Contact between parts with 0.1 mm clearance
I am working on a contact between two surfaces (Both of steel materials having hollow circular section)having clearance of 0.1 mm . I was using TYPE 19 contact but facing issues in the same and one of the node in the interface reduces time step.
Parameter sued with TYPE 19: Istf :4, Fric: 0.1, Gap min: 0.1, Inacti6, Iform2 .
Any other parameters recommended for solving type 19 ?
Thank you
Find more posts tagged with
Hi,
If for some reason a node is highly penetrated, either the nodal time step or the kinematic time step may be very low. Then, it is possible to release this node from the interface using the option /DT/INTER/DEL in the engine file. All nodes reaching dtmin will be removed from the interface.
But please note that this option may be useful in order to keep a decent time step during contact, but if the number of released nodes is too large, poor results can be expected.
Type 7 is also creating nodal time step issues.
For Type 24, can we have contact surface to contact surface contact?
Any other parameters to be taken care of?
is it recommended to make type 24 between solid elements ?
I have solid components and have shell element layer of 0.01 mm thickness for making the type 24 contact.
Also is there any difference if I sue type 19 in one go and type7 and type 11 at same location differently
I am facing issues in contacts in a simulation of high speed impact
I am sharing .gif through the secure link for overall problem overview
Hi,
Type 24 is recommended for all models where there is no physical gap (solids to solids) and also with negligible gap.
Also is there any difference if I sue type 19 in one go and type7 and type 11 at same location differently
I don't think this approach is required. Try with any one of this approach (directly Type 19 or Type 7 and 11).
I am facing issues in contacts in a simulation of high speed impact
Which type of contact is used for this model?. You can try introducing a Stmin value and also introducing a symmetric contact.
I am using a combination of Type 7 and type 11 in one location and type 19 in another location. I have used type 24 but as this does not take care of edge to edge to edge contact, I am facing issues in intersection and thus Type 7 and type 11 needs to be used
The model was ran with DT/NODA/CST and at one point one of the noes in the type7, type11 combined interface became vulnerable and every other component in connection starting converging to it and ultimat ely leading to mass error (Image attached)
I am sharing one more gif. through secure link along with .out files
I am iterating with type 11 contact parameters, yes I have used Stmin: 1000
Hi All,
Could you please tell me which contact (type 7 or type 24) is better for very small and closely components with fine mesh(High impact quasi static analysis) without using GapMin, since if i use Gapmin again i need to de-penetrate due to this the original geometry will also change.
Thanks,
Senthilkumar
Hi @jsk459
With type 7 there is a limitation that with a small gap time step is affected.
Use type 24 and it serves the same purpose.
Single self-impacting surface only: surf_ID1 > 0, and surf_ID2 = 0
Select only one surface and second surface should be zero.
Hi,
Can you try with a minimum stiffness (Stmin=1000N/mm)?.
If you still have issues use /DT/INTER/DEL option in engine file so that those slave nodes below the Tmin specified will be suppressed from the interface. This node will no longer impact any master segment for this interface.
Normally for zero gap contacts we model with Type 24 interface. This option also you can try.