yade-users team mailing list archive

[Jérôme Duriez <question642544@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Question #642544 on Yade changed:
https://answers.launchpad.net/yade/+question/642544

    Status: Open => Answered

Jérôme Duriez proposed the following answer:
Hi,

Both mentioned models let indeed specify cohesive strength for
interaction.

In both cases, the interaction cohesive strength (like any other interaction properties, as a general rule in Yade) are derived from the Material parameters (either JCFpmMat or CohFrictMat) through corresponding "Ip2", see Ip2_JCFpmMat_JCFpmMat_JCFpmPhys or Ip2_CohFrictMat_CohFrictMat_CohFrictPhys. 
See also the doc [1,2] for general explanations about these "Ip2".


This being said, an exact understanding of the differences between the two models requires some time to fully grasp each one in details.
It has also been often discussed here on the mailing list (you may browse the archives through [3]).

As an incomplete answer, let me say for instance that
- JCFpm model (designed with fractured rock in mind) let one easily play with the interaction normal (for it to be different than the normal deduced from the particle spherical geometries) and automatically takes the normal overlap at interaction creation as "equilibrium overlap" corresponding to zero normal force. Depending on your simulation workflow, this equilibrium overlap may thus be non-zero

- CohFrictMat (designed with cohesive granular materials in mind) does
not include the two above features, and includes "rolling resistance"
with interaction torques opposing changes in particles relative
orientation.

[1] https://yade-dem.org/doc/introduction.html#dispatchers-and-functors
[2] https://yade-dem.org/doc/user.html#ip2-functors
[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/yade-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

-- 
You received this question notification because your team yade-users is
an answer contact for Yade.