Huh? We don't receive mails when the comment is typed from inside
launchpad website?
If the normal is b1->b2, it makes more sense to define the force as
"applied by b1 on b2".
Bruno
Václav Šmilauer a écrit :
> <pre wrap>Public bug reported:
>
> NormalShearInteraction::{normalForce,shearForce} should contain forces
> on the interaction, which can be used for various purposes by other
> functions. However, different functors use them with different sign
>
> ef2_Spheres_Elastic_ElasticLaw (a.k.a. ElasticContactLaw):
>
> applyForceAtContactPoint(-currentContactPhysics->normalForce-
> shearForce, ... )
>
> Law2_Dem3DofGeom_CpmPhys_Cpm:
>
> applyForceAtContactPoint(BC->normalForce+BC->shearForce, ...)
>
> This is a convention issue, but must be fixed. Should normalForce and
> shearForce be oriented as it applies on id1 (first case) or id2 (second
> case)? 2nd case is nicer WRT applyForceAtContactPoint syntax, but that
> one is arbitrary as well.
>
> ** Affects: yade
> Importance: High
> Status: Confirmed
>
> ** Changed in: yade
> Importance: Undecided => High
>
> ** Changed in: yade
> Status: New => Confirmed
>
> </pre></body>
> </html>
> </html>
--
_______________
Chareyre Bruno
Maître de Conférences
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
________________
--
NormalShearInteraction::{normalForce,shearForce} has undefined orientation
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/493102
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Yade
developers, which is subscribed to Yade.
Status in Yet Another Dynamic Engine: Confirmed
Bug description:
NormalShearInteraction::{normalForce,shearForce} should contain forces on the
interaction, which can be used for various purposes by other functions.
However, different functors use them with different sign
ef2_Spheres_Elastic_ElasticLaw (a.k.a. ElasticContactLaw):
applyForceAtContactPoint(-currentContactPhysics->normalForce-shearForce, ...
)
Law2_Dem3DofGeom_CpmPhys_Cpm:
applyForceAtContactPoint(BC->normalForce+BC->shearForce, ...)
This is a convention issue, but must be fixed. Should normalForce and
shearForce be oriented as it applies on id1 (first case) or id2 (second case)?
2nd case is nicer WRT applyForceAtContactPoint syntax, but that one is
arbitrary as well.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
