Marking wontfix as no-one cares enough to put some work in it.
** Changed in: yade
Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix
--
NormalShearInteraction::{normalForce,shearForce} has undefined orientation
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/493102
You received this bug notification because you are a membe
Vaclav, I was just sarcasticaly playing the role of the contact law
freak. Horrible idea apparently.
Speaking seriously then :
You didn't get the implicit in the sarcasm. In my vision, your model
belongs to the family of "multibody systems" even if interactions
reflect the microscale behaviour of
> what the hell continuum mechanics as to do with interactions in multibody
> systems?
They happen to be computed by the same program of which I happen to be the main
dev currently. Voting about such things is really a bad idea.
Branch contact+geomechanics yade version where you make everything
> OK, my list of weird people has 2 items now:
>
> * gomechanicians
> * contact law freaks
>
>
Haha!
I fell like a contact law freak more than a geomechanician. The contact
law freak asks Vaclav : what the hell continuum mechanics as to do with
interactions in multibody systems? ;)
There are
2010/5/24 Václav Šmilauer
> OK, my list of weird people has 2 items now:
>
> * gomechanicians
> * contact law freaks
>
> Seriously, though (and with all due respect), for me the reference is
> continuum mechanics; in structural engineering (presumably in mechanical
> engineering as well), in FEM
OK, my list of weird people has 2 items now:
* gomechanicians
* contact law freaks
Seriously, though (and with all due respect), for me the reference is
continuum mechanics; in structural engineering (presumably in mechanical
engineering as well), in FEM etc etc, outer normal is used, leading to
> I see this is not linked to milestone 0.5. Perhaps it is not an urgent
> need, maybe we just keep it in mind for the future.
I was thinking about that, but someone would have to state the
commitment to fix it very soon. We will keep it in mind with the help of
the tracker hopefully :-)
___
I see this is not linked to milestone 0.5. Perhaps it is not an urgent need,
maybe we just keep it in mind for the future.
cheers, Chiara
On 23 May 2010 19:54, Chiara Modenese wrote:
> In Classical Mechanics the convention is compression negative and
> tension positive. However, in Contact Mecha
In Classical Mechanics the convention is compression negative and
tension positive. However, in Contact Mechanics (see Hertzian theory as
well as Johnsons et al.) the convention holds a positive sign for
compression and a negative one for tension (e.g. adhesion normal force
is negative whether pres
Discussed in this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/yade-
us...@lists.launchpad.net/msg01285.html
--
NormalShearInteraction::{normalForce,shearForce} has undefined orientation
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/493102
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Yade
developers,
You are right on the "geotechnical" sign convention. But don't worry, it
is consistent with elasticity (you just replace outward normals by
inward normals everywhere in the theory). I prefer to keep the most
common convention though, with positive tensile stress/strain. I just
didn't realize th
OTOH, if force is as applied on b2, then force ⋅ normal is positive when
it is pressure (which is conventionally negative, at least in mechanics
I know; IIRC geotechnicians use + for pressure, but the is not
consistent with elasticity theory I think).
--
NormalShearInteraction::{normalForce,shear
If the normal is b1->b2, it makes more sense to define the force as
"applied by b1on b2". My two cents...
--
NormalShearInteraction::{normalForce,shearForce} has undefined orientation
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/493102
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Yade
develo
13 matches
Mail list logo
