[Yade-users] [Question #693984]: How to export VTK file of walls
New question #693984 on Yade: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/693984 Hi, I'd like to export the VTK files at some interested strain level. It seems that using VTKRecorder in engines like: VTKRecorder(fileName='vtkRecorder',recorders=['all'],iterPeriod=1000) can only export the VTK files according to the iterPeriod. So I go to use VTKExporter to output the VTK files at the desired strain level. With [1] I can output the spheres, and I still need to output the walls which is defined as walls=aabbWalls([mn,mx],thickness=0,material='walls' (for triaxial test). In [1] it mentions that using VTKExport can export: spheres facets polyhedra PotentialBlocks interactions contact points periodic cell I just wonder is it possible to export the walls using VTKExport? Thanks Leonard [1]https://yade-dev.gitlab.io/trunk/yade.export.html?highlight=vtkexporter#yade.export.VTKExporter.exportSpheres -- You received this question notification because your team yade-users is an answer contact for Yade. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Yade-users] Yade_2020.01a for Debian 10 Buster and Debian 9 Stretch
Dear Yade users and developers, backport repositories of Debian 10 Buster (stable) [1] and Debian 9 Stretch (oldstable) [2] have got an updated yade_2020.01a. If you use one of those distributions, you can install updated Yade from backports: sudo apt-get install yade -t stretch-backports or sudo apt-get install yade -t buster-backports. If you have any questions or troubles with it, please let me know. [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=yade&suite=buster-backports [2] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=yade&suite=stretch-backports Best regards Anton ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Yade-users] New Yade version, beginning of January 2021
Dear Yade users and developers, As always at the beginning of January I am planning to prepare a release of a new Yade version. Please try to push your changes inyo the code at least till the mid of December, so we will have enough time to test it on different platforms during the Christmas period and release it on time. Also please try not to push too much breaking changes at that period.. The new Debian Bullseye release is scheduled already [1]. So we should not be too late to prepare a new Yade for the next stable Debian version. Also it would be good to prepare short but meaningful release notes. Current git-workflow has too many small log-messages, so it is difficult to get meaningful information from there. Please use this link to add some notes [2]. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianBullseye [2] https://pad.systemli.org/p/yade-2021-release-notes Thank you Anton Gladky ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Yade-users] [Question #692613]: Order of defining object and engine is causing problems
Question #692613 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/692613 Rohit John gave more information on the question: Dear Jérôme Duriez, Thanks for your advice. However, I do not understand your comment. I have included Law2_ScGeom_FrictPhys_CundallStrack() which, as I understand, handles ScGeom and FrictPhys. I may be mistaken, so I would grealy appreciate it if you could elaborate. Moreover, I get the same problem (CylinderConnection falling apart when I define it before the engine) when I tried the tutorial simulating spheres interacting with root [1]. To get this problem, cut and paste the list of engines after defining the objects. The fact that I cannot define the objects before the engines is frustrating because I would like to use a partial engine to affect some objects based on their IDs. I can only get the IDs once I define the objects. One work around would be to first define the list of engine without the partial engine, then define the object and finally append the partial engine to O.engines. I would still like to bring to the developers attention. Kind regards, Rohit John [1] https://gitlab.com/yade-dev/trunk/blob/master/examples/cylinders /cylinderconnection-roots.py -- You received this question notification because your team yade-users is an answer contact for Yade. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Yade-users] [Question #693728]: Damage models in Yade
Question #693728 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/693728 Status: Open => Needs information Jan Stránský requested more information: Maybe you could describe more in detail / add some links what you exactly mean by "bond-failure", "strength based failure model" or "Cohesive zone failure model"? thanks Jan -- You received this question notification because your team yade-users is an answer contact for Yade. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Yade-users] [Question #693852]: energy issues
Question #693852 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/693852 Jérôme Duriez posted a new comment: Regarding your initial ref [3] https://gricad-gitlab.univ-grenoble- alpes.fr/cailletr, I would rather advice to online browse YADE source code at https://gitlab.com/yade-dev/trunk I'm unsure how closely bonded these two repositories are, at the moment. -- You received this question notification because your team yade-users is an answer contact for Yade. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Yade-users] [Question #693728]: Damage models in Yade
Question #693728 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/693728 Jérôme Duriez posted a new comment: Hi, Just a comment, also inspired by your other question [1]: in DEM/YADE Discrete Elements are very often pretty much rigid (modulo the finite contact stiffness, which just correspond to linear springs in most cases), so I abandon any enhanced continuum mechanics model if I were you. Unless you're already very familiar with DEM/YADE and would like to implement new stuff to account for complex deformation phenomena at the particle level.. [1] https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/693727 -- You received this question notification because your team yade-users is an answer contact for Yade. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Yade-users] [Question #693898]: Bonding particles with JCFpm yields unexpected forces
Question #693898 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/693898 Luc Scholtès proposed the following answer: Alright, For 1), as suggested by Jerome, if you want to modify an existing interaction stiffness, you need to add i.phys.kn=valueYouWant in your loop #Set sphere state and interactions manually 'onJoint' That's true for all properties of an existing interaction. The way you did it only changed the properties on the particles, which will be taken into consideration the next time an interaction is created with these particles. For 2), I am not sure to see the point of using a bond as a damping tool... For instance, you could compact the assembly with a classic frictional law using a high value of the non viscous damping coefficient (defined in Newton integrator)? Now, assuming that you really want to add cohesion between particles to compact the assembly , why define jointed interactions to do that? You can simply define cohesive bonds without the attribute "onJoint"... The onJoint attribute only makes sense if you want to reorientate the contacts according one or several predefined discontinuity planes (cf. smooth contact logic proposed in [1,2]). If that's not the case, just define cohesion and/or tensile strength between particles without changing the contact plane orientation (without playing on the onJoint attribute). Luc [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365160910002169 [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365160912000391?via%3Dihub -- You received this question notification because your team yade-users is an answer contact for Yade. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Yade-users] [Question #693898]: Bonding particles with JCFpm yields unexpected forces
Question #693898 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/693898 Status: Open => Answered Jérôme Duriez proposed the following answer: Hi 1) After a quick look, problem seems to be that your interaction has already be assigned its mechanical properties (like phys.kn), in the first O.step, when you declared it as onJoint. Computation of these mechanical properties happen by default in YADE only once: at interaction creation (they usually do not change during a simulation => no need to recompute things which have already been computed). Then, your manual changes on that interaction do not have the intended effect / are incomplete. With such a workflow, you also have to directly assign yourself an adequate kn value. (Classical YADE workflow for the use of joint stiffness bodies parameters goes through examples/jointedCohesiveFrictionalPM/identifBis.py script) -- You received this question notification because your team yade-users is an answer contact for Yade. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Yade-users] [Question #692613]: Order of defining object and engine is causing problems
Question #692613 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/692613 Jérôme Duriez posted a new comment: Regarding > None of given Law2 functors can handle interaction #0+1, types geom:ScGeom=1 > and phys:FrictPhys=3 (LawDispatcher::getFunctor2D returned empty functor) https://yade-dem.org/doc/user.html#base-engines, with all its "Functors" paragraphs, may help -- You received this question notification because your team yade-users is an answer contact for Yade. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Yade-users] [Question #693898]: Bonding particles with JCFpm yields unexpected forces
Question #693898 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/693898 Status: Answered => Open David Alber is still having a problem: Dear Luc, 1) I would have expected that. However, even if manually setting the interaction 'isOnJoint', the force between the two spheres is still calculated from the stiffness of the young module. This is demonstrated in the output of the minimal example: Output: 'isOnjoint' = True; 'kn' = 3e10 (which is the young module and NOT jointNormalStiffness*phys->crossSection). Is that related to the joint normal vector? 2) We want to compress a packing of spheres. A local non-viscous damping shall be represented by parallel bonds between every interaction to contribute to the energy loss in the system [1]. Hence, we seek for joints with set jointNormalStiffness between every interaction. This shall be achieved by the often cited formalism of Potyondy & Cundall 'A bonded particle model for rock' [2]. From the YADE launchpad question 635871 [3] I figured that the JCFpm related classes are an implementation of this formalism and would therefore be the right constitutive law. Is that right? 3), 4) OK [1]: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921883118302061] [2]: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365160904002874] [3]: [https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/635871] -- You received this question notification because your team yade-users is an answer contact for Yade. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Yade-users] [Question #693836]: How to define appropriate k, r and R values for irregular polyhedra in Potential Particles?
Question #693836 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/693836 Status: Answered => Solved weijie confirmed that the question is solved: Thanks Vasileios Angelidakis, that solved my question. -- You received this question notification because your team yade-users is an answer contact for Yade. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : yade-users@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
