← Back to team overview

yade-dev team mailing list archive

Re: RockJointLawRelationships

 

Sorry, but I do not think that INLLaw would be a good idea. It has nothing to do with the formulation of INL laws presented in the papers you mention. And the fact that INLLaw could also match with InelasticNormalLaw is not meaningful, I guess... So, it would be only a play on words for aware people, I'm afraid.

Bruno Chareyre a écrit :
Hi,

I fully agree with Luc's remark.
For your law Jerome, why not INLLaw ("Incrementally Non Linear", there are hundreds of published papers on this).
Note that INL means also "Inelastic Normal Law". ;)

Bruno


Jerome Duriez a écrit :
In the meanwhile, I thought indeed that I could name it "NormalInelasticityLaw"... It is right that is maybe more meaningful, even if it does not say all (no mention of the moment transfert). So it would give :
- RockJointLaw => "NormalInelasticityLaw"
- RockJointPhys => "NormalInelasticityPhys"
- RockJointLawRelationships => "Ip2_2xCohFrictMat_NormalInelasticityPhys"...

If there is no other idea until monday, I'll do it at this time.

Jerome

luc scholtes a écrit :
Hi Jerome,

just a suggestion coming from a discussion with Frederic. Is the name RockJointLaw really adapted to you code since it is more concerned with the behaviour of the gouge material that can be contained inside a rock joint? Indeed, with the title RockJoint, users could think that the law is able to deal with all the rock joint properties such as the Joint Roughness Coefficient or the Joint Compressive Strength such as studied in this article (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V4W-4W91CS7-1&_user=2322062&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2009&_alid=1194322065&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5769&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=196&_acct=C000056895&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2322062&md5=0a06d0f68437f9aba75e48db7e55a61c <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V4W-4W91CS7-1&_user=2322062&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2009&_alid=1194322065&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5769&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=196&_acct=C000056895&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2322062&md5=0a06d0f68437f9aba75e48db7e55a61c>).

Sorry if I add some confusions to the discussion. As said earlier, it is just a suggestion coming from my very new and little experience in rock mechanics...

Regards

  Luc

2010/2/4 Jerome Duriez <jerome.duriez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerome.duriez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

    I agree to give any name you want if you think it makes more
    sense. But for the moment I did not have time to read the link
    Vaclav sent me about naming. So I do not have my own opinion.
    So, either you can wait until this, either you have to get agree
    between you ! For a better description of the law, you can find in
    the .hpp of the file :

    ---- beginning of quoting ----

    "\brief Contact law including cohesion, moment transfer and
    inelastic compression behaviour

    This contact Law is inspired by CohesiveFrictionalContactLaw
    (inspired itselve directly from the work of Plassiard & Belheine,
    see the corresponding articles in "Annual Report 2006" in
    http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/frederic/Discrete_Element_Group_FVD.html
    for example). It allows so to set moments, cohesion, tension limit
    and (that's the difference) inelastic unloadings in compression
    between bodies.
    All that concerned brokenBodies (this flag and the
    erosionactivated one) and the useless "iter" has been suppressed.

    The Relationsships corresponding are RockJointLawRelationships,
    where the rigidities, the friction angles (with their tan()), and
    the orientations of the interactions are calculated. No more
    cohesion and tension limits are computed for all the interactions
    To use it you should also use :
    - CohesiveFrictionalMat for the bodies, with "isCohesive" = 1 (A
    verifier ce dernier point)
    - RockJointLawRelationships (=> which involves interactions of
    "RockJointPhys" type)"

    --- end of quoting ----

    I'm afraid it would be too long for the name, and still no better
    short idea...

    Jerome


    Václav Šmilauer a écrit :

                I suggest to rename CohesiveFricitonalMat to
                CohFrictMat, in any case.
Btw, I suggested to name contact parameters FrictCont or
            FrictInt some time ago, but there were no reactions.
I didn't spot that. It might be a problem that Int and Cont
        (interaction
        and contact) are already used in the DEM domain*. In yade the
        whole
        interaction is interaction (which comprises phys & geom). But
        I am open
        to this, "Phys" is no better, for sure.

        *) some people make (meaningful) terminological distiction of
        2 kinds of
        interactions, which can be either "contact" (non-cohesive,
        generated by
        motion) or "link" (pre-established and cohesive).

I think "Frict" (or something else ofc) is the physics, so
            frictPhys is redundant and makes no clear difference
            between bodies physics and interaction physics.
The confusion between bodies and interactions no longer
        applies, as
        bodies have state & material, and interactions have (for lack
        of better
        word) physics... no?

                    In the present case, it would give :

            Ip2_CohFricMat_CohFricMat_RockJointInt

            or just :

            Ip2_CohFricMat_CohFricMat_RockJoint  (a "joint" is an
            interaction).
I would like to keep the type suffixes, even if it is clear
        what they
        are. Like all Materials are *Mat, interaction geometries are
        *Geom,
        interaction physics *Phys, states are *State (the exceptions
        are Shapes,
        which are quite few and generally used, and Bound, which we
        have just
        Aabb).

        What do you think about Ip2_2xCohFrictMat_RockJointPhys (I
        mean, about
        the "2x")?

        BTW the base class is FrictPhys (not FricPhys), so either we
        go with
        CohFrictPhys, or FrictPhys is renamed to FricPhys (I was
        thinking about
        FricPhys before, but I thought it might sound funny for
        french, so I
        chose FrictPhys instead).

                    "Rock" is perhaps a bit vague, isn't there a better
            description of the law?
                      BTW wasn't Luc working on rock joint planes etc?

        v



        _______________________________________________
        Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
        <https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev>
        Post to     : yade-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        <mailto:yade-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
        <https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev>
        More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

-- Jérôme Duriez
    ATER Iut 1 Grenoble, département GMP - Laboratoire 3S-R
    04.56.52.86.49 (ne pas laisser de messages sur le répondeur)



    _______________________________________________
    Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
    <https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev>
    Post to     : yade-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    <mailto:yade-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
    <https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev>
    More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
Post to     : yade-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp




--
Jérôme Duriez
ATER Iut 1 Grenoble, département GMP - Laboratoire 3S-R
04.56.52.86.49 (ne pas laisser de messages sur le répondeur)




References