Changing the way the stress is calculated gives more realistic results - my assumption regarding Hooke's law was perhaps invalid.



On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Andre Smit <freev...@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert

I'm having problems relating the model's output to the actual test output. One issue that is confusing is that if I reduce the displacement interval from 0.001 to 0.0001, say and the time during this interval to ensure a consistent loading rate, then the results change significantly, both the maximum load at failure and the displacement at maximum load. This is unexpected. I can't think what the problem can be - any ideas on your side?





On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz> wrote:

Ok, interesting. Well, I cannot help you much at this point :)

You might want to try a finer mesh, just to compare with the current one...


r.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Andre Smit wrote:

I think the iterations are indirectly sorting this out. In fact I found
that the initial stiffness(0) doesn't influence the results at all. I've
attached results of compression (comp) and tension (tens)  tests at rate
of 1mm/sec as well as the script in its current state. Based on lab
tests, comparative compression failure at this rate occurs at 6.6 N/mm2
whereas tension failure occurs at 3.0 N/mm2. So the script is accurately
predicting compression failure but under-estimating tension failure.
Still exploring ...


a

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz>
wrote:
     Well, this flag is used essentially only in the generic
     solver used by simple.py. In the strain rate solver script we
     solve every time step regardless this flag.

     The first time step is different, however, as strain equals
     strain0 (no previous strain defined), and so initial dstrain
     is zero. Maybe this causes some problems?


r.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Andre Smit wrote:

     Alright, that fixes it! Now I understand the reason for
     quasistatic! In
     the non-linear analyses, the time stepper is set
     programatically - is is
     possible to force solving for the first time step here
     as well as in:


         for ii, disp in ds:
             #my_output(dformat % (ii + 1, ds.n_step, disp))

             force0 = 0.0

             pb.ebcs['Load'].dofs['u.2'] = disp

             pb.ts.is_quasistatic = True  # <<<===========
     Force quasistatic
             pb.time_update(ts)




     On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Robert Cimrman
     <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz>
     wrote:

          So the problem is the single dot outside the
     linear curve,
          right?

          What if you add

                 'quasistatic' : True,

          to the time-stepper options? As it is now, the
     first time
          step is not solved but taken from the initial
     conditions
          (unspecified = zero) and boundary conditions
     (nonzero!), so
          it is not in equlibrium!


     r.

     On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Andre Smit wrote:

     Sorry - forgot to attach the figure - your point is
     taken re
     the nodal
     residual. Forces are calculated and summed on each of
     the
     nodes in the
     Top region. I checked this a while back and plotted in
     Paraview - the
     forces are zero at the other nodes within the model but
     equal
     and
     opposite in direction to the Top at the corresponding
     Bottom
     nodes of the
     model (as you'd expect).

     a

     On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Robert Cimrman
     <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz>
     wrote:
          Where can I see the line? maybe you forgot to
     attach a
          figure?

          As for the forces, it might be better to compute
     them
     using a
          (inner) surface integral of stress instead of the
     nodal
          rezidual. Btw. you look at the nodal force in the
     first
     node
          of the Top region only, right? What are the values
     in
     the
          other nodes?

          r.

          On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Andre Smit wrote:

                Thanks Robert!

                I've attached a modification that shows the
                strain/stress output for the
                elastic case of the cylinder under
     compression.
                The slope of the line is
                Young's modulus as you'd expect. As with our
                non-linear analyses, the
                forces calculated after the first time step
                appear to be too high - not
                sure what the reason for this is. 

                On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Robert
     Cimrman
                <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz>
                wrote:
                     There was some old code in the
                stress_strain() function. The
                     exception was caused by putting
     directly the
                traction
                     function into the EBC definition,
     instead of
                its name. The
                     attached file should work.

                     r.


     --
     You received this message because you are subscribed to
     the
     Google
     Groups "sfepy-devel" group.
     To post to this group, send email to
     sfepy...@googlegroups.com.
     To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
     sfepy-devel...@googlegroups.com.
     For more options, visit this group at
     http://groups.google.com/group/sfepy-devel?hl=en.




     --
     Andre

     --
     You received this message because you are subscribed to
     the
     Google Groups
     "sfepy-devel" group.
     To post to this group, send email to
     sfepy...@googlegroups.com.
     To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
     sfepy-devel...@googlegroups.com.
     For more options, visit this group at
     http://groups.google.com/group/sfepy-devel?hl=en.



     --
     You received this message because you are subscribed to
     the Google
     Groups "sfepy-devel" group.
     To post to this group, send email to
     sfepy...@googlegroups.com.
     To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
     sfepy-devel...@googlegroups.com.
     For more options, visit this group at
     http://groups.google.com/group/sfepy-devel?hl=en.




     --
     Andre

     --
     You received this message because you are subscribed to
     the Google Groups
     "sfepy-devel" group.
     To post to this group, send email to
     sfepy...@googlegroups.com.
     To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
     sfepy-devel...@googlegroups.com.
     For more options, visit this group at
     http://groups.google.com/group/sfepy-devel?hl=en.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "sfepy-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sfepy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sfepy-devel...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sfepy-devel?hl=en.




--
Andre

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sfepy-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sfepy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sfepy-devel...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sfepy-devel?hl=en.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sfepy-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sfepy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sfepy-devel...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sfepy-devel?hl=en.




--
Andre



--
Andre