yade-users team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: twist Moment and Bending Moment in cohesionlessMomentRotation
Thank you all for you reply about my question. Of course I agree with
all of you about the fact that there is no contradiction about
considering a twist moment and we can even find a physical meaning.
However the disadvantage is that we need to use two more parameters,
representing a total of 7 parameters. Hence it is always a question of
About your suggestion Bruno to include all that clearly in
Law2_ScGeom_CohFrictPhys_CohesionMoment, it raises for me the usual
dilemma: should I use the last uptodate trunk version or a fixed
version. Personnally I made the choice to use a fixed version, as long
as a given work is not finished. The main reason is that otherwise, if I
want to compare results, I don't know if differences are due to changes
in the code or not. Then, when the work is finished and I start
something new, I upgrade to the last version.
Hence currently I use Yade 0.50, and I was interested in
CohesionlessMomentRotation, because among others, in this version the
code of this contact law is quite clean and short.
Bruno Chareyre a écrit :
There would be no contradiction here, if only it was possible to set
twist stiffness = 0 (so the law with bending and twist would "contain"
the law with bending alone).
I am still investigating the cohesionlessMomentRotation.
It is written in the sources files that this code has been "verified
with the paper of Plassiard in GM".
However, Plassiard considers in his paper "and in his thesis" only the
rolling part of the relative rotation of particles (and thus only
bending moment), whereas in the code rolling and twist part of the
relative rotation are considered (and thus bending and twist moment).
For now, Ktwist=Kbending=Kr, so it is indeed not possible...
My question: is there a particular reason for that? What is the
motivation of the person who wrote this code? I don't say that is bad
or good, but I would like to have an idea about advantages and
disavantages, and physical meaning for considering a twist moment.
As soon as there is a finite area of contact between the solids (i.e.
always), it makes sense to include twist resistance I think. The testing
has been done by Boon IIRC.
By the way, I think rolling resistance, Ktwist!=Kbending, and other
features would be ideally implemented in
Law2_ScGeom_CohFrictPhys_CohesionMoment, which is now the cleanest, and
shortest code for moments.
Funky factors η, α, β, would be contained in a collection of Ip
functors, since they are not needed by the law itself, which just needs
4 stiffnesses, and the definition of maximum values for each force/moment.
Any help on this task of unifying duplicates would be welcome.
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
Post to : yade-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-users
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Université de Nantes - Laboratoire GeM UMR CNRS
IUT de Saint Nazaire
58, rue Michel-Ange - BP 420
44606 Saint-Nazaire Cedex, France
Tel: +33 (0)2 40 17 81 78