Understanding variation in results using different contacts

- June 9, 2022 at 1:15 pm
  
  Saurabh
  Subscriber
  
  I have a model with all parts at maximum material condition (MMC). The parts have interference fit in its assembled state. I am trying to simulate the stress distributions for the components at assembled state at MMC. What is the correct way to perform the analysis? Please help.
  
  1). I did the static structural analysis using frictional contacts using "Adujust to touch" since there is already geometric penetration as shown by initial contacts generated. I get the equivalent stress values which are very low.
  
  2). I did the static structural analysis using frictional contacts using "Added offset, add ramped effect" thinking that will seperate the physical boundaries which is more close to practical. I get the equivalent stress values as very high.
  
  In both cases I am using the same number of elements, meshing, frictional coefficient and boundary conditions.
  
  Please see results below:
  
  Can somebody help me undersatnd which is the correct method to model this and why.
  Thank you.
- June 9, 2022 at 11:32 pm
  
  peteroznewman
  Subscriber
  
  Dear Saurabh,
  
  Adjust to Touch zeros out the geometric interference that was present in the geometry which is why you got very low stress results.
  
  Added offset, ramped effects (assuming you use the default value of 0), correctly resolves the geometric interference. The stress you see is the result of the interference. If the mesh on both sides of the frictional contact has node-to-node alignment, that is the best situation. If the mesh is coarse and you have linear elements, then you can get artificially high stresses due to a node on one side being inside the straight line edge of the other side. Using quadratic elements will allow the element edges to follow to curve of the geometry.
- June 10, 2022 at 12:11 pm
  
  Saurabh
  Subscriber
  
  Hello Peter,
  
  Thanks a lot for your response. This explanation helps me understand the concept better. I will check the meshing as you suggested. Appreciate your help.
- December 30, 2022 at 9:21 am
  
  bhagwantP
  Ansys Employee
  
  Thanks Peter.
  @Saurabh,
  some more add on information for your reference from our help section:
  Geometric Modification (ansys.com)
  Thanks

Viewing 3 reply threads

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Ansys Innovation Space

Boost Ansys Fluent Simulations with AWS

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) helps engineers design products in which the flow of fluid components is a significant challenge. These different use cases often require large complex models to solve on a traditional workstation. Click here to join this event to learn how to leverage Ansys Fluids on the cloud, thanks to Ansys Gateway powered by AWS.

Earth Rescue – An Ansys Online Series

The climate crisis is here. But so is the human ingenuity to fight it. Earth Rescue reveals what visionary companies are doing today to engineer radical new ideas in the fight against climate change. Click here to watch the first episode.

Ansys Blog

Subscribe to the Ansys Blog to get great new content about the power of simulation delivered right to your email on a weekly basis. With content from Ansys experts, partners and customers you will learn about product development advances, thought leadership and trends and tips to better use Ansys tools. Sign up here.

Trending discussions