LIGGGHTS® - User Forum

LIGGGHTS® related topics can be discussed here: discussion about models, installation, feature requests and general discussion

Should "compute contact/atom" and "compute pair/gran/local" give the same number of contacts per particle/atom ?

Submitted by limone on Thu, 01/25/2018 - 18:08

Dear All,

I would like to compare the output of compute contact/atom for the contacts count of each particle/atom (to calculate the number of contacts for each atom in a group) and compute pair/gran/local for the number of pairwise interactions or particle-wall interactions in the system.

compute contact/atom
compute atomtrack all contact/atom
dump collide all custom 100 CSVs/dump*.doll.csv c_atomtrack

Formatting force chains so that their thickness depends on their magnitude

Submitted by AndresMM on Wed, 01/24/2018 - 09:15

This question comes often. I wanted to answer it with a picture but pictures in replies are not allowed.

In short, use the calculator filter and calculate the magnitude of the force with its components.
THEN use the tube filter. You can scale the chains using the newly-calculated value

Tutorial

Submitted by Frozeus on Tue, 01/23/2018 - 14:22

Hello everyone, I have made a small tutorial especially for Spanish speakers, any errors you find please let me know since I have been using liggghts for a short time.

Hola a todos, he realizado un pequeño tutorial en especial para las personas de habla hispana, cualquier error que encuentren porfavor haganmelo saber ya que llevo poco tiempo utilizando liggghts

Error: Pair gran allows only own compute of type pair/local

Submitted by Rachel on Sun, 01/21/2018 - 20:17

Hi,

I am facing a problem about outputing the contact force of different particle groups. In my code, I first wrote:

1#: compute fc all pair/gran/local force id pos
2#: compute fcSparticle sparticle pair/gran/local force

where "sparticle" is a certain group name. However, the ERROR message shows: pair gran allows only one compute of type pair/local. I cannot figure out why one cannot use two compute pair/local?

After the above test, I deleted the 2# command and just use the 1# command. When I want to output the results, I used:

layers of different particles

Tarun De's picture
Submitted by Tarun De on Fri, 01/19/2018 - 21:27

hello everyone,
I am a new user of LIGGGHTS. please suggest me some good tutorial where every topic is covered step by step, which is really good for beginners.
I will be really happy if anyone kindly tells me how to create layers of different particles in a hopper at once.
looking urgently for a reply.

best,
Tarun

cohesion particle wall

Submitted by Frozeus on Fri, 01/19/2018 - 21:07

Hello everyone, I would like to ask for your help in a script that I am working on

It consists of three particles of different sizes but of the same material and a different material geometry.

The problem is that I can not achieve cohesion or adhesion between the particles and the walls but if between the particles

atom_style sphere
atom_modify map array
boundary m m m
newton off

Shrink-wrap boundaries

Submitted by tjleps on Tue, 01/16/2018 - 22:45

I'm having trouble implementing shrink wrap boundaries. I keep getting an "illegal simulation box" when I use s boundaries, but it works for m, p, and f boundaries. Does anybody have any idea what's going wrong? Here is my script:

atom_style hybrid granular dipole
boundary f f f
newton off
atom_modify sort 100 0.6

communicate single vel yes
units si
processors 1 4 1

region reg block -1.5 2 -.2 .2 0 2 units box
create_box 1 reg
neighbor 0.005 bin
neigh_modify delay 0

hard_particles no

Shock waves

Submitted by c97 on Mon, 01/15/2018 - 20:50

Hello,

I am trying to make reflective walls similar to the fix wall/reflect command (which, for some reason, is no longer available in the current versions of LIGGGHTS). The reason for this is I have the simulation spheres passing directly through rapidly moving walls, rather than impacting them. In order to try to solve this, I have tried using higher Young's moduli (Y= 1e10 Pa), reducing the timestep (once to .0000000005 sec, which still caused wall penetration), none of which worked. My question is

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - LIGGGHTS® - User Forum