yade-dev team mailing list archive

[Bruno Chareyre <bruno.chareyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In [1] it was a good move to remove the periodic barrier.
Filtering spheres is another independent question and I don't see a 
clear reason for that (testing isDynamic was maybe a bit hacky but less 
restrictive finally).
Making split=0 and split=1 return the same thing [2] sounds good, but 
the problem was to filter spheres with split=0 in the first place [1].
Before, it was possible to get fabric in a periodic packing of cylinders 
for instance. Now it is not. Not a progress overall.

What is the problem if non spherical objects are kept in the loop? We 
should solve this problem without regression.

Bruno


On 06/06/2016 10:47 PM, Jerome Duriez wrote:
> I'm replying to 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/yade-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg11970.html 
> (sorry to break the thread, but there has been a major email shutdown 
> at my university last week, and I just discover now this message, 
> browsing the archives)
>
>
> So, in fact I started to introduce such kind of spherical shape-test 
> in a previous commit [1], where I let fabricTensor() accept 
> non-periodic simulations (before this first commit [1], fabricTensor() 
> crashed in such non-periodic cases).
>
>
> At that time, this shape test was intended to let fabricTensor() 
> disregard any boundary effects, by comparison with the previous 
> behavior restricted to periodic simulations.
>
>
>
> However, I introduced in [1] this shape test only in the main workflow 
> of fabricTensor() code, which has a role when split = 0 (default). For 
> the special case split=1, other lines of code do the job, where I did 
> not introduce any shape test.
>
>
> Then, considering classical dry simulations (with interactions at 
> geometrical contact only) of spherical packings loaded by plates, you 
> may get slightly different results between
>
> - fabricTensor()[0] that disregards boundary interactions
>
> - and fabricTensor(splitTensor = 1,thresholdForce =0)[0] that included 
> boundary interactions
>
> Even though, both should apply to the same contact interactions 
> network, from my point of view
>
>
>
> This second commit [2] aimed thus to correct this mistake, introducing 
> the shape test in the "split=1 code part" as well, and reconciling the 
> two results offabricTensor()[0] and fabricTensor(splitTensor = 
> 1,thresholdForce =0)[0] for such classical dry simulations.
>
>
>
> As you see, all this arises from my current point of view that 
> non-spherical bodies are always used as boundary elements in 
> non-periodic simulations. I can introduce changes (in addition to the 
> ClassIndex suggestion, thanks) if you think other behaviors are 
> required / meaningfull
>
>
>
> [1] 
> https://github.com/yade/trunk/commit/562d4c952f4b7f67a88ed954caa20b68a041e207
>
> [2] 
> <https://github.com/yade/trunk/commit/562d4c952f4b7f67a88ed954caa20b68a041e207>https://github.com/yade/trunk/commit/e063ea12479a56f85ca456aef8f52be19cbed84d
>
> <https://github.com/yade/trunk/commit/e063ea12479a56f85ca456aef8f52be19cbed84d>
> 	
> fabricTensor(): unify the behavior regarding boundary interactions wh… 
> · yade/trunk@e063ea1 
> <https://github.com/yade/trunk/commit/e063ea12479a56f85ca456aef8f52be19cbed84d>
> github.com
> …ether split=0 or 1: they are now disregarded in both cases
>
>
> <https://github.com/yade/trunk/commit/562d4c952f4b7f67a88ed954caa20b68a041e207>
> 	
> fabricTensor() now ok for non-periodic simulations. revertSign attrib… 
> · yade/trunk@562d4c9 
> <https://github.com/yade/trunk/commit/562d4c952f4b7f67a88ed954caa20b68a041e207>
> github.com
> …ute removed as well
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Jerome Duriez, Research Associate
>
> University of Calgary, Dpt of Civil Engineering
>
> +1 403 220 7367
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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