On 26 March 2010 13:23, Bruno Chareyre <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Mindlin's paper seems complicated, >> > Oh yes. > >> moreover he makes distinction between the case with or withour slip, so >> that the tangential compliance changes. I will see to go into depth cause I >> need this formulation. >> >> I never saw tangential Hertz implemented in DEM, it's usually only > normal. > It is usually only normal because Hertz was supposing frictionless surfaces. That is why people usually couple Hertz and Mindlin formulation (so the tangential part follows the Mindlin's formulation while the normal one is given by Hertz theory). I need exactly the same (so nothing new), it is just that I think in DEM is complicated to actually reproduce the exact Mindlin theory. I just want to know which are the assumptions (if there are any) behind the implementation of Mindlin in DEM (as it is proposed in PFC manual, for instance). I will comment them in the code once it will be clear for me how it works. Chia > > Bruno > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev> > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
