Question #696047 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/696047
Karol Brzezinski proposed the following answer: Hi, sorry, forget the second part. It would be good for the statically indeterminate beam. Since you have a four-point bending test, you know the moment already. Regarding the first part, I meant that in actual 2D formulation you do not have to worry about thickness. The load that you obtain (apply?) in the simulation has a force dimension, thus I think it is related to some thickness. Whatever thickness you assume, you should treat the force as integral over this thickness. For example, if your sample has b = 40 mm, and your model has b' = 1 mm, you should apply only f'=f*b'/b = f/40. In general, b' doesn't have to correspond to the thickness of your sample, you could also assume b'=b. This would mean that your sample is 'compressed' to the thickness of the model. In such a case, however, the stiffness considerations become harder. In my opinion, assuming thickness to solve this problem is quite intuitive, and could be a good solution in some cases. However, it is probably oversimplified. It would be useful to know the purpose of the simulation and what is the advantage of using DEM? Is this advantage affected by the 2D assumption? Besides all that 'fundamental questions', I think that both solutions proposed by you are quite decent (if you stick to 2D simulation ;) ). Only, remember to apply the force corresponding to the assumed thickness. Cheers, Karol -- 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 : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
