Everyone on holidays already?
Well I am still wondering why for the calculation of the stiffness of a sphere
and a facet the radius of the facet is assumed to be twice the radius of the
sphere. This is basically the value comming from GenericSpheresContact. In my
opinion it doesn't make sense.
On 13 December 2011 10:35, Klaus Thoeni klaus.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
Everyone on holidays already?
Well I am still wondering why for the calculation of the stiffness of a
sphere
and a facet the radius of the facet is assumed to be twice the radius of
the
sphere.
I can say that this is
The question was already asked before, for boxes :
http://www.mail-archive.com/yade-users@lists.launchpad.net/msg00269.html
But the answer will not learn you so much...
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
Post to :
But the answer will not learn you so much...
Except that it suggests that definition of a radius should be useless
for facets ?.. (I never used facets personly)
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
Post to :
I have no explanation for the 2*refR other than that:
- there was 2*refR in box-sphere interactions a while ago (I don't know
why),
- facet-sphere interactions inherited this 2* from box-sphere
interactions (my assumption).
The thing is I changed that in box-sphere, and now refR of a box is the
Hi all,
thanks for the active discussion. So I guess we just leave it as it is and use
2 for boxes and facets if this is the usual assumption. No problem. And
introducing r-infinity ignores the material properties of the facet, so I
guess my suggestion was not the best one however
thanks for the active discussion. So I guess we just leave it as it is and
use
2 for boxes and facets if this is the usual assumption.
It is 1 for boxes now (and good like this). I didn't know 2 was usual.
I would make it 1 for facet as well, but since I'm not using facets a
lot, I can't
Well if it is 1 for boxes now I don't see any reason why it should be 2 for
facets. Or is there a reason? Any other opinions?
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:46:31 PM Bruno Chareyre wrote:
thanks for the active discussion. So I guess we just leave it as it is
and use 2 for boxes and facets if this
Frederic introduced this double radius.
And it has a reasoning and derivation from formulas. Problem is that
I can't remember now this derivation. But When I reproduced his
derivation it actually made sense to use double radius for flat
surfaces. Maybe Frederic remembers and we can ask him.
I
If I recall this derivation I will let you know ASAP. I only remember
that it was quite convincing... But maybe Bruno you can ask Frederic
(is he in France now?)
Janek Kozicki said: (by the date of Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:19:04 +0100)
Frederic introduced this double radius.
And it has a
10 matches
Mail list logo
