On 8 December 2010 14:59, Bruno Chareyre <bruno.chare...@hmg.inpg.fr> wrote:
> > > 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. > > I'm too sure what is a "physical" parameter (for some physicists, Young > modulus and > internal friction angle are not physical parameters but engineers tricks). > > We have constitutive relations (the mathematical form) and constitutive > parameters (the > constants in there). It is logical to define constitutive parameters at the > bodies level. > Just giving a very practical reason here : I have particles of type A and > B, and I want > different values of friction for interactions A-A, A-B, and B-B (don't ask > why there > should be different, it is my constitutive assumption). How could I achieve > that if > friction was defined in the Ip functor directly? > Be it friction, kn, ks, ktw, kroll or adhesion, it makes no difference. > I can see your point, now. Oh well, I agree that in this way the code is more flexible and what I was proposing would not apply to your example. cheers, Chiara > > > As we all know, those > > parameters are generally quantified to obtain realistic behaviour at the > > macro-scale. > > Generally, not always. You, for instance, are not doing that. > > Bruno > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev> > Post to : yade-dev@lists.launchpad.net > 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 : yade-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
