yade-dev team mailing list archive

[Bruno Chareyre <bruno.chareyre@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 17/02/14 12:28, Klaus Thoeni wrote:
>
>> I think this is also what Anton had in mind. Base types should be free
>> of capillary things, which are very specific.
> So you agree that the parameters should already be separated at material 
> level, correct?

Yes, except that the capillary model has no material parameters, hence
there is no need for a special material.
A special IPhys to carry the data is enough.

>
>> I don't get your point here. Ip2's are not supposed to have parameters
>> at all, they convert material data to interaction data (e.g. they
>> convert Material::Young to IPhys::kn).
>> I know many Ip2 still have a few physical parameters but it is only lazy
>> implementation, we should avoid that. Ip2_Frict and Ip2_CohFrict, for
>> instance have no parameters at all.
> The point is that MatchMaker only work for Ip2 functors and to me they really 
> make sense for some specific cases (especially if you have many different 
> materials). And as I said before, contact stiffness is a property of the 
> contact and not the material. We generally calculate it as a harmonic average 
> of the Youngs' modulus of the two materials in contact but in some cases you 
> might want to define it explicitly. In this cases I think it should be defined 
> in the Ip2 functor, or not?

Not in the Ip2. If, let's say, all contacts must have explicitely kn=10
whatever the size of particles and material properties, then the "kn=10"
will be written in the MatchMaker object. It doesn't need to add a "kn"
member to the functor itself.

Bruno