Question #267566 on Yade changed: https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/267566
Bruno Chareyre proposed the following answer: Hi, I would use the word "classical" very carefuly when it comes to contact laws. I think the version we have in Yade is some of the most consistent around. It does not mean - of course - that it uses the only valid constitutive assumptions. The one you mention is inconsistent: equation 5 is not objective. Your question raises the fact that documentation is badly missing for Law2_ScGeom_ViscElPhys_Basic. The information can only be found through the mailing list... I'm opening a bug. Bruno -- You received this question notification because you are a member of yade-users, which is an answer contact for Yade. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
