Yes it worked for yade-0.12.1. I am using debian. To my memory, I didnt
change any system's libs.
Ya but, after 0.12.1, I tiried 0.20-2, that time some error occurred and
installation failed.
then I moved to bzr2066 (in which also 3d view didnt work) and now
bzr2153.
2010/4/20 Václav Šmilauer
BTW, just found this paper that fits very well this discussion..
"Energy monitoring in distinct element models of particle systems" by Asmar,
Langston, Matchett and Walters (2003)
>
>
>>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> ___
>> Mailing list:
>> https://launchpad.net/~y
I've put the symmetric IGeom for box-sphere in this commit as well
(removed the "2" factor).
There is a chance that this change will result in bigger time-steps in
some cases (i.e. saved cpu time), since the factor 2 was giving higher
stiffness at box-sphere contacts compared to sphere-sphere
It is commited now (r2170). I've put the symmetric IGeom for box-sphere
in this commit as well (removed the "2" factor).
I didn't test energy tracing at all yet. Any feedback is welcome.
Bruno
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
Post t
On 21 April 2010 17:24, Bruno Chareyre wrote:
>
>
>> BTW, a c++ question. Why are looping here over all the interactions if
>> this is done in the interaction dispatcher? Sorry I am still learning :)
>> Law2_ScGeom_FrictPhys_Basic is not inheriting from a periodic engine..
>> cheers, Chiara
>>
>>
BTW, a c++ question. Why are looping here over all the interactions if
this is done in the interaction dispatcher? Sorry I am still learning :)
Law2_ScGeom_FrictPhys_Basic is not inheriting from a periodic engine..
cheers, Chiara
plasticWork is never reset (except if the user write in pytho
2010/4/21 chiara modenese
>
>
> On 21 April 2010 16:40, Bruno Chareyre wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. current "trial" shear strain εT is computed*, with corresponding
>>> trial stress σT(εT); for admissible state f(σN,|σT(εT)|)<=0, there is no
>>> dissipation and the contact is done for this timestep. In ca
On 21 April 2010 16:40, Bruno Chareyre wrote:
>
> 2. current "trial" shear strain εT is computed*, with corresponding
>> trial stress σT(εT); for admissible state f(σN,|σT(εT)|)<=0, there is no
>> dissipation and the contact is done for this timestep. In case of
>> non-admissible f(σN,|σT|)>0, s
2. current "trial" shear strain εT is computed*, with corresponding
trial stress σT(εT); for admissible state f(σN,|σT(εT)|)<=0, there is no
dissipation and the contact is done for this timestep. In case of
non-admissible f(σN,|σT|)>0, shear strain is modified** to have new
value εT2 so that f(σ
On 21 April 2010 16:18, chiara modenese wrote:
>
>
> On 21 April 2010 15:25, Bruno Chareyre wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Doesn't the problem with different plasticity condition come into play
>>> only if you store shear force instead of strain? That would break for
>>> non-linear elasticity...?
>>>
>>>
>>
On 21 April 2010 15:25, Bruno Chareyre wrote:
>
>
>> Doesn't the problem with different plasticity condition come into play
>> only if you store shear force instead of strain? That would break for
>> non-linear elasticity...?
>>
>>
>>
> Not sure it makes a difference. How do you define the plasti
hi,
I want to plot impact force of a body (this body impact on a plate),
How can I get the forces on it?
Nasibeh Moradi
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/
> > Doesn't the problem with different plasticity condition come into play
> > only if you store shear force instead of strain? That would break for
> > non-linear elasticity...?
> Not sure it makes a difference. How do you define the plastic strain in
> your case? I guess it uses plastic = total
Doesn't the problem with different plasticity condition come into play
only if you store shear force instead of strain? That would break for
non-linear elasticity...?
Not sure it makes a difference. How do you define the plastic strain in
your case? I guess it uses plastic = total - elasti
Is anybody using these? If not, I'll remove them.
Bruno
,equilibriumDistance// equilibrium distance
,initialEquilibriumDistance// initial equilibrium distance
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
Post to : yade-users@l
Is this explanation at least a little understandable and useful? :-)
It is an interesting explanation, I didn't put it exactly that way
before, but I buy this.
My simplest explanation is actually in the documentation of the class,
let me know if it is not clear enough :
/"The complian
> I agree with that.
> My previous remark on "discrete" changes in forces was just to point out
> that you don't define directly the increment of plastic deformation in
> the incremental formulation. You have a total deformation
> (elastic+plastic) even on one time increment (with non linear
>
2010/4/20 Bruno Chareyre
> On the same line : the energy dissipated by Cundall's damping in
> quasi-satic conditions is negligeable. You find that the work input from
> boundaries equals more or less plastic+elastic work at contacts (tests with
> pfc3D, damping~0.2, frictional contacts, ~50k iter
18 matches
Mail list logo
