On 16/02/14 04:55, Klaus Thoeni wrote: > Sorry for late reply, but here my thoughts. I think a separation at material > level would be better, i.e. FrictMat inherits ViscElastMat which inherits > something like ViscElCapillarMat. I think it would make sense because not > all > visco-elastic materials have capillar forces. What do you think?
I think this is also what Anton had in mind. Base types should be free of capillary things, which are very specific. > In the case of CapillaryPhys none of the parameters is stored in FrictMat. And it is good that way, isn't it? FrictMat has the contact parameters, CapillaryPhys inherits them and add the capillary parameters. It should be the same for ViscEl, as you suggest. > There seams to be a bit of inconsistency. Same with kn and kt. Should the > material have these parameters or the Ip2 functor? IMO, stiffness is related > to > a specific contact and should therefore be in the Ip2. I don't get your point here. Ip2's are not supposed to have parameters at all, they convert material data to interaction data (e.g. they convert Material::Young to IPhys::kn). I know many Ip2 still have a few physical parameters but it is only lazy implementation, we should avoid that. Ip2_Frict and Ip2_CohFrict, for instance have no parameters at all. Bruno _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
