yade-dev team mailing list archive
-
yade-dev team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #08174
Re: : GenericSpheresContact
-
To:
Klaus Thoeni <klaus.thoeni@xxxxxxxxx>, yade-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bruno.chareyre@xxxxxxxxxxx
-
From:
Janek Kozicki <janek_listy@xxxxx>
-
Date:
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:35:47 +0100
-
Face:
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
-
In-reply-to:
<20111213141904.5256efab@atak.bl.pg.gda.pl>
If I recall this derivation I will let you know ASAP. I only remember
that it was quite convincing... But maybe Bruno you can ask Frederic
(is he in France now?)
Janek Kozicki said: (by the date of Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:19:04 +0100)
> Frederic introduced this double radius.
>
> And it has a reasoning and derivation from formulas. Problem is that
> I can't remember now this derivation. But When I reproduced his
> derivation it actually made sense to use double radius for flat
> surfaces. Maybe Frederic remembers and we can ask him.
>
> I can only recall that it has something to do with
> - penetration depth
> - point of contact
> - stiffness
>
> and from this derivation a sphere in contact with "mirror" double
> radius sphere behaved exactly the same as if it was in contact with
> flat surface. Maybe that also had something to do with shearing, but
> I'm not sure now). A critical point in this derivation was that the
> double radius spheres was moving & following (=="mirror") the real
> sphere that was in contact with flat surface.
>
> I can't recall this now.
>
> best regards
> Janek Kozicki
>
> Klaus Thoeni said: (by the date of Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:00:24 +1100)
>
> > Well if it is 1 for boxes now I don't see any reason why it should be 2 for
> > facets. Or is there a reason? Any other opinions?
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:46:31 PM Bruno Chareyre wrote:
> > > > thanks for the active discussion. So I guess we just leave it as it is
> > > > and use 2 for boxes and facets if this is the usual assumption.
> > >
> > > It is 1 for boxes now (and good like this). I didn't know 2 was "usual".
> > > I would make it 1 for facet as well, but since I'm not using facets a
> > > lot, I can't decide for others.
> > >
> > > Bruno
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Janek Kozicki http://janek.kozicki.pl/ |
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Janek Kozicki http://janek.kozicki.pl/ |
References