> Ok. It makes sense in concrete (I guess you will define an equilibrium > position with interpenetration!=0 then?), but - generally speaking, it > is not necessary to create cohesion between distant bodies in order to > simulate a cohesive material, cohesion at contacts is sufficient. > Your spheres have some microscopic young's moduli, but due to the disctribution of interactions you get macroscopic modulus that can be different; and I want to compensate that). I want to make sure that given a plane, sum of "surfaces" of all interactions (cylinders between spheres with the radius of the smaller sphere, right?) is equal to nominal, macroscopic surface of specimen. It depends on sphere radii discribution, for sure; perhaps it can be calculated analytically for regular arrangements. For other cases, the simulated rigidity may be artificially higher/lower. I haven't tried to quantify that yes, though. >> and rename the >> isReal flag to seomthing more meaningful (like isPenetrating) >> > "isPenetrating"?!! The actual meaning is more "isInteracting" : it can > be true in distant configurations as long as a cohesive interaction > persists. > Mea culpa. You're right. > Why do you need to delete them? I though the collider would do that as > soon as the constutive law set isReal=false. > Line 201 in DistantSAP : > > if (overlap && !found) > transientInteractions->insert(body_id_t(id1),body_id_t(id2)); > else if (!overlap && found && !interaction->isReal) > transientInteractions->erase(body_id_t(id1),body_id_t(id2)); > That's right, thanks! This is in persistentSAPCollider:
if(!overlap && found && (haveDistantTransient ? !interaction->isReal : true) ) [delete the contact] (I added the PersistentSapCollider::haveDistantTransient so that the DistantPersistentSAPCollider can disappear) V. V. _______________________________________________ Yade-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/yade-users
