You are right on the "geotechnical" sign convention. But don't worry, it
is consistent with elasticity (you just replace outward normals by
inward normals everywhere in the theory). I prefer to keep the most
common convention though, with positive tensile stress/strain. I just
didn't realize this sign convention could be applied to forces.
It is still really non-intuitive for me, but I'm just one.
At least Janek or Olivier got the same intuition than me apparently...
--
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
