| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Rename as you like. I only care about the equations.One remark for consistency of the names : even if we find a good name for SomePhys (FrictionCont? ElasticFrictionCont?), we still don't have a unique way to convert FrictionMat into FrictionCont, and it should be reflected in the functor's name perhaps.
Actually, I've put the word "Simple" here because there is no complex micro-macro passage in SimpleElasticRelationShips (just kn=E/D, ks=poisson*kn...), as opposed to the older MacroMicroElasticRelationShip, which was the law inherited from Frederic, Hentz, et al. SimpleElasticR is not _the_ good way to convert FrictionMat to FrictionCont, it is just one way, and at one point somebody will want a different conversion (Frederic's one, Hertz-Mindlin,... they all go from FrictionMat to FrictionCont). "Ip2" sounds like other types of assumptions are excluded. Or perhaps you see a different approach in this situtation?
Bruno
Hi, we have the GranularMat class, which is probably not the best name. Would it be better to call it FrictionMat? (It add frictionAngle to ElasticMat, so that is what is the most important about it; I originally thought granular would be clear, but it is perhaps misleading). BTW SimpleElasticRelationships will befome Ip2_FrictionMat_SomePhys where SomePhys is a name to be invented (not ElasticContactInteraction that is used now, definitely).I like this, go ahead and rename.
-- _______________ Chareyre Bruno Maître de Conférences Grenoble INP Laboratoire 3SR - bureau E145 BP 53 - 38041, Grenoble cedex 9 - France Tél : 33 4 56 52 86 21 Fax : 33 4 76 82 70 43 ________________
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
