×
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

Meshing and tie constraints of RVE with inclusions

Meshing and tie constraints of RVE with inclusions

Meshing and tie constraints of RVE with inclusions

(OP)
Hello everybody,

I came here to share my experience and get some view from a side: maybe someone give good idea, suggestion will see my mistakes.

So, I am simulating compression of RVE: hyperelastic matrix (cube 70x70x70 mm with holes for inclusions) filled with spherical rigid (compared to the matrix) inclusions (diameter=8mm, total 181 inclusions, total volumic fraction of inclusions ~ 0.225).
Inclusions and matrix are modeled separately, meshed separately and after tie-constrained.

So my two main problems are meshing of the matrix and constraining.

About meshing:
The fraction of inclusions is quiet high, so, sometimes they are located very close to each over(if I am not mistaken the smallest distance is 0.06 mm). But some inclusions are located on good distance from overs (more than 1 mm). Automatic meshing in Abaqus is resulting in bad mesh (warning elements near inclusion/holes, which are "flat" - very small in one direction) or millions and millions of elements. So I tried to mesh matrix of my RVE in HyperMesh. It gave me really better result in meaning of elements quality and elements number (By the way in HyperMesh I used element sizes allowed from 2 mm down to 0.4 mm). Abaqus "Verify Mesh" tool doesn't show any warrings or errors.
However, during data check "2 elements are distorted" warring arises

About tie-constrain(surface-to-surface):
Before going to details, I need to say that I am using automatic contact pair identification, because I don't see possibility to do it by hands (181 pairs, everything inside the geometry).
So, HyperMesh result can be exported to Abaqus as an orphan mesh, so I am doing it. Here some problem start:

1) Abaqus can't successfully identify contact pairs between Orphan mesh(matrix) and meshed geometry(inclusions) - software creates pairs with only master or slave surface. To solve this I did an Orphane mesh from meshed inclusions. In the case of two Orphan "geometries" identifications goes better (still some adjustments are necessary, like flipping master/slave).

2) By default tie constraint make an adjustment of slave nodes to master surface. In manual it is advised to keep it like this. However, adjustment leads to "zero volume element" errors end terminating the calculation. I don't have a clue how to solve this (except of disabling of this adjusting). Any ideas?

In attachment I added screenshot from HyperMesh (so you can see location of holes inside the matrix)


RE: Meshing and tie constraints of RVE with inclusions

Why don't you deactivate the adjust option in the tie?

RE: Meshing and tie constraints of RVE with inclusions

Another idea would be, to use a general contact with a property that mimics a tied connection. So no separation and friction rough.

RE: Meshing and tie constraints of RVE with inclusions

(OP)

Quote (Mustaine3)

Another idea would be, to use a general contact with a property that mimics a tied connection. So no separation and friction rough.

Some elements are not great from the beginning. Adjusting leads to "zero volume element" error (more precisely: "The volume of XX elements is zero, small, or negative.")

Quote (Mustaine3)

Another idea would be, to use a general contact with a property that mimics a tied connection. So no separation and friction rough.

What is the difference?

RE: Meshing and tie constraints of RVE with inclusions

The difference is in preprocessing and the way it is used in the solver. But that does not necessarily mean, that the results are different.

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