| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
(I'm reading this comment in Vaclav's reply but I can't find the original post)I have not tried the Cpm model. Because it may not be considered the cohesion at the re-contact point. It should be fit to the rock type perfectly. But in my model, the cohesion at the re-contact point must be implemented.
Not sure it is what you want, but note that you can control cohesion at re-contact with setCohesionOnNewContacts=true/false.
Pasting here some uncommited documentation : /((bool,setCohesionNow,false,,"If true, assign cohesion to all existing contacts in current time-step. The flag is turned false automatically, so that assignment is done in the current timestep only.")) ((bool,setCohesionOnNewContacts,false,,"If true, assign cohesion at all new contacts. If false, only existing contacts can be cohesive (also see :yref:`Ip2_2xCohFrictMat_CohFrictPhys::setCohesionNow`), and new contacts ar only frictional."))
/ Bruno
Just a note on this: CPM and CohesiveFrictional&c models are quite different; no cohesion at re-contact (you _want_ cohesion at re-contact? I would expect the contrary for rock) is really a minor difference compared to other ones, such as the damage model -- CF&c is brittle-failure whereas CPM has softening on the contact-level with cracks closing in compression; I don't know which one is better for rock, but be aware of those other differences. Cheers, v. _______________________________________________ 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
-- _______________ Bruno Chareyre Associate Professor ENSE³ - Grenoble INP Lab. 3SR BP 53 - 38041, Grenoble cedex 9 - France Tél : +33 4 56 52 86 21 Fax : +33 4 76 82 70 43 ________________
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
