Bruno, adding the incremental formulation to CFLaw is not a problem if not that there would be the creep behaviour to consider and am not sure to have time to see how it works and also test it. Or maybe I could add the incremental way in any case but specifying (via invalid arguments for instance) that when the incremental formulation is included for twist and rolling moments then no creep (both in shear and twist) would be applied? This way it would be possible to embody in this law the case per which we limit both twist and rolling moment correctly (since with quaternions it would be quite messy to do the same). I would write documentation about that too. Just let me know what you think. I would not want to mess up this law. On the other hand if somebody needs a linear law with rolling and twist limited to some plastic value (not so easy to do it with quaternions), it would be nice to have it using the incremental formulation (easy to see/test).
Chiara On 19 January 2011 08:30, Bruno Chareyre <bruno.chare...@hmg.inpg.fr> wrote: > > > @Bruno: I would like to add the incremental formulation to CFLaw, how > do you suggest to do that? Maybe I can use a bool something like > (useIncrementalForm)? > Sure! > > Bruno > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev> > Post to : yade-dev@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev Post to : yade-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
