Sorry it is my fault. I will fix it in a while. Bruno is right, tests
are useful.
Sorry again, Chiara
On 03/12/2010, Anton Gladky gladky.an...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno, please, no offense!
It is just commented out with corresponding message in the code and comments
in commit.
It can be enabled
Hi,
As I understand TriaxialTest one of the most popular test in Yade.
Can anybody add a regression test for that?
Thanks
Anton
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
Post to : yade-dev@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe :
I see the problem Chiara. I'm about to fix it.
Wait a moment please.
Bruno
Le 03/12/2010 10:02, Chiara Modenese a écrit :
Sorry it is my fault. I will fix it in a while. Bruno is right, tests
are useful.
Sorry again, Chiara
On 03/12/2010, Anton Gladkygladky.an...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno,
revno: 2587
committer: Bruno Chareyre bruno.chare...@hmg.inpg.fr
branch nick: yade
timestamp: Fri 2010-12-03 13:00:34 +0100
message:
- restore default CohFrict behaviour
modified:
pkg/dem/Ip2_2xCohFrictMat_CohFrictPhys.cpp
Hi Chiara,
(revno 2587)
- I restored Plassiard definition of Kr. Your definition is still optionaly
available
(flag useMeanRad).
Using R1*R2 makes sense IMO, since stiffness combine via harmonic averages.
- The flag momentRotation is disabling moments by defaults, so default 0 for
alpha's was
Hi Bruno,
On 3 December 2010 12:13, Bruno Chareyre bruno.chare...@hmg.inpg.fr wrote:
Hi Chiara,
(revno 2587)
- I restored Plassiard definition of Kr. Your definition is still optionaly
available
(flag useMeanRad).
Actually, I got to change it because I was following Plassiard's definition.
- I restored Plassiard definition of Kr. Your definition is still
optionaly available
(flag useMeanRad).
Actually, I got to change it because I was following Plassiard's
definition. In his paper (2009), he is taking the average of the two
radii. But it is fine, since I agree
On 3 December 2010 14:57, Bruno Chareyre bruno.chare...@hmg.inpg.fr wrote:
- I restored Plassiard definition of Kr. Your definition is still
optionaly available
(flag useMeanRad).
Actually, I got to change it because I was following Plassiard's
definition. In his paper
Bruno,
I understand now the formulation of Plassiard. In the paper he is used to
define the contact stiffnesses in a different way than we do. He is using
the mean radius to get them whereas we employ the radius of each particle in
the calculation. Hence, in our case, it makes sense to use Da*Db
have them). Also, if you do not use the radius mean, there would be the
problem on how to define the maximum plastic value (again, Plassiard was
using the radius mean x Fn). We need to make it consistent either we use
the radius mean or not. I let you shortly know.
I would use min(r1,r2)*Fn,
10 matches
Mail list logo
