Contact Interaction between two surfaces with a common edge.

[RakVastav]

Dear All,

I am trying to define a "SurfaceToSurfaceContact" interaction between two surfaces which have a common edge. Initially, these two surfaces are separated (taking a "V" shape). I apply Boundary Conditions to close the surfaces onto each other. In the next step I want to apply Contact conditions such that the surfaces bond to each other. I would like to achieve this by using the "SurfaceToSurfaceContact" interactions. I define one surface as the master and the other as the slave. Since the two surfaces have a common edge, when I run the simulation I get the following error:

"Error in job ClosingAWedge0: THE SLAVE SURFACE ASSEMBLY__PICKEDSURF10 HAS 220 NODES IN COMMON WITH ITS MASTER SURFACE ASSEMBLY__PICKEDSURF9."

Is there any way around this problem? Is it possible to define the region of a surface without the common edge? I know this is possible for defining sets by using the "xEdges" argument. Is there anything like that while defining surface regions?
Any comments are highly appreciated.

Thanks,
Srikanth

 

[yaston4]

Just some ideas...

Are both surfaces deformable? Do you get the same error message if the master surface is Rigid? Does changing the mesh density in the contact zone make any difference to the error message? Does it help to apply the load over a longer time period or apply a smaller load?

Hope this helps?

 

[DanStro]

Are you using "self-contact" interaction?

Can you partition the two surfaces very close to the apex of the 'V'? Then you'll have two separate surfaces.



Han primo incensus

 

[RakVastav]

Thank you all for your suggestions.

@yaston4: I tried some of your suggestions. I always get that error. Basically, if the two surfaces share nodes (which they do), it looks like it does not matter what the other external conditions are.

@DanStro: I was thinking about doing exactly what you mentioned. It is one way to get around the problem. But clearly the solution around the apex is important and it seems like doing what you mentioned might mess that up, I am not sure. It is not ideal but that might be the only way around this problem.

Thanks again for your time.