×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Question on Designating Target and Contact Surfaces

Question on Designating Target and Contact Surfaces

Question on Designating Target and Contact Surfaces

(OP)

   I have a problem where i am modeling a cylindrical (steel) bar embedded in concrete and i am trying to smulate shear test. For this case I have some doubt regrading designation of contact and target surfaces. As per ansys contact technology guide the following applies

3.5. Designating Contact and Target Surfaces:
For flexible-to-flexible contact, the choice of which surface is designated contact or target can cause a different amount of penetration and thus affect the solution accuracy. Consider the following guidelines when designating the surfaces:

(a)If a convex surface is expected to come into contact with a flat or concave surface, the flat/concave surface should be the target surface.

(b)If one surface has a fine surface mesh and, in comparison, the other has a coarse mesh, the fine mesh should be the contact surface and the coarse mesh should be the target surface.

(c)If one surface is stiffer then the other, the softer surface should be the contact surface and the stiffer surface should be the target surface.
 
   However, there was no explination regarding precedence. Here a canvex surface (That is stiffer) is coming in to contact with a concave surface (concrete). So as per guideline (a) The concave suface should be "Target" surface. But, this is less stiffer than the steel ( as per guideline (c) the same should be "contact surface"). Is there a precedence for this designatons?

Thanks,
Nodal DOF.

RE: Question on Designating Target and Contact Surfaces

Hi,
at the expense of twice the contact-computation time, the best I see in these cases is to enable the option of "Symmetric" contact.

Regards

RE: Question on Designating Target and Contact Surfaces

(OP)
Cbrn,

 Thanks for your reply. Seems like a good option for small models. I did not observe any significant cange in the results by switching the contact and target surfaces as long as the aurfaces are in contact. However, the results deviated when they started to seperate.

Thanks,
Nodal DOF

RE: Question on Designating Target and Contact Surfaces

Hi,
from what you notice, it seems that the combination of factors which "guide" the calculation of the contact stiffness is intrinsecally "quasi-symmetric", so there is only very small difference by reversing the contact pair. Keep in mind that the calculation of the contact pair takes anyway into account the properties of both the materials in contact. "Problem" may arise when separation occurs, or, worse, when the contact is initially open. In this case, the auto-calculated pinball factor, which depends on the underlying thickness, plays a significant role, as well as the fact that, being the bodies not in contact, the stiffness is estimated using only the properties of the "CONTACT" elements; thus you can understand why the results strongly differ by reversing the pair.
If you also set "update contact stiffness -> each equilibrium iteration", then there is very little to worry about.
The "symmetric" option does not in any way multiply the entire solution time by two! It only doubles the contact stiffness calculation time, which is a fraction of the total contact calculation time and an even smaller fraction of the total solution time. You can use this feature even with models having 1.5 Milion DOFs or so. It may be more efficient, in particular cases, to run "symmetric" and "update... at each substap" instead of "asymmetric" + "update... each equilibrium iteration". But be careful, it depends: think carefully about the implications of each option...

Regards

RE: Question on Designating Target and Contact Surfaces

(OP)
cbrn,

   Thanks for your suggestion. I am implementing symmetric option for my contact model.  Initially i thought they would take too much time (my current models run for 1-2 days). However, some of my contacts started seperating in half the  way through because of applied loads and BCs resulting in unconverged solutions. In this case as you mentioned the results started deviating from the moment the separation starts. Thanks for your help.

NodalDOF

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources