Hi everyone,
I’m generally trying to calibrate my materials using the approach suggested by Potyondy (Flat-Joint 2018). I primarily rely on the examples provided in the Material Support Package, but I’ve encountered an issue.
While performing UCS tests, if I keep the ct_eRate parameter at its default value 0.05, reaching the peak strength takes several hours and the calibration process takes days. This becomes particularly challenging considering my material exhibits a peak strength exceeding 100 MPa. When I increase the ct_eRate to 5, I observe almost double the peak strength compared to the results at 0.05. This discrepancy is likely due to failing to achieve quasi-static conditions. However, using a value of 0.5 yields more reliable results, with peak strength values only 10-20% higher than those obtained at 0.05.
So, based on your experiences, using ct_eRate with the value of 0.5 is acceptable for calibration?
Thanks!