Václav Šmilauer a écrit : > Hi, > > I added SpheresContactGeometry::updateShearForce (in r1715) which > should avoid having the same algorithm copied&pasted 9 times in > various constitutive laws (copied&pasted, cleaned up a bit). Good idea. A bit surprising that the shear force is updated here though. Its sounds like the constitutive law has been moved into a data class. Perhaps ::updateShearDisp would be enough, then let the constitutive law multiply it by ks, or some more complex maths?
> > ElasticContactLaw optionally uses that (under #if 0 / #else / #endif), > I got _exactly_ same sphere positions after 1000 steps of TriaxialTest > with the same initial packging, so it is (most probably) right. > Be sure that you didn't test this on fritctionless spheres, then ok. :) > I will be glad if someone could review the code, notably if it is > appropriate to have zeroPoint in this general piece of code or if it > would be better better to keep that separate, and how to handle > non-dynamic bodies. These are 2 points that are not same across the > copies of the same original code. > I would remove the zero point (I'm just discorvering it btw). And I would not make a difference at all between dynamic and !dynamic bodies. This is a fundamental question, and I perhaps don't fully agree with some current trends regarding this. I'll suggest something in a next mail. Bruno -- _______________ Chareyre Bruno Maitre de conference Grenoble INP Laboratoire 3SR - bureau E145 BP 53 - 38041, Grenoble cedex 9 - France Tél : 33 4 56 52 86 21 Fax : 33 4 76 82 70 43 ________________ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ yade-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/yade-dev
