't
unfortunately (script 2 attached).
Bruno, script2
On 2 February 2011 09:14, Sergei D. wrote:
> Hi (Anton, Chiara?)
> Who is working on dynamic problems?
> Could not you explain why it occurs (see attached script)?
> And do test the configuration with own laws?
>
Sergei -
may I ask you what was the purpose of your test and why did you expect
som
Try at least script 3. It's a different configuration and a different
law but it explains what happens in your script Sergei, I think.
For me, the result of script 3 is correct.
B.
On 02/02/11 12:24, Bruno Chareyre wrote:
> Re-sending, my first reply is blocked it seems.
> __
Re-sending, my first reply is blocked it seems.
_
That is funny script!
Is there really something wrong in this motion? One sphere rolling
between two bodies. It is consistent with equations I think.
Or maybe you mean viscosity should stop the motion progressively and it
That is funny script!
Is there really something wrong in this motion? One sphere rolling
between two bodies. It is consistent with equations I think.
Or maybe you mean viscosity should stop the motion progressively and it
doesn't?
Try this by the way, it will be more clear : Gl1_Sphere.stripes=True
Who is working on dynamic problems?
Could not you explain why it occurs (see attached script)?
And do test the configuration with own laws?
The interactions are not erased obviously, otherwise it works as
expected. Since your law just tests penetrationDepth, then it could be a
bug in ScGeom o
Hmm, very strange.
It can be a serious bug somewhere.
Let me test it more precisely.
Anton
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Sergei D. wrote:
> Hi (Anton, Chiara?)
> Who is working on dynamic problems?
> Could not you explain why it occurs (see attached script)?
> And do test the configurati
Hi (Anton, Chiara?)
Who is working on dynamic problems?
Could not you explain why it occurs (see attached script)?
And do test the configuration with own laws?
--
Best regards,
Sergei Dorofeenko,
Cand. Phys.-Mat. Sci.
Institute of Problems of Chemical Physics,
Chernogolovka, Moscow region, Rus
20 matches
Mail list logo
