yade-dev team mailing list archive

[Anton Gladky <gladky.anton@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

my 2Cts. I think we should avoid an additional loop in any case.
It will hurt the calculation speed drastically.

Most of capillary laws implemented by me are more-less "independent" [1]
and can theoretically be used as external static functions, which are
calculating just an additional adhesive force.

I think first of all we should finish migration into Python3 and Qt5, because
it can happen, that Yade will not be able to be compiled on new
systems soon.

[1] https://github.com/yade/trunk/blob/master/pkg/dem/ViscoelasticCapillarPM.cpp#L219

Best regards

Anton


2015-06-24 10:18 GMT+02:00 François <francois.kneib@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi all,
>
> I totally agree with you, this kind of flexibility would be very helpful.
> In the same fashion (but independently of this issue), if you want a contact
> between a Sphere and a GridConnection, the force on the GridConnection have
> to be dispatched on the two GridNodes in the contact law. It means that also
> you want a simple elasto-frictional law you currently have to copy the
> existing law (designed for two-bodies-contact) into a new one that just
> apply the force differently (on three bodies).
>
>> I am thinking that maybe allowing dispatcher to call not just the
>> first one class that matches, but all of them (that were setup
>> beforehand inside O.engines InteractionLoop), could solve the problem?
>>
>> You are absolutely right.
>> In this case it still needs to workout a model for data classes.
>> Multiple inheritance maybe? But it may generate ambiguities:
>>
>> class ViscElCapPhys : public ViscElPhys, public CapPhys {
>> ...
>> REGISTER_CLASS_INDEX(ViscElCapPhys, ??????)
>> };
>
>
> The idea is good, do you agree that this "multiple dispatcher calls" design
> should only occur on this particular capillary physics ? Otherwise I'm
> afraid that this could be a nightmare for simulations with different
> materials, one inheriting from the other. I have the feeling that a more
> generic and configurable way exists, allowing the user to define which are
> the multiple contact physics and law he wants. For example (but maybe weird
> and painful to develop), multiple materials per body, allowing multiple
> interactions ? (a classical elasto-frictional one and a capillary one for
> example)
> For both solutions, it looks like we have to consider either multiple
> interactions between two objects, or multiple physics per interaction.
>
> François.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>