I agree on the long-term plan. Walls don't need thickness at all for
boundary conditions.
The only problem is I never saw triax working with walls and I have
enough TODO's for now... I'm going for minimal changes.
Bruno
Václav Šmilauer a écrit :
Currently in Ig2_Box_Sphere_ScGeom, sphere-box contacts are seen as
contacts between the sphere and another sphere twice bigger (the big one
representing the box).
I'd like to change that and make the fictious sphere the same size as
the real one, so that box-sphere contacts will have the same stiffness
that contacts between equal spheres (preserves somehow a symetry, I
never knew why this factor 2).
Please let me know if this change would create problems for you, and/or
be prepared to see a small change in the rigidity of the boundaries in
the triaxial test.
IMHO in longer perspective, you would be better off implementing ScGeom
for Wall+Sphere and get rid of Box altogether, at least for the purposes
of boundary conditions.
You could also assign some fictitious thickness to Wall as well, getting
soft membrane-like behavior (Wall can interact in one direction only,
there would be no problem of spheres going through to the other side).
Cheers, Vaclav
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
--
_______________
Bruno Chareyre
Associate Professor
Grenoble INP
Lab. 3SR
BP 53 - 38041, Grenoble cedex 9 - France
Tél : 33 4 56 52 86 21
Fax : 33 4 76 82 70 43
________________
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
