chiara modenese said: (by the date of Mon, 5 Jul 2010 16:02:45 +0100) > > 1. I used neverErase flag, because something goes wrong when > > interaction breaks. So do not delete it, but only reset Fn=0 and Fs=0. > > > > [Law2_ScGeom_FrictPhys_Basic(label='dry',traceEnergy=True,neverErase=True)] > > > Good Janek, so you agree there something unexpected is happening once > calling the function requestErase(). Potential interactions seem somehow not > deleted and I do not know if this can have any consequence somehow. We > should definitely check that function which almost every contact law is > using, most importantly.
Yes, and this function currently is a mystery for me. I guess, that when spheres aren't in contact, but very close to each other, then the interaction isn't deleted actually. And the shearForce and normalForce aren't zeroed either? Just a guess, I don't know. > > plasticDissipation += > > (-shearDisp - > > (1/currentContactPhysics->ks)*(trialForce-shearForce))//plastic disp. > > .dot(shearForce);//active force > > > This is weird because as I already said to me plasticDissipation code looks > right as it is. I would not be able to prove on paper why the addition of > shearDispl increment. yes! It shouldn't be there. I feel that this error (using shearDisp) is somehow balancing the bug somewhere else, which causes mysterious increase of kinetic energy. -- Janek Kozicki http://janek.kozicki.pl/ | _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
