Hi, ________________________________ From: Bruno Chareyre [[email protected]]
If yes, there would be only one problem in our simulations : that the code can not handle correctly the cases (existing in reality) falling between the maximum suction value written in the files (that depends on the radii ratio and distance), and the exact maximum suction value. Is it really a big deal ? I think the code handles this correctly. Simply the maximum in the model is only an approximation of the exact maximum, but I think the approximation is relatively good. _____________________________________________________________________________________ This was exactly my point. I understood from previous discussions on this topic that simulations with uc* > 1500 were "false" and useless. Now, I understand it is not really the case : we only miss some (small) capillary forces e.g. for contacting spheres with uc* > 1500, or for distant spheres with uc* in the range [approximated maximum suction stated in the files ; exact maximum suction]. If we all agree on this (it seems), the influence on the simulations should be negligible and one LOG_WARN may be more appropriate that a lot of LOG_ERROR. And I should probably remove the warning I added at the last line of the wiki page https://www.yade-dem.org/wiki/CapillaryTriaxialTest. "Scientific" discussions apart, I can not understand the behaviour you observed Christian, this message should indeed appear only for contacting spheres, when a non-zero capillary pressure is imposed (hence the "if Pinterpol > 0" of https://github.com/yade/trunk/commit/6c2eb71382d44b6884fb1aa15fdc37af20959c40) And sorry Bruno, but I did not play with limit suction values for real simulations (with an assembly and not a spheres pair) and can not tell any corresponding saturation ratio value. Jerome
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
