Flow Chart: Do I need contact in my analysis?

Flow Chart: Do I need contact in my analysis?

First of: you can download the entire Flow Chart in a printable version on my blog!

We will tackle contact here. If you haven't read my posts on nonlinear supports and how to avoid contact you may find them interesting : )

This is not the first flowchart that I posted here. You can also check flow charts for nonlinear geometry and nonlinear material.

Starting with the obvious

The first questions (well, two questions actually) are pretty obvious.

First, you need to wonder about:

Will 2 bodies contact in my model?

This is a rather straightforward question. Do you have 2 objects that can touch each other in your analysis? Sometimes, this may be a bit more tricky, when you are not sure if they will deform enough to touch. Usually, it makes sense to verify that in the model without contact and then add contact if needed. If you don't need contact this will save you some computing time later on. However, if the contact is there "from the start" (no deformation is needed), there are some simplifications one can try. We will discuss them later.

When you check if two elements of your model will be in contact, remember that you need to check deformations with the scale of 1! Usually software "adjust" deformation scale to model size or whatever - but you are interested in "real" deformation in this case! (more on this here!).

Slightly less obvious things

The second thing is a bit less obvious, but still rather straightforward. If you have 1 element in your model this does not mean that you don't need contact. Part of the fun comes from boundary conditions. This means that the second question is:

Will something contact a rigid support?

Think about it this way: not all supports work in both directions. Sometimes they carry only compression or tension (compression is far more common BTW). If this concept is foreign to you, please read the article I mentioned earlier.

There are several ways you can deal with this. You can model nonlinear supports (i.e. such that work only in compression) but usually, you will simply add a rigid surface where the support is and define contact there. The trick is not in how you do it, but rather that you know that a simple "pinned" support in that region won't work!

Let's get going!

Great - we have the basics behind us! If the answer for at least one of the above questions was "yes" then you are at least "in the contact zone". This is not a "tragedy" yet (if you consider defining contact tragic that is!), but we are closer to it without a doubt.

Now the question needs to ask that is a bit unusual:

Do I want to try to avoid contact?

The thing is, that from the previous 2 questions you already know that there is contact. You can try to "avoid" using it, but if you don't want to try avoidance, simply define contact and move on! So if you don't suspect there will be a lot of contact convergence issues (or you did a similar job before and you happen to know parameters that simply work great in such cases) then say "no" define contact and move on!

However, often model you will analyze will be big or will have other non-linearities at play. In the worst case scenario,g you may want to use "linear contact" which is an incarnation of convergence problems! In such cases trying to avoid contact in analysis seems like a good move!

Initial encounter

A contact is a tool and a useful one without a doubt. But it comes at a price of high computing time, especially in steps when contact "closes". Sometimes you may also experience convergence problems. In such cases trying to avoid contact seems a good move.

I started avoiding contact in my analysis for another reason. Software that I initially used did not allow for contact (!). This is how I figured out all the schemes I will describe below... I simply had no other choice : )

I quickly learned that some problems simply won't work this way, and hence the first question:

Is this an initial contact?

By this I mean - does elements touch at the start of the analysis? If not they will have to deform first and then get in contact.

Problem is, that this almost eliminates any chance for simplifying it. You see, simplification will be based on adding supports or connections. But when contact is not "initial" it means that you need deformations to "hit" support later during analysis (or another element of course). You won't be able to use a simple support (or connection)... since it's not there at the start!

In such case, you can always try to use gap elements... But I have no idea why would you do that (!). There is no obvious benefit (unless your license doesn't allow contact I guess).

In other words, if the contact in your analysis doesn't happen at the very beginning of the analysis watch out! I wouldn't bother with trying to avoid it... unless you have a good reason to do it : )

Wise-man knows when to run!

OK. At this stage, I assume you are a lucky one! It seems that you have a relatively simple contact case that happens at the very start of your analysis. Something more or less like this:

Great! In such case, you can try to avoid using contact and still get nice results (much faster). Only 2 questions are between where you are and a great success! The first one is:

Can you predict where the contact zone will be?

This is the "oracle / wise-man from the mountains" type of question. Luckily for us, oftentimes the answer is obvious.

In general, contact works like this: you can transfer compression forces (sometimes friction as well), but you don't carry tension. This means that were compression forces are transferred you have a connection. If tension is present there is no connection.

So... if you can predict where compression will be, you can model the connection there, and ta-da! You just made what contact would... but without those pesky iterations and convergence issues!

I think this sketch will explain it better - there is also an entire post about it on the blog:

In other words, if you can predict where is the area where compression will be transferred you are fine! Just connect or support that area, and do nothing where the tension will be!

Just be aware that this can be done in iterations. It is possible that you will "miss" where compression is. This means that you will get tension in those additional elements (instead of compression you assumed). You can, of course, delete the "connection" where you got tension and re-calculate the model. Problem is... that you are starting to do manual iterations... something contact does for you automatically! So unless you are fairly certain you can guess where the contact is at the start... don't use this simplification. You will waste a lot of time!

Read more and download printable flow chart for free!

Everything you need is on my blog :)

Want to learn more?

This is GREAT! I have a special free FEA course just for you!


James Shaw

Simulation Engineer | Entrepreneur | Ansys Partner

6 年

Nice!

要查看或添加评论,请登录

?ukasz Skotny的更多文章

  • The difference between linear and nonlinear FEA

    The difference between linear and nonlinear FEA

    This is a 10min read. It will be more comfortable to read the full article on my blog :) I remember my first…

    16 条评论
  • How to interpret FEA Results?

    How to interpret FEA Results?

    Interpreting analysis outcomes is not simple. Even if you already have proper values from your FEA analysis, still you…

    13 条评论
  • Boundary Conditions in FEA

    Boundary Conditions in FEA

    It's relatively easy to perform an FEA analysis, but it's definitely difficult to run an analysis that produces…

    4 条评论
  • Is math really needed in FEA?

    Is math really needed in FEA?

    I never hid with my beliefs about math in FEA. But I figured I will ask around, just to make sure I’m not missing…

    19 条评论
  • FEA on a new level! Or how to design an engine!

    FEA on a new level! Or how to design an engine!

    Some time ago I realized that I’ve got to know some amazing people in the last 2 years of blogging. Having so many…

    1 条评论
  • Design rules vs Physics

    Design rules vs Physics

    This came out in one of the discussions in FEA guild, and I figured I will expand on this idea. This will also be…

    2 条评论
  • Great FEA report for the win!

    Great FEA report for the win!

    I’ve recently posted a tip about writing good FEA report… and I must admit that what followed surprised me! This is the…

    3 条评论
  • FEA Design Tips #002

    FEA Design Tips #002

    Wow..

    2 条评论
  • FEA Design Tips #001

    FEA Design Tips #001

    (you can read this on my blog as well!) I've recently started posting FEA Design Insights on my LinkedIn profile as…

  • Benchmark for nonlinear geometry!

    Benchmark for nonlinear geometry!

    During last week I've posted a tip in the FEA Guild about using Benchmarks. Some great pointers were in the comments…

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了