yade-users team mailing list archive

[Chareyre <question142804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Question #142804 on Yade changed:
https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/142804

Chareyre posted a new comment:
It's simpler than that: I made makeCloud(num>0,poro>0,psd) recursive
(such call with all three params  would throw currently). If num doesn't
fit, the list of generated spheres is simply erased and
makeCloud(num,poro,psd) calls makeCloud(num,poro2>poro,psd).

"Scaling" is a multiplication of all sizes in psdSizes by the same
factor.

Is it better to scale down psd sizes or to increase box size? It
depends: physics behind, boundary constraints, taste, etc.
I've always been in the case where it is better for me to scale
particles down. Because Yade's CundallStrack packings have
size-independent behaviour, I can see "num" as a mesh refinement
parameter (if you refine a FEM mesh, you usually don't want to change
the dimension of the problem).
It explains why I can grow particles, or why I define packings via num
and rRelFuzz (never by rMean). I'm not claiming it's fundamentally
better but it is what I need, so I irrationally tend to think it is the
most frequent usage.
A bit more rational maybe : minCorner and maxCorner are the only
mandatory parameters (others have default values), suggesting that it is
not something we should fiddle with.

Anyway, I'll add a way to get the scaling factor from pack, so one can
easily scale up everything again if needed.

Good news : ordering sizes gives 0.55 porosity (else 0.85)!

Bruno

-- 
You received this question notification because you are a member of
yade-users, which is an answer contact for Yade.