On 5 July 2010 10:07, Janek Kozicki <[email protected]> wrote: > Janek Kozicki said: (by the date of Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:26:08 +0200) > > > where U_tot is shearDisp. I may be wrong, though - just an idea. > > The graph is still wrong, but it looks a little bit better. > > yes.. I know that this is wrong.
Yes Janek, it is wrong because u_tot in the equations I wrote is an increment (note the dot over the letter u). We agree that it must be an increment and that the formulation has to be incremental. > But maybe we could identify what assumption is wrong if we find the answer: > why with this modification the graphs are better? The plastic dissipation > doesn't go through the > roof, but actually looks like an averaged value of what it should be. > I do not know yet. I am playing with this, please do let me know if you find an explanation.. I am having exaclty the same problem with the non linear law HM, where I worked out all the contributions (even the elastic ones) incrementally (trapezoidal rule). Again with no friction seems fine, but if sliding occurs then plastic dissipation increases dreadfully. Why?? > > Did you notice that kinetic energy becomes too high just after the > friction angle is set to 25? > > -- > Janek Kozicki http://janek.kozicki.pl/ | > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~yade-users<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-users> > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~yade-users<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-users> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
