On 8 December 2010 12:26, Bruno Chareyre <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > - Alphas&Co are not really physical parameters; > > Why not? > Do you include alpha=Ks/Kn in Alphas&Co? > If so, why? > If not, why would alpha be an acceptable constitutive parameter, but not > alpha_rolling? > For completeness I should have included also Ks/Kn. They are all parameters of the interaction, however do they have a specific physical-basis? I am not saying that it is wrong to employ them, that is indeed a common assumption in a dem model. As we all know, those parameters are generally quantified to obtain realistic behaviour at the macro-scale. This is the reason why for me I would define them directly in the Ip2 (no need to average them, what is the reason here if they are numbers not physically based?), in such a case. It is only a thought, I will not change the code. > > I would define rolling strength a bit differently, consistently with > previous discussion > on using min strength : > > Now : > Real EtaRoll = > 2.0*sdec1->etaRoll*sdec2->etaRoll/(sdec1->etaRoll+sdec2->etaRoll); > contactPhysics->maxRollPl = EtaRoll*min(Da,Db); > > Suggestion : > contactPhysics->maxRollPl = > min(sdec1->etaRoll*Da,sdec2->etaRoll*Db); > r2597. Thanks for suggestion :-) Chiara > > Cheers. > > B. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
