On 17/02/14 12:28, Klaus Thoeni wrote: > >> I think this is also what Anton had in mind. Base types should be free >> of capillary things, which are very specific. > So you agree that the parameters should already be separated at material > level, correct?
Yes, except that the capillary model has no material parameters, hence there is no need for a special material. A special IPhys to carry the data is enough. > >> 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. > The point is that MatchMaker only work for Ip2 functors and to me they really > make sense for some specific cases (especially if you have many different > materials). And as I said before, contact stiffness is a property of the > contact and not the material. We generally calculate it as a harmonic average > of the Youngs' modulus of the two materials in contact but in some cases you > might want to define it explicitly. In this cases I think it should be > defined > in the Ip2 functor, or not? Not in the Ip2. If, let's say, all contacts must have explicitely kn=10 whatever the size of particles and material properties, then the "kn=10" will be written in the MatchMaker object. It doesn't need to add a "kn" member to the functor itself. Bruno _______________________________________________ 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