Question #238696 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/238696
Bruno Chareyre posted a new comment: And only now comes to mind that this is exactly what you did Raphael. Even if it is with a different contact law, I should have mention it. Shame on me! Side note: Concerning the paper mentioned in #6. I suggest to NOT read it as it is quite confusing. They misunderstood Itasca's definition of critical timestep apparently. The sqrt(m/k) they attribute to Itasca is obviously not a correct way to evaluate the critical timestep (if m is particle mass and k contact stiffness). The thing is there is no reason to call it the Itasca's timestep, at all. What they try to do in the paper is a slightly different version of what Cundall did decades ago. Eq. 16 in [1] is the top-left 6x6 block of eq. 13 in the paper. The 6x6 version is enough to define the critical timestep exactly. They have longer matrices because they try to assign mass to the contacts, which is a bit awkward IMO. In the end, their method is less accurate and less general than the actual Cundall's scheme (that we are reproducing in Yade) although it is based on very similar ideas. They suggest to use a safety coefficient of 0.17, we can go up to 0.99999... [1] https://www.yade-dem.org/doc/formulation.html#dem-simulations -- 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 : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
