yade-users team mailing list archive

[Bruno Chareyre <question269724@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Question #269724 on Yade changed:
https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/269724

    Status: Open => Answered

Bruno Chareyre proposed the following answer:
>Do you agree with Jan that in general "bonded particle model" equals
particle model, that supports cohesion?

It depends. First, how do you define "bonded particle model"? ;)
I can tell you what Law2_ScGeom6D_CohFrictPhys_CohesionMoment does.

>Is it possible to use Law2_ScGeom6D_CohFrictPhys_CohesionMoment for
modeling damages (e.g. break on tension) for metallic and composite
materials?

The implementation lets you decide if the interactions are fragile or
ductile.

>And what is the difference between the application area of CmpMat and
Law2_ScGeom6D_CohFrictPhys_CohesionMoment for example Why there is a lot
of constituve laws and they are not united together?

If there was one single force-torque-nonlinear-elasto-visco-plasto-
frictional-cohesive law including damage and creep its documentation
would be a nightmare for you to read and maintainance a nightmare for us
dev. And it would still not cover the full range of things (bubble
interactions are missing...).

This being said, they are not all justified. Some of them are just
"CohesionMoment" or "CundallStrack" (the simpler torqueless version)
with a very little change which could have been merged in the original
one.

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