2010/9/20 Václav Šmilauer <[email protected]> > Liquing, your questions are very welcome since it makes people clean the > code. > > If I followed the discussion correctly, we have 3 contact laws, each > with its particular features, neither of them complete.
Sorry, I will certainly be a little bit cynical here, but CFpm is "complete" for my kind of use (rock type material), and this is probably similar for each of the initial code writer. > Can someone > knowledgeable about the topic propose a solution, such as which law to > merge into which one, if it makes sense etc.? > OK, this is probably the most pertinent thing to do, but you can also start a witch hunt as suggested below ;-). From my point of view, already one difference between CFpm and the two others "moment like" laws: contrary to CohesiveFrictionalContactLaw and CohesionLessMomentRotation, the CFpm model uses the initial interpenetration as the equilibrium distance between particles. In this sense, I think CFpm is probably more adapted to model "continuum like" material such as rock or concrete, whereas the two others consider the real "granular nature" of the material with the equilibrium distance as the exact sum of the particles radii ??? More practically speaking, the difference is that CFpm allows to work with initially stress-free assemblies. > > Better documentation for those classes would certainly help as well; I had a look to the CFpm doc, but I could not really see what kind of additional inputs would be pertinent... I'll try more... > one > we identify those who wrote them and did not do the documentation > homework, they will have their karma decreased -- > > Cheers, v. > > Hope it helps. Cheers
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
