Comparison of Radioss Interfaces

NolanMcP
NolanMcP
Altair Employee
edited September 26 in Altair HyperWorks

This article provides a comparison of the various Radioss interfaces. 

 

Here is a table comparing Lagrangian contact interfaces:

image

 

Here is a table comparing ALE interfaces:

image

 

The behavior of a Type 2 interface changes based on the selected SpotFlag parameter.
Based on the SpotFlag parameter, a tied interface can have failure defined and even switch to penalty formulation, as opposed to being a kinematic constraint. Below is a table comparing all the available options for the SpotFlag parameter in /INTER/TYPE2

image

 

Regarding the choice between Spotflag = 27 or 28:

  • These 2 formulations transmit moments from secondary nodes to elements on the master surface
    (see notes #19 and #20 in the documentation for /INTER/TYPE2)

  • Spotflag = 28 is the only formulation that transmits the drilling moment
    (But only if the master surface is based on shell elements)
    For this reason, SpotFlag = 28 should be used when modelling spotwelds

  • With Spotflag = 27, there is no addition of mass at t = 0
    This differs from Spotflag = 28, which can add mass when the main surface is based on solid elements
    (see note #21 in the documentation for /INTER/TYPE2)

  • Spotflag = 27 should be used for connections to solid components

  • Spotflag = 28 should be used for connections to shell components

 

 

Below is a link to the "Contact Definition for Crash Analysis" YouTube video comparing interfaces as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQnMhFM9iAE

This video covers the following topics:

  • Typical Applications of Interfaces
  • Variations of Interfaces
  • Most Used Interfaces Types for Impact
  • Interface Type 7
  • Interface Type 25
  • Example Model Description
  • Results
  • Interface Stiffness Formulation
  • Sub Interface: /INTER/SUB
  • Thickness at /PART
Tagged:

Categories