On 29/10/14 22:37, Jerome Duriez wrote: > Ah, this is a clarification... I knew this was succion value > dependant, but did not catch that the zero volume is inconsistent... > Then, would it possible to know a validity range of the capillary data > files ? > Only trial and error can tell at this point. Keep in mind that the max value is defined in terms of non-dimensional pressure pR/gamma (p: succion, R: radius, gamma: surface tension), not in terms of p. I must say I'm not in a hurry to fix those things since we are in the process to introduce another capillary model which will deprecate this one (the work of Caroline Chalak).
> A second thing is that I was thinking to commit, with the reverted > fCap, the use of alpha * -currentContactGeometry->penetrationDepth for > D value (instead of computation of l. 112, (*) ). > It would be equivalent to current computation, and maybe useful for > periodic simulations. I'm currently using it (mainly for non-periodic > cases, yet) > Yes, it makes no sense to compute penetration again, as suggested in the code comment. You are welcome to change this. B
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
