I believe we are somehow converging. Just a couple of additional remarks.
1 - Regarding the area associated to the broken edges: If you look at the attached drawing, you'll see that we have actually 2 cases: 1) the 2 broken edges are associated to 2 individual cracks 2) the 2 broken edges are associated to the same fracture plane In 1), I agree with you and the triangular surfaces are not coplanar In 2), the triangular surfaces should be coplanar to account for the fact the the broken edges belong to the same fracture plane. If we are concerned with the calculation of Vo, case 2) should prevail since we are dealing with pre-existing fracture planes rather than individual cracks but it would probably be easier (and more consistent?) to use the same logic for fracture planes and cracks so we should probably go for case 1). What do you guys think about that? 2 - Regarding the cubic law for computing the conductivity: The cubic law is based on the concept of rectangular parallel plates of length L and width W (cf. drawing) and I don't know how we could adapt it to the case of triangular plates. Considering rectangular plates instead of triangular ones seems like something reasonable in our case. If you agree on this assumption, then we need to decide how to compute W. As a first guess, I would go for W equal to the distance between the middle of the broken edge (location of the crack) and the barycentre of the facet. What do you guys think about that? Luc ** Attachment added: "facetCrackLogic.jpg" https://bugs.launchpad.net/yade/+bug/1734653/+attachment/5020309/+files/facetCrackLogic.jpg -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Yade developers, which is subscribed to Yade. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1734653 Title: DFN+fluid compressibility not using the correct reference volume Status in Yade: New Bug description: In the basic PFV scheme the incremental change of density of a pore fluid after a change of pore volume is dependent on dV/Vo where Vo is the reference pore space within a tetrahedral cell [1], i.e. V(tetrahedron)-V(spheres). In DFNFlow "V" should reflect the fact that porosity is mainly due to cracks, i.e. it is much smaller than the numerical porosity calculated between spheres. Typically V=opening*area+matrixPorosity*cellVolume Currently it is using the same formula, hence overestimating the compressibility effect (because the DEM porosity is larger than a typical rock porosity). What should be the reference "opening" in above formula is to be clarified though, it has physical as well as numerical implications. Maybe slotInitialAperture is a candidate? Let you DFN people tell what it should be. Note that the "dV" is less a problem because it is a difference (independent on the choice of the reference volume), so the incompressible scheme is not affected. Bruno [1] https://github.com/yade/trunk/blob/master/pkg/pfv/FlowEngine.ipp.in#L439 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/yade/+bug/1734653/+subscriptions _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
