A quick review found nothing wrong. I was just a little surprised by
the fact interactions are erased in 2 different places (in the core
of "action()" and in "updateOverlapingBBset"). I don't think this is a
recent change though.
Yes, it's been there since long.
InteractionGeometryMetaEngi
Hi, Dear Bruno,
Thank you very much.
I have a typo in the last email.
Yes, the code is an increment pattern, the '+' is not input in here, but in
the code there is:
Fs + = - Ks*double_ds;
vector_Fs=Fs* vector_Shear_Direction;
with debug model, I output the variables, so I have checked the norma
Collider::handleExistingInteraction will be (not yet used) reponsible
for changing isReal, isNew flags and signalling that the interaction
should be deleted (if it returns false). I would like someone (Bruno?)
to review to code whether it is OK.
A quick review found nothing wrong. I was ju
Dne 2.3.2009 14:10, Bruno Chareyre napsal(a):
I agree with anything that works correclty. If PWave is ok, go for it.
The hardcoded value is correct for default TriaxialTest, nothing more.
OK, I will make the default -1, which will mean to use PWave, otherwise
if it is specified by hand (>0), tha
Hello
Is the pseudo code below for developping a new contact law? It is
probably useless since there is one law doing what you need already :
the "CohesiveFrictional" class.
There are probably two mistakes in your code :
1/ For sure : what you define as Fs= - Ks*double_ds is in fact a dFs (an
5 matches
Mail list logo
