yade-dev team mailing list archive

[Chiara Modenese <c.modenese@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 December 2010 14:59, Bruno Chareyre <bruno.chareyre@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> > For completeness I should have included also Ks/Kn. They are all
> > parameters of the interaction, however do they have a specific
> > physical-basis? I am not saying that it is wrong to employ them, that is
> > indeed a common assumption in a dem model.
>
> I'm too sure what is a "physical" parameter (for some physicists, Young
> modulus and
> internal friction angle are not physical parameters but engineers tricks).
>
> We have constitutive relations (the mathematical form) and constitutive
> parameters (the
> constants in there). It is logical to define constitutive parameters at the
> bodies level.
> Just giving a very practical reason here : I have particles of type A and
> B, and I want
> different values of friction for interactions A-A, A-B, and B-B (don't ask
> why there
> should be different, it is my constitutive assumption). How could I achieve
> that if
> friction was defined in the Ip functor directly?
> Be it friction, kn, ks, ktw, kroll or adhesion, it makes no difference.
>
I can see your point, now. Oh well, I agree that in this way the code is
more flexible and what I was proposing would not apply to your example.
cheers, Chiara

>
> > As we all know, those
> > parameters are generally quantified to obtain realistic behaviour at the
> > macro-scale.
>
> Generally, not always. You, for instance, are not doing that.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev>
> Post to     : yade-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev>
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>