I have simulated a 2D model in Abaqus which indicates 2 main part, first a sector that represent as wheel and, second a rectangular that represent rail.
the wheel and rail are in contact and wheel should rotate and move from left to right. there is a vertical small crack in middle of the rail to studying the result of contact on fracture mechanics.
my model has been completed, and in the 1/10 of total time good result has been achieved but after that the stress distribution is completely wrong and although the contact seems to exist, the stress is almost zero.
Any guide, comment or advice would be appreciated.
thank you
Related
I am working on a simulation, which contains:
a bolt, welded uprightly to the world
a nut, connected to the bolt via ScrewJoint. The mass of a nut set to 0.02 kg, the inertia is a diagonal 1.1e-9 *I. This is configured via a .sdf file.
an iiwa manipulator, which is beside a point for now.
The problem is that the nut is very hard to manipulate and I cannot find a parameter to adjust, which could've made it more lifelike. To be more specific:
I measure the ability of force, applied tangentially in a horizontal plane to the nut, to cause the screwing motion of a joint, that joins the nut with a bolt
I'd like to have greater amount of motion at lower forces, and so far I am failing to achieve that
My interest in doing this is not idle; I am interested in more complicated simulations, which are also failing when iiwa is coming in a contact with this same joint; I've asked about those here and here. (Both answered partially). To sum up those here: when manipulator grips the nut, the nut fights the screwing in such a manner, that the schunk gripper is forced to unclasp and iiwa is thrown off-track, but the nut remains stationary.
I attach below two simpler experiments to better illustrate the issue:
1. Applying tangentially in a horizontal plane 200N force using ExternallyAppliedSpatialForce.
Graph notation: (here as well as below)
The left graph contains linear quantities (m, m/s, etc) along world's Z axis, the right graph contains angular quantities (in degrees, deg, deg/s, etc) around world's Z axis. The legend entries with a trailing apostrophe use the secondary Y-axis scale; other legend entries use the primary Y-axis scale.
Experiment summary:
This works as expected, 200 N is enough to make the nut spin on a bolt, resulting in the nut traveling vertically along the bolt for just under 1 centimeter, and spinning for over 90 degrees. Note: the externally applied force does not show up on my graph.
2. Applying tangentially in a horizontal plane force using iiwa and a simple position controller.
Experiment summary:
The force here is approximately the same as before: 70N along tz, but higher (170N) in tx and ty, though it is applied now only for a brief moment. The nut travels just a few degrees or hundredth fractions of centimeter.
The video of this unsuccessful interaction is below, the contact forces are visualized using ContactVisualizer.
Please advise me on how to make this screw_joint more compliant?
I've tried varying mass and inertia of the nut (different up to the orders of magnitude) in these experiments, this
seems to scale the contact forces, but does not affect acceleration or velocity of the nut after contact.
I like your experiment using ExternallyAppliedSpatialForce to get an idea of scales, though TBH I didn't quite get the details of this setup.
Things that caught my eye though are about scales, which you can estimate with pen and paper:
Your inertia is 1e-9 kg⋅m²?! Judging from your interaction with the iiwa I estimated a radius of 1cm and with that you'd get 2e-6 kg⋅m², three orders of magnitude larger.
A force of 200 N on a 20 grams nut would cause an acceleration of 10000 m/s². As a reference, that's 1000 times the acceleration of Earth's gravity!
Are these numbers correct? Also, if you happen to have fast interactions (do you?), you might want to estimate a time step that makes sense for your application.
Hopefully this helps!
A good thing is that I've fixed it; a bad thing: I don't understand the fix.
Let's restate a problem that I was tacking: a manipulated object reacted quite predictably to the ExternallyAppliedSpatialForce, but couldn't be moved via the contact with the manipulator.
What was done:
I've update drake from 2f340192a9dc79110410faf8a6d54a8615ddca92 (circa 22 Aug, 2022) to 42448c0af1b39f0c46f760e7ae37d77097689ad3 (circa 3 Nov, 2022)
After the update, my experimental setup broke down with assertion Actuation input port for model instance ... must be connected. [Similar to the issue raised in this question.]. My fix was like that:
bolt_n_nut_ = internal::AddAndWeldModelFrom(sdf_path, "nut_and_bolt",
plant_->world_frame(),
"bolt", X_WC, plant_);
then later in ManipulationStation::Finalize:
auto zero_torque = builder.template AddSystem<systems::ConstantVectorSource<double>>(
Eigen::VectorXd::Zero(1));
builder.Connect(zero_torque->get_output_port(),
plant_->get_actuation_input_port(bolt_n_nut_));
With changes above, a manipuland began to interact with the manipulator:
Things to note in graphs:
the distance the manipuland has moved grew from fractions of millimeter up to tens of centimeters. The video presents that a nut became manipulable.
This interaction violates the constraints of the ScrewJoint, i.e. the manipuland moves along it's axis without as much rotation
I'm trying to make a simplified version of crazy taxi . For the first step i need to make an infinite ground . I'VE searched online but couldn't find any examples .
Can i find any example of how to do this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhTPxrJICVg&list=PLLH3mUGkfFCXQcNBz_FZDpqJfQlupTznd
N3K makes an infinite runner in Subway Surfers style, meaning ground coming from the back and going towards the camera.
The above link is to his tutorial series.
This is a very broad question I try to give a very simplified answer to get you going.
To create endless road you need some sort of procedural function that generates corners for your track. If you do not need to backtrack you can cook something up yourself like (in X distance turn X degrees to the right). If you do need to backtrack you need something like perlin/simplex noise that always generates the same value based on 1 or more other values. You could use total distance to get the curve in the road.
You simply keep generating the world on the fly and unload pieces of the world you don't need any more. If the player can alter the world like destroying street furniture or leaving skitmarks you need to implement a chunk system. When you backtrack and generate a cerain part of the world with your procedural function you can have permanent changes the player made in that specific part by saving and loading to the chunk. Much like Minecraft does it actually.
I'm trying to use GA to train an ANN whose job is to move a bar vertically so that it makes a ball bounce without hitting the wall behind the bar, in other words, a single bar pong.
I'm going to ask it directly because i think to know what the problem is.
The game window is 200x200 pixels, so i created 40000 input neurons.
The obvious doubt is: can GA handle chromosomes of 40000(input)*10(hidden)*2 elements(genes)?
Since i think the answer is no(i implemented this solution and doesn't seem to work), the solution seems simple, i feed the NN with only 4 parameters which are the coordinates x,y of bar and ball, nailed it.
Nice solution, but the problem is: how can i apply such a solution in a game like supermario where the number of enemies in the screen is not fixed? Surely i cannot create a NN with dynamic numbers of inputs.
I hope you can help me.
You have to use features to represent your state. For example, you can divide the screen in tiles and assign a value according to a function that takes into account the enemy (e.g., a boolean if the enemy is in the tile or the distance to the closest enemy).
You can still use pixels but you might need to preprocess them in order to reduce their size (e.g., use a recurrent NN).
Btw, a NN might not be able to handle 200x200 pixels, but it was able to learn to play Atari games using a representation of the state by preprocessed pixels of size 84x84x4 (see this paper).
I'm hoping to prototype some very basic physics/statics simulations for "voxel-based" games like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress, so that the game can detect when a player has constructed a structure that should not be able to stand up on its own.. Obviously this is a very fuzzy definition -- whether a structure is impossible depends upon multitude of material and environmental properties -- but the general idea is to motivate players to build structures that resemble the buildings we see in the real world. I'll describe what I mean in a bit more detail below, but I generally want to know if anyone could suggest either an potential approach to the problem or a resource that I could use.
Here's some examples of buildings that could be impossible if the material was not strong enough.
Here's some example situations. My understanding of this subject is not great but bear with me.
If this structure were to be made of concrete with dimensions of, say, 4m by 200m, it would probably not be able to stand up. Because the center of mass is not over its connection to the ground, I think it would either tip over or crack at the base.
The center of gravity of this arch lies between the columns holding it up, but if it was very big and made of a weak, heavy material, it would crumble under its own weight.
This tower has its center of gravity right over its base, but if it is sufficiently tall then it only takes a bit of force for the wind to topple it over.
Now, I expect that a full-scale real-time simulation of these physics isn't really possible... but there's a lot of ways that I could simplify the simulation. For example:
Tests for physics-defying structures could be infrequently and randomly performed, so a bad building doesn't crumble right as soon as it is built, but as much as a few minutes later.
Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress hardly perform rigid- or soft-body physics. For this reason, any piece of a building that is deemed to be physically impossible can simple "pop" into rubble instead of spawning a bunch of accurate physics props.
Have you considered taking an existing 3d environment physics engine and "rounding off" orientations of objects? In the case of your first object (the L-shaped thing), you could run a simulation of a continuous, non-voxelized object of similar shape behind the scenes and then monitor that object for orientation changes. In a simple case, if the object's representation of the continuous hits the ground, the object in the voxelized gameplay world could move its blocks to the ground.
I don't think there is a feasible way to do this. Minecraft has no notion of physical structure. So you will have to look at each block individually to determine if it should fall (there are other considerations but this is minimum). You would therefore need a way to distinguish between ground and "not ground". This is modeling problem first and foremost, not a programming problem (not even simulation design). I think this question is out of scope for SO.
For instance consider the following model, that may give you an indication of the complexities involved:
each block above height = 0 experiences a "down pull" = P, P may be any of the following:
0 if the box is supported by another box
m*g (where m is its mass which depends on material density * voxel volume) otherwise if it is free
F represents some "friction" or "glue" between vertical faces of boxes, it counteracts P.
This friction should have a threshold beyond which it "breaks" and the block then has a net pull downwards.
if m*g < sum F, box stays where it is. Otherwise, box falls.
F depends on the pairs of materials in contact
for n=2, so you can form a line of blocks between two towers
F is what causes the net pull of a box to be larger than m*g. For instance if you have two blocks a-b-c with c being on d, then a pulls on b, so b should be "heavier" than m*g where it contacts c. If this net is > F, then the pair a-b should fall.
You might be able to simulate the above and get interesting results, but you will find it really challenging to handle the case where there are two towsers with a line of blocks between them: the towers are coupled together by line of blocks, there is no longer a "tip" to the line of blocks. At this stage you might as well get out your physics books to create a system of boxes and springs and come up with equations that you might be able to solve numerically, but in a full 3D system you will have a 3D mesh of springs to navigate iteratively to converge to force values on each box and determine which ones move.
A professor of mine suggested that I look at this paper.
Additionally, I found the keyword for what it is I'm looking for. "Structural Analysis." I bought a textbook and I have a long road ahead of me.
I think it would be fun to model a top view of a train following a track, traversing switches and so on, using a physics library like Box2D. What joints and motors would I need to make this work?
I'm curious about how to implement the forces needed to make the car follow a spline track so it can bump into other train cars, pedestrians, DeLoreans etc. Just saying "the car is now at spline(t)" for each time step would create excessive forces in the physics engine. If I understand correctly, you have to stick the car onto the track with one force, constrain its angle to tend towards parallel with the track with another (or stick the front and back of the car to the track with two forces), and create another force to propel the train forward. I'm looking for some details on how to accomplish these things.
I believe it would be easier without "real" physics, like the ball movement of games such as Luxor or Tumble Bugs. Meaning: let the train follow a spline which is defined by the tracks.
Using phyiscs is probably overkill to make a train follow a track and could lead to all kinds of undesired side-effects, including jerky motion, train derailing, train getting stuck on junctions, etc.
You could still join the individual wagons together using physic joints, however. Just make sure that only the locomotive gets acceleration forces, the rest of the train just follows or is pushed but stays on the spline.
Why are you worried about keeping it "on the tracks"? Where is it going to go? Gravity should keep it down, object intersection should keep it up, and so the only directions you need to worry about are forward and backwards. That's where a motor comes in, and you're done. The rest is decorations.
In response to edit of problem:
Siderails. And have the train long enough / rigid enough compared to its width that you can navigate crossings (make them closer to right angles to minimize the crossing problems.
A top-down view (i.e. seeing the train from the sky) doesn't really require a 2d physics engine - if I understand you correctly. In fact, it seems like it wouldn't really help with the problem (if you want a train simulation), but then maybe you just wanna try it out for fun. :)
However, what about putting something like a slider joint on the train and the cars, and a motor on the locomotive. The slider joint might need some special implementation; you probably want to run the train along a spline and not a segment of straight lines, right?
Some sort of ball joint would connect the cars together.
The implementation is not so toughand I was able to prototype something in a few hours that does the basic job. It will require a lot of work to make it run smoothly, but it's essentially just "siderails."
Being top-down you obviously first must turn off gravity in Box2D. Second, build a train. Treat train wheels like car wheels and it'll suddenly get a lot more simple. For tracks you have a few choices:
Create your own game object (not in the box2D world) that is a simple line the train will then "follow" (you can use motors on train wheels to "steer" towards the line). Then just overlay the line with some nice wide "rail" graphics and you have a nicely faked system. Tell the wheels to turn off if it strays too far from the line and presto, you have a derailment.
Create actual physical rails - outside rails (like siderails) that the trains "wheels" will bump into. They will have to have gentle curves in this instance, which could be very difficult given the limited resources you have (simulating a nice slow curve out of boxes in Box2D is rough on the processor)
Then just let your train go!