Ansys Contact Analysis Overview PDF

Contact Analysis in ANSYS
Contact Analysis in ANSYS
Mechanics Group
ANSYS, Inc.
© 2004 ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
Topics
• Capabilities Overview
• Lagrange versus Penalty Contact
• MPC Applications
• Contact Analysis using ANSYS Workbench
Capabilities Overview
• Rigidflex
– Bodies of vastly different stiffness
– Steel against rubber seals
• Flexflex
– Bodies of comparable stiffness
– Metal contacting metal
• Self contact
– Body folds over itself
– Column buckling
• Large sliding with friction for all
•
Variety of algorithms
ANSYS offers a series of CONTA178 CONTA175 CONTA171

CONTA174
contact elements with
Type NodeNode Node Surface
consistent specifications Surface Surface
Sliding Small Large Large
High order No No Yes
Pure Yes Yes Yes

Penalty Traditional Penalty based method
Robust library of Augmented Yes Yes Yes
algorithms to meet Lagrange Min Penetration with Robust Convergence
Pure Yes Yes Yes
every contact Nearly Zero Penetration
Lagrange
challenge MPC Yes Yes
Assembly Contact and Constraints
–ANSYS has them all!default
calculations for minimal user Contact Semi Semi/fully Semi/fully
stiffness automatic automatic automatic
intervention
Thermal Yes Yes
Multiphysics Capabilities Electric Yes Yes
Magnetic Yes Yes
Ease of Use
Contact Manager: Offers many powerful and user friendly tools…
Launch Contact Wizard Control
Show Element Normals
to create a new pair Context
Flip Element Normals translucency
Review/Edit Contact Pair Properties
to clarify plot
element keyopts and real constants Switch Contact/Targets
Plot Elements Select Results for
List Elements Post Processing
and results
Delete Select Element type to view or list: Run CNCHECK command: List/Select

Contact Pair Contact or Target or both Detail//Post/Adjust/Reset Pairs
Higher order
• ANSYS SurfacetoSurface
Contact has better geometry
representation
– True curved surface
representation (nonfaceted) in 8Nodes
higher order Hex
– Contact analysis with higher
order elements is significantly
more accurate
10nodes
Tets
20Nodes
Hex
MPC Assembly Contact
shellsolid MPC constraint
MPC Assembly Contact
Parts are connected
Boundary conditions via MPC
Remote force via MPC
Hex dominant mesh
MPC Assembly
•Binder Clip Assembly
•Pure Lagrange Multiplier Method is
utilized for normal contact at
location between clip and spring to
take advantage of robust zero
penetration feature
•MPC bonded contact pair is
utilized at clip/spring interface
Multiphysics Applications
– ThermalStructural
• Stresses induced by thermal
expansions in an assembly
• Frictionally induced Heating
• Metal Forming (Sequential only)
– ThermalElectricStructural
• Electric conduction with Joule Thermal Assembly
heating and structural expansion
– Simulation of resistance welding or
similar processes
• Microelectro Mechanical Systems
(MEMs devices)
ThermalElectric contact
pairs across resistance spot
welding assembly
Multiphysics Applications
– StructuralElectric
• Electrostatic analysis
• Piezoelectric Magnetic contact
pair across gap
– Transducers Sensor
Pipe
– Magnetic
• Magnetic Flux analysis
• Static and Transient Magnetic
Bfield contours
Pipeline Sensor
(Electromagnetic)
Robustness of Contact
• ANSYS offers a rich library of contact
features
– 26 real constants, 3 material properties, 50
element keyopt settings
– model numerous special effects
– overcome difficult convergence situations
• User friendly with a focus on robustness
– Advanced contact algorithms
– Adaptive contact stiffness schemes
– Automated, intelligent choice of default settings
– Little user intervention
• The contact stiffness is the most important parameter
affecting both accuracy and convergence behavior
• We have implemented an adaptive scheme:
– Reasonable default for the normal contact stiffness in the
very first iteration.
– If bisections occur in the beginning of the analysis the default
stiffness will be reduced by a factor of 0.2 for each bisection.
– The normal contact stiffness is updated at each iteration
based on the current mean stress of the underlying elements
and the allowable penetration.
– The tangential contact stiffness is updated during each
iteration based on:
µp
ε T = l crit Allowable Max. elastic slip = 0. 01 * l
l crit
Contact stiffness gradually raises to
establish the initial contact and
reduce the chartering.
Small stiffness, if contact is open
The larger the penetration, the
higher the stiffness
60 iterations 32 iterations
FKN=1: KEY(10)=0 Divergence
42 iterations FKN=0.01, KEY(10)=0 FKN=0.01,

KEY(10)=1
Using defaults
is our goal !
FKN=1: KEY(10)=2
Bending stress
Using defaults
is our goal !
ANSYS80: ANSYS81:
KEYO(10)=1 KEYO(10)=2
KFN = 1 KFN = 1
156 Iterations 83 Iterations
ANSYS80: ANSYS81:
KEYO(10)=1 KEYO(10)=1
KFN = 0.0001 KFN = 0.0001
Iteration
Pure Lagrange 675
Augmented Lagrangian
Augmented Lagrangian
Keyo(10)=2, FKN = 0.5 1028
Keyo(10)=2, FKN = 0.5 1028
• Executing CNCHECK, ADJUST to bring
assemblies into contact
– Physically move contact nodes to targets to close the
gap or reduce penetration.
– Applicable to problems where other initial adjustment
options cause undesirable residual forces if large
rotation appears at contact surface.
Before CNCHECK After CNCHECK
open gap gap is closed
1 0.0000
Frequencies
2 0.0000
Reaction force
3 0.0000
FX = 0.4234448E01 GAP
4 0.33021E02
FY = 0.9639680E03
5 0.39932E02
FZ = 0.1933389E01
6 0.63336E02
MX = 0.9152497E04
7 186.83 81: MPC
MY = 2033.720 No adjustment
8 322.63
MZ = 0.4560663E03
9 505.61
1 0.0000
2 0.0000 FX = 0.5690360E01
3 0.0000 FY = 0.1863415E03
4 0.31505E02 FZ = 0.3476209E01
5 0.44871E02 MX = 0.1647255E03
6 0.64525E02 MY = 2033.722
7 188.31 MZ = 0.4195581E03 81: MPC with
8 324.94 CNCH,ADJU
© 2004 ANSYS, Inc.
9 513.96 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
80: MPC without
Adjustment
FX = 0.1092029
Reaction force at fix end FY = 0.1135057E02
FZ = 0.1444514E01
MX = 1.311696
Rev.80 MPC is built between contact & target surface
Rev.81 uses CEINTF Logic: MPC between contact surface MY = 1749.186
wrong
and underlying elements of the target surface MZ = 2.819364
81: MPC with 81: Penalty with 81: MPC without 81: Penalty without
Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment
FX = 0.5690360E01 FX = 0.4440884E01 FX = 0.4234448E01 FX = 0.2764014E01
FY = 0.1863415E03 FY = 0.6834833E03 FY = 0.9639680E03 FY = 0.5543082E02
FZ = 0.3476209E01 FZ = 0.3651396E01 FZ = 0.1933389E01 FZ = 0.4484582E01
MX = 0.1647255E03 MX = 0.1917886E02 MX = 0.9152497E04 MX = 1.402200
MY = 2033.722 MY = 2033.599 MY = 2033.720 MY = 1216.365
MZ = 0.4195581E03 MZ = 0.1567494E02 MZ = 0.4560663E03 MZ = 12.31326
Free body frequencies
Rev.80 MPC is built between contact & target surface.
Rev.81 uses CEINTF Logic for MPC contact.
81: MPC with 81: Penalty with 81: MPC without 81: Penalty without 80: MPC without

Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment
1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000
2 0.0000 2 0.82242E03 2 0.0000 2 0.35709E03 2 0.15729E02
3 0.0000 3 0.32439E02 3 0.0000 3 0.37133E02 3 0.37388E02
4 0.31505E02 4 0.21737 4 0.33021E02 4 32.650 4 8.8276
5 0.44871E02 5 0.23349 5 0.39932E02 5 48.024 5 14.405
6 0.64525E02 6 0.74425 6 0.63336E02 6 250.89
wrong 6 47.379
7 188.31 7 188.31 7 186.83 7 336.43 7 190.34
8 324.94 8 324.94 8 322.63 8 394.80 8 324.56
9 513.96 9 513.92 9 505.61 9 599.23 9 507.71
Tips for bonded contacts :
(1) Always issue CNCH,ADJU to close the
gap/penetration which produces most
accurate solutions.
(2) If certain pairs can not be adjusted use MPC
logic.
(3) Penalty method for solving bonded contact
with gap will be improved in the future.
MPC bonded contact fails in Rev.80.
It works in Rev.81 thanks to an over Solidsolid constraint
constraint checking & elimination logic.
Shellsolid constraint
MPC bonded contact fails in Rev.80.
It works in Rev.81 thanks to an over
Shellshell constraint constraint checking & elimination logic.
Tips for overconstraint elimination logic:
(1) No Guarantee
(1) Certain overconstraints may not be detected.
(2) Certain good constrains may be eliminated.
(2) Local solutions near overconstraint points
may not be very accurate. Use your
engineering judgment to verify it.
(3) Global solutions should be accepted.
Diagnostic Tools
• Visualization and adjustment tools for initial
contact status
– CNCHECK, DETAIL: evaluate Contact Pair
specifications
– CNCHECK, ADJUST: move contact nodes to
target to close gap or reduce penetration
– CNCHECK, POST: view contact initial status
before solving
– CNCHECK, RESET: reset contact default settings
Diagnostic Tools
•CNCHECK command is available for reviewing contact pair
specifications
•The output file will echo all information including the initial contact
status and gap specifications.
Diagnostic Tools
• NLHIST command will enable users to
monitor contact related diagnostic
results of interest in real time during
solution, providing valuable
information for troubleshooting contact
related convergence problems.
Diagnostic Tools
• NLHIST command
Result Trackers
• Available for each
contact pair
• Converged
solution data
• Various types
Diagnostic Tools
• Troubleshoot unconverged solutions with NLDIAG
– Visualize the NewtonRaphson residual
– Visualize the elements causing bisections and pivots.
– Identify when and how contact occurs.
– Determine the regions where contact is unstable and then
focus on the specific settings of those particular pairs instead
of having to deal with all of them.
Diagnostic Tools
• When troubleshooting contact problems, notes,
warnings, errors in the output file often provide valuable
feedback:
– Warning: Min. contact depth 5.376d6 is too small which may
cause accuracy problem, you may scale the length unit in the
model.
– Warning: Max. contact stiffness 1.21d16 is too big which may
cause accuracy problem, you may scale the force unit in the
model.
– Warning: The initial penetration/gap is relatively large. Using
bonded/no separation option may cause an accuracy issue. You
may use the CNCHECK,ADJUST command to move the
contact nodes towards the target surface.
– Warning: The closed gap/penetration may be too large.
Increase pinball if it is a true closed gap/penetration. Decrease
pinball if it is a false one.
Diagnostic Tools
– Warning: Convergence has been achieved inspite of large
penetration. If this message is repeated frequently, we
recommend either increasing penalty stiffness(FKN), or enlarge
penetration tolerance(FTOLN).
– Warning: Overconstraint may occur for Lagrange multiplier or
MPC based contact algorithm.
• BC/CP/CE has been applied on certain contact nodes (e.g. 101).
• Certain contact elements (e.g. 104 & 195) overlap with other.
• Self contact Definition (e.g. real constant set 6).
• Certain nodes (e.g.10) appear in both sides of contact and target
surface.
• Certain nodes (e.g.101) appear in different contact pairs.
– Overconstraints are indicated by the presence of zero pivot
warnings and solution fails
• Warning: at least 1 number of ZERO PIVOT is in Eqn. Matrix
system.
• Error: There are 3 small equation solver pivot terms.
Penalty vs. Lagrange
Penalty vs. Lagrange
Pure penalty method
Penalty means that any violation of the contact condition will be punished by
increasing the total virtual work:
δΨ = ∫ σ T δε dV + ∫ ( ε N g N δg N + ε T g T δg T ) dA

V Γ
Augmented Lagrange method: ∫ [(λ
Γ
N + ε N g N )δg N + (λT + ε T g T )δg T ]dA
The equation can also be written in FE form:
( K + ε G T G ) u = F
This is the equation used in FEA for the pure penalty method where is the contact ε
stiffness
Pure penalty method
F ( K + ε G T G ) u = F
The contact spring will deflect an amount ∆,
such that equilibrium is satisfied:
∆ ε ∆ = F
ε
where is the contact stiffness.
ê Some finite amount of penetration, ∆ > 0, is required mathematically to maintain

equilibrium. However, physical contacting bodies do not interpenetrate (∆ = 0).
ê The condition of the stiffness matrix crucially depends on the contact stiffness itself.
−
K = K + ε G T G
é There is no additional DOF. ( K + ε G T G ) u = F
N
é There is no overconstraining problem
é Iterative solvers are applicable – large models are doable!
Pure penalty method
ε
§ ∆ is the Result from FKN and the equilibrium analysis. Pressure= ∆ * => Stress
§ 100times Difference in FKN leads to 100times Difference in ∆
Ø but leads to only about 1% Difference in Contact pressure and the related stress.
FKN=1e4 FKN=1
Difference in d:
0.281e3/ 0.284e7
=1e4
PENE PENE
Difference in stress:
(35253501)/ 3525
=0.7%
Stress Stress
Pure penalty method

Tip:
As long as the penetration does not leads to the change of the contact
region,
The penetration will not influence the contact pressure and Stress
underneath the contact element
Caution:
For pretension problem, use large FKN>1, Because the small penetration
will strongly influence the pretension force.
Pure penalty method
If the contact stiffness is too large, it will cause convergence difficulties.
The model can oscillate, with contacting surfaces bouncing off of each other.
F
F F
FContact
Iteration n Iteration n+1 Iteration n+2
FKN=1
FKN=0.01
Pure penalty method
This problem is almost solved since 7.1, with
automatic contact stiffness adjustment.
KEYOPT(10)=1 or 2
205 100 130

iterations iterations iterations
KEYOPT(10)=0 KEYOPT(10)=1 KEYOPT(10)=2

Pure penalty method
For bending dominant problem, you should still use
the 0.01 for the starting FKN and combine with
KEYOPT(10)=1 or 2
60 32
iterations iterations
FKN=0.01, KEY(10)=0 FKN=0.01, KEY(10)=1
Pure penalty method
Hertz Contact problem – nonlinear material (BISO)
PENE PRES KN 1 KN2 KN3 KN4 ITER. SEQV Conv.
Default 0.00552 2426 112329 112329 112329 112329 144 1037 ok
P+L
Key10=1 0.0038 2482 57459 526681 626150 649175 96 1024 ok
P+L 517133 592516
Key10=2 0.008 2376 122329 84247 84247 84247 124 1045 ok
P+L 379110 122329 122329 122329
Pure penalty method
ITER. Conv. Large deflection problem:

Default 248 ok
P+L
Key10=1 52 ok
P+L
Key10=2 69 ok
P+L
Pure penalty method
/prep7
/solu
et,1,185,,1
nlgeo,on
et,2,173,,1
solcon,on
et,3,170
csys
keyopt,2,10,1
asel,s,,,1
mp,ex,1,2e5
nsla,s,1
mp,nuxy,1,0.3
D,all,all
tb,biso,1
alls
tbdata,1,200,1000
dl,8,5,ux,15
r,2,5,,.1
*do,i,1,90,3
block,1,1,1,1,0,90
nsel,s,loc,y,1
esiz,,3
sf,all,pres,0
lesi,2,,,2
nsel,r,loc,z,i2,i
lesi,9,,,90
sf,all,pres,100+i
vmes,all
alls
n,10000,3,6,0
nsub,3,100,1
n,10001,20,6,0
solv
type,3
*enddo
real,2
tshasp,cylindl
Pure Lagrange: Augmented Lagrange: e,10000,10001
asel,s,,,3
6320 Iterations 4877 Iterations nsla,s,1
2190 Sec. 1375 Sec. type,2
esurface
/solu
Pure penalty method
/prep7 asel,s,,,3,4
et,1,181 nsla,s,1
et,2,170 type,2
et,3,173 real,2
Rigid keyop,3,10,1 esurf
et,4,184,1 asel,s,,,7,8
mp,ex,1,2e5 nsla,s,1
tb,biso,1 type,3
tbdata,1,200,10000 real,2
r,1,3 esurf
r,2,,,0.1,,,5 allsel
cylin,0,10,0,200,0,360 type,4
vgen,2,1,1,,,20 lmes,5,8
lsel,s,loc,z,0 lmes,15,18
lesi,all,,,6 /solu
alls nlgeo,on
esiz,4 nsel,s,loc,z,0
amap,3,5,2,3,7 d,all,all
amap,4,5,2,3,7 alls
amap,7,13,10,11,15 dk,6,all
amap,8,13,10,11,15 dk,6,rotz,4*3.14
dk,16,all
dk,16,rotz,4*3.14
nsub,100,10000,20
cnvt,f,,0.01,
outres,all,30
solve
Pure penalty method
Tip:
Always use KEYOPT(10)=1,2
For bending problem use FKN=0.01 and KEYOPT(10)=1,2
For bulky problem use FKN=1 and KEYOPT(10)=1,2
Caution:
For pretension problem, use large FKN>1. Because the small penetration
will strongly influence the pretension force.
Pure penalty method
Penalty:
FKN=10
Pretension load=2000 N Bolt working load=2012 N
External load 1000 N FKN=1 Lagrange:
Bolt working load=2012 N Bolt working load=2012 N
Pure penalty method
é There is no additional DOF.
é There is no overconstraining problem
é Iterative solvers are applicable – large models are doable!
Tip:
Always use Penalty if:
• Symmetric contact or selfcontact is used.
• Multiple parts share the same contact zone
• 3D large model(> 300.000 DOFs), use PCG solver.
Pure Lagrange multipliers method
• Any violation of the contact condition will be furnished with a Lagrange multiplier.
δΨ = ∫ σ T δε dV + ∫ ( λ N δg N + λ T δg T ) dA

V Γ
Contact constraint condition:
g N ≥ 0 Ensure no penetration
λN ≤ 0 Ensure compressive contact force/pressure
g N λ N = 0 No contact , gap is non zero
λ N = 0
g N = 0
Contact , contact force is non zero
The equation is linear, in case of linear elastic and NodetoNode contact. Otherwise,
the equation is nonlinear and an iterative method is used to solve the equation. Usually
the NewtonMethod is used.
For linear elastic problems: K G u F
T =
G 0 λ g 0
N+G
K G u F
T =
G 0 λ g 0
ê Lagrange multipliers are additional DOFs à the FE model is getting large.
ê Zero main diagonals in system matrix àNo iterative solver is applicable.
ê For symmetric contact or additional CP/CE, and boundary conditions, the equation
system might be overconstrained
ê Sensitive to chattering of the variation of contact status
é No need to define contact stiffness
é Accuracy constraint is satisfied exactly, there are no matrix conditioning problems
ê Lagrange multipliers are additional DOFs à the FE model is getting large.
Tip:
Always use Lagrange multiplier method if:
• The model is 2D.
• 3D nonlinear material problem with < 100.000 Dofs
ê Zero main diagonals in system matrix àNo iterative solver is applicable.
Tip:
never use Lagrange multiplier method if:
• The model has > 500.000 DOFs.
For 700.000 DOFs nonlinear contact model,
Penalty+PCG is 2 times faster than
Lagrange+Sparse!
ê For symmetric contact or additional CP/CE, and boundary conditions, the equation
system is overconstrained
Tip:
If the Lagrange multiplier method is used:
• Always use asymmetric contact.
• Do not use CP/CE in on contact surfaces
• Do not define the multiple contacts, which share the common
interfaces.
Contact pair1 Single contact pair
Contact pair1
• Typical problem for Lagrange Multiplier Contact Formulation
Contact Target
Contact
Contact
Contact Target
Target
Target
Contact with midside nodes Lagrange Multiplier
Asymmetric
• In most cases, Lagrange still works with symmetric contact
Penalty and Lagrange
symmetric
selfcontact
selfcontact
selfcontact
selfcontact
Penetration Pressure Penetration Pressure
Iterations: 487 Iterations: 92
CPU: 200 CPU: 50
Penalty symmetric Lagrange symmetric
ê Sensitive to chattering of the variation of contact status
Tip:
Use Penalty is chattering occurs or
Chattering Control Parameters:
FTOLN and TNOP R1=R2Delta
F R1 R2
Use Penalty is chattering occurs
DELT=0.1 lsel,s,,,1 /solu
/prep7 nsll,s,1 Nsel,s,loc,x,0
et,1,183 Real,2 D,all,ux
et,2,169 type,3 lsel,s,,,5
et,3,172,,4,,2 esurf nsll,s,1
mp,ex,1,2e5 lsel,s,,,7 d,all,all
pcir,190,200DELT,90,90 nsll,s,1 lsel,s,,,3
wpof,0,delt type,2 nsll,s,1
pcir,200,210,90,90 Esurf *get,nn,node,,count
Penalty wpof,0,delt f,all,fy,200/nn
esiz,5 alls
FKN=1 Esha,2 Solv
ames,all
Sy Pene Sy Pene Sy Pene
Pure Lagrange Pure Penalty(FKN=1) Pure Penalty(FKN=1e4)

Iter=13 Iter=8 Iter=39
Sy Pene Sy Pene Sy Pene
Pure Lagrange Pure Penalty(FKN=1e4) Augmented Lagrange

FKN=1, TOL=3e7
Iter=13 Iter=39 Iter=1327
example
example 1
Element: Plane183
Material: Neo
Material: Neo Hookean
Hookean
Contact: Pure Lagrange
Load: Displacement
Load: Displacement
/prep7 wpcs,
wpcs, 1
1 lsel,s,,,1,4 /solu
/ solu
et,1,183 rect,
rect, 16,
16,
6,
6,
100,
100, 80 lsel,a,,,9,12
80 nlgeo,on Tip:
et,2,169 rect,
rect, 6,
6,
5,
5,
100,
100, 80 lsel,a,,,17,20
80 acel,,9810
et,3,172,,3,,2 rect,
rect, 5,5,
5,5,
100,
100, 80 lsel,a,,,25,28
80 asel,s,,,1,9,1,1
tb, hyper,1,,,neo asel,s,,,10,31,1,1 lsel,a,,,33,36
tb ,hyper,1,,,neo cmsel,u,l1 For large sliding
tbdata,1,.3,0.001 numm, numm ,kp kp cm,l1,line cmsel,u,l2
mp,ex,2,2e5 nsll,s,1 nsll,s,1 problem,
esha,2
mp,
mp ,dens,2,7.8e
dens,2,7.8e 9
9 esiz,2 type,3 d,all,all Use Lagrange method,
r,2,,,,,,5 ames,1,28 esurf asel,s,,,29,31,1
lsel,s,,,76,108,8 nsla,s,1
the convergence
r,3,,,,,,5 esha
pcir,2,5 alls lsel,a,,,78,102,8 d,all,ux behavior is very good
lsel,a,,,113,129,4 nsub,5,15,1 and stable
agen,5,1,1,,22 mat,2
lsel,s,,,109,,,1
and stable
agen,2,1,1,,11,
agen,2,1,1,,11, 30 30 ames,all lsel,a,,,135,147,4
agen,4,6,6,,22 lsel,s,,,74,106,8 nsll,s,1 d,all,ux
rect,
rect, 6,
6,
5,
5,
80,0
80,0 lsel,a,,,80,112,8 type,2 d,all,uy,0
rect,5,6,
rect,5,6, 30,0
30,0 lsel,a,,,115,131,4 real,3 alls
agen,9,11,11,,11 lsel,a,,,133,145,4 esurf cnvt,f,,.01
pcir,5,6,0,180 nsll,s,1 lsel,s,,,41,44 nsub,100,10000,1
agen,5,20,20,,22 type,2 lsel,a,,,49,52 solv
wpof,11,
wpof,11, 30 30 real,2 lsel,a,,,57,60 lsel,s,,,109,,,1
pcir,5,6,180,360 mat,3 lsel,a,,,65,68 d,all,uy,
d,all,uy, 50
50
agen,4,25,25,,22 esurf cm,l2,line nsub,100,10000,1
nsll,s,1 outres,all,all
type,3 alls
esurf solv
Lagrange: Penalty:
CPU: CPU:
14 Sec. 24 Sec.
24 Sec.
Sliding example
/prep7
lsel,s,,,14,18,2
et,1,42,,,1
nsll,s,1
et,2,169
type,2
et,3,171,,3
real,2
mp,ex,1,2e5
mat,2
rect,1.5,2,0,5
esurf
wpof,1,2.5
lsel,s,,,7,8
pcir,1,1.5,90,90
nsll,s,1
aovl,all
type,3
adel,3,,,1
esurf
adel,7,8,1,1
lsel,s,,,1,,,1
aadd,all
d,all,all
arsym,x,all
/solu
agen,2,2,2,,4.5,1.8,,0,,1
nlgeo,on /post26
l,16,5
nsub,30,30,30 rfor,2,141,f,y
asbl,2,21
outres,all,all rfor,3,147,f,y
adel,3,,,1
lsel,s,,,9,,,1 *rep,3,1
esiz,.2
d,all,uy,4 add,6,2,3,4
amap,1,1,2,3,4
alls add,6,6,5
amap,4,16,5,19,18
solv plva,6
Bending example Lagrange:
10 Iterations
Bending stress 2 Sec.
Penalty Key(10)=1:
54 Iterations
12 Sec.
Contact penetration
Metal forming example
Element: Solid45
Material: BISO
Load: Displacement
Load: Displacement
/prep7 asel,s,,,8 /solu
/ solu
et,1,185,,1 nsla,s,1 nlgeo,on Lagrange:
et,2,173,,3,,2 type,2 nsub,10,100
et,3,170 esurface outres,all,
outres,all, 20
20
578 Iterations
mp,ex,1,2e5 n,20000,
n,20000, 3,3,10
3,3,10 csys 337 Sec.
mp,
mp ,nuxy,1,0.3
nuxy,1,0.3 n,20001,3,3,10 nsel,s,loc,x,0
tb,
tb ,biso,1
biso,1 local,11,1,0,
local,11,1,0, 6,10,0,0,
6,10,0,0,
90
90 d,all,ux
tbdata,1,200,1000 n,30000 nsel,s,loc,z,0 Penalty Key(10)=1:
r,2,5,,,,,5 nrot,30000 d,all,all 546 Iterations
r,3,2,,,,,5 type,3 alls
cylin,0,1,0,30,0,90 real,3 d,30000,rotz,
d,30000,rotz, 3.14*3/4
3.14*3/4 250 Sec.
lesi,1,,,4 tshape,
tshape ,cylin
cylin solve
lesi,7,,,35 e,20000,20001
*rep,3,1 tshape,
tshape ,pilot
pilot
vmes,all e,30000
vsym,y,all Type,2
numm,
numm ,node
node asel,s,,,3
numm,
numm ,kp kp nsla,s,1
n,10000,
n,10000, 3,
3,
6,10
6,10 type,2
n,10001,3,
n,10001,3, 6,10
6,10 esurface
type,3
real,2
tshasp,
tshasp ,cylin
cylin
e,10000,10001
/prep7 lsel,s,,,2
et,1,183,,,1 nsll,s,1 Rubber example
et,2,183,,,1,,,1 type,3 Lagrange:
et,3,169 real,3 Element: Plane183
et,4,172,,4,,2 esurf 32 Iterations
mp,ex,1,2e5 lsel,s,,,8,12,4
nsll,s,1
Material: Mooney 13 Sec.
tb,hyper,2,1,2,moon
tbdata,1,1,.2,2e3 type,4 Contact: Pure Lagrange
Contact: Pure Lagrange&
&Friction
Friction
Mp,mu,2,0.3 esurf
rect,1,5,0,3 lsel,s,,,5 Load: Pressure
Penalty Key(10)=1:
rect,2,5,1.5,4 nsll,s,1
type,3
43 Iterations
asba,1,2
rect,2.1,5,2.5,3.5 real,4 13 Sec.
wpof,3,2 esurf
pcir,.501 lsel,s,,,13,14,1
esiz,.3 nsll,s,1
ames,1,3,2 type,4
esiz,.1 esurf
type,2 /solu
mat,2 nlgeo,on
ames,2 solcon,,,,1e2
nsel,s,loc,y,0
d,all,uy
nsel,s,loc,y,3.5
sf,all,pres,2
alls
nsub,10,100,1
solv
/prep7 /solu
et,1,181 nlgeo,on Shell example Lagrange:
et,2,170 nsel,s,loc,x,0
et,3,173,,3,,2 d,all,all Element: Shell181 15 Iterations
keyopt,3,11,1 nsel,s,loc,x,10
mp,ex,1,2e5 nsel,r,loc,y,5 Material: elastic 8 Sec.
r,1,.5 nsel,r,loc,z,0
r,2,,,.1 f,all,fz,1000 Contact: Pure Lagrange
r,3,,,.1 alls Penalty Key(10)=1:
rect,0,10,0,5 nsub,1,1,1 Load: Force
agen,3,1,1,,,,0.5 solv
16 Iterations
esiz,1 8 Sec.
esha,2
ames,all
type,3
real,2
asel,s,,,1,,,1
esurf,,top
type,2
asel,s,,,2,,,1
esurf,,bottom
type,3
real,3
asel,s,,,2,,,1
esurf,,top
type,2
asel,s,,,3,,,1
esurf,,bottom
Let us talk about convergence
Suggestion
One reason for convergence difficulties could be the following:
• FE Model is not modeled correctly in a physical sense
1) If you use a point load to do a plastic analysis, you will never get the converged solution.
Because of the singularity at the node, on which the concentrated force is applied, the
stress is infinite. The local singularity can destroy the whole system convergence
behavior. The same thing holds for the contact analysis. If you simplify the geometry or use
a too coarse mesh (with the consequence that the contact region is just a point contact
instead of an area contact) you most likely will end up with some problems in convergence.
point load Geometry Mesh

σ
ε
plastic analysis contact analysis
Suggestion
• FE Model is not modeled correctly in a numerical sense
2) A possible rigid body motion is quite often the reason which causes divergence in a
contact analysis. This could be the result of the following: We always believe, that if we
model the gap size as zero from geometry, it should also be zero in the FE model. But due
to the mathematical approximation and discretization, it does not have necessarily to be
zero anymore. Exactly, this can kill the convergence. If possible, use KEYOPT(5) to close
the gap. You can also use KEYOPT(9)=1 to ignore 1% penetration, if it is modeled.
KEYOPT(5)=0
KEYOPT(5)=1
Suggestion
• FE Model is not modeled correctly in a numerical sense
ω
Status
KEYOPT(5)=0 KEYOPT(5)=1
Suggestion
• Numerically bad conditioned FE Model
4) ANSYS uses the penalty method as a basis to solve the contact problem and the
convergence behavior largely depends on the penalty stiffness itself. A semidefault value
for the penalty stiffness is used, which usually works fine for a bulky model, but might not be
suitable for a bending dominated problem or a sliding problem. A sign for bad conditioning is
that the convergence curve runs parallel to the the convergence norm. Choosing a smaller
value for FKN always makes the problem easier to converge. If the analysis is not
converging, because of the too much penetration, turn off the Lagrange multiplier.
The result is usually not as bad as you would believe.
FKN=1 FKN=0.01
Suggestion
FKN=0.01, KEY(10)=0 FKN=0.01, KEY(10)=1
FKN=1: KEY(10)=1
Suggestion
FKN=.1 FKN=0.0001
FKN=.1 FKN=0.0001
Suggestion
Lagrange:
Bending stress 10 Iterations
2 Sec.
Penalty Key(10)=1:
54 Iterations
12 Sec.
Contact penetration
Suggestion
TIP
FKN=1
How can I know, whether the contact stiffness is too large which causes the
convergence difficulties ???
The typical sign for a too large value for the contact stiffness is that after several
iterations the force convergence value keeps almost constant, although the max.
DOF increment is getting smaller and smaller.
Suggestion
TIP
FKN=.1
How can I know, whether the contact stiffness is too small which causes the
convergence difficulties ???
The typical sign for a too small value for the contact stiffness is that after several
iterations the force convergence value is converging, but the max. DOF increment is
not getting smaller and the penetration is violated very often.
FKN=.01
Suggestion
• Load step is too large Error in element formulation or element is turned inside out
5) If it is a large deflection problem, you usually need more substeps. 5 to 10 substeps are
good if the rotations are not too large (<180 degrees). If it is a small deflection problem, you
should reduce FKN, because FKN*d produces a large force, which can destroy the element.
NLGEO,ON
NSUB,1,1,1 NLGEO,ON
NSUB,10,100,1
Suggestion
• Quads instead of triads à Error in element formulation or element is turned inside out
6) If some elements are locally distorted you might get an error in the element formulation or
the element is even turned inside out. Try to use a coarser mesh in this region to avoid
those problems. You can also use NCNV,0 to continue the analysis and ignore those local
problems if they do not effect the global equilibrium. In general, try to use triangular,
tetrahedral or hexahedral elements (linear). Do not use quadratic hexahedral elements.
Error in element formulation
Linear quads Midside triads
Suggestion
• The parts have no unique minimum potential energy position.
7) If the max. DOF increment is not getting smaller and the force convergence norm keeps
almost constant, probably some parts in the model are oscillating. Here, introducing a small
friction coefficient is usually better than using a weak spring, not knowing exactly where to
place it. Friction can be applied to all contact elements (try MU=0.01 or 0.1)
MU=0 MU=0.1
Suggestion
• Unreasonable defined contact pair
8) Sometimes it is also important to think about possible contact configurations: Which surface
or point will be in contact with which surface ??? The way to define the contact or target can
influence the convergence behavior as shown below.
Target
Contact
Contact
Target
Suggestion
Some times, if you define the contact and target properly, the analysis convergences
much faster, and the result is also better.
Target
Contact
Target
F
F
Contact
Contact Target
Target Contact
Suggestion
• Unreasonable defined contact region
10) It is not always a good idea to define as less contact as possible to avoid convergence
problems. If a region is getting into contact (e.g. self contact) but no contact pair has
been defined, the elements will be necessarily distorted. This could result in a non
positive value for the Jacobin determinant of those elements resulting in an error.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Suggestion
Not converged result converged result
No contact region is defined contact region is defined
Suggestion
• Unreasonable defined plastic material
11) It is not always a good idea to define the tangential stiffness to be zero using a plastic
material law. If the yield stress is reached all over the whole cross section, there is no
material resistance anymore to carry the load. There will be a plastic hinge and so the
solution will never converge. In this case, input the correct tangential stiffness.
Plastic strain Stress strain curve with
tangential slope zero
Suggestion
• Unreasonable defined plastic material
Plastic strain
Stress strain curve with
tangential slope 10000
Contact region
Stress distribution
Suggestion
• Instable solution
13) Some time, the solution could be instable, if the static analysis type is used, e.g if the
contact region changes abruptly. In this case, you can use more load steps strategy to get
rid of the instable solution.
FE model Instable point Next solution
Suggestion
• Instable solution
TIP
FE model Load step1, ends shortly Load step2, starts shortly

before the snap through after the snap through.
Suggestion
/prep7 lsel,s,,,5
TIP et,1,182,2 nsll,s,1
/solu
et,2,169 nlgeom,on
type,2 nsub,100,100,1
et,3,171,,1,,1 esurf
mp,ex,1,2e5 outres,all,all
lsel,s,,,2,3 nsel,s,loc,y,0
mp,mu,1,.1 nsll,s,1
In order to model the contact region mp,prxy,1,.3 d,all,all
type,3 lsel,s,,,6,,,1
r,1,,,.001,,,2
reasonably, you should define two contact r,2,,,.001,,,2
esurf d,all,ux
pairs, one for load step1 and another for lsel,s,,,2 d,all,uy,.5
rect,0,1,0,3 nsll,s,1
load step2, and use the node detection wpof,1,3 alls
type,2 solv
wprot,20
option(KEYOPT(4)=1, as shown below. rect,.2,3,0,.2
real,2 /COM Load step2
esurf lsel,s,,,6,,,1
esize,.2 lsel,s,,,5,8,3 d,all,ux
amesh,1 nsll,s,1
esize,.1 d,all,uy,1
type,3 alls
ames,all esurf nsub,10,10,1
solv
Status1
Contact1 Target1 Status2

Target2 Contact2
Suggestion
• Rigid body motion, after the large deformation
14) For metal forming process, in the end of the simulation, if the analysis does not show the
convergence behavior, please watch the deformed configuration, if the work piece is out of
the holder, the rigid body motion occurs.
Stable instable
Suggestion
Good mesh will generally make problem easier to converge.
• The fine mesh and similar are always good the contact simulation:
Normal stress
Geometry Sphere influence Mesh

Contact Pressure
Contact Pressure
Suggestion
Geometry Contact region
Contact region
Contact mesh
Suggestion
Normal stress
Contact pressure
Contact pressure
Suggestion
Geometry & Boundary condition Start mesh Contact settings
Suggestion
Stress on contact surface
Fixed scaling
before local refinement
contact pressure
before local refinement Fixed scaling
Suggestion
Stress on contact surface
After local refinement
contact pressure
After local refinement
Convergence history
How can I make the problem converge?
• Trust yourself: I’m able to make it converge!
• Consider the problem as idealized real world problem:
20% Mechanics expertise, 20% Engineer expertise
30% FEA expertise, 30% Software expertise
• Use the magic KEYOPTIONS
KEYOPT(5)=1: To eliminate the rigid body motion
KEYOPT(9)=1: To eliminate the geometric noise
KEYOPT(10)=2: To make ANSYS think
MPC Applications
MPC Applications
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. MPC connection for SOLIDSOLID, SHELLSHELL
3. MPC connection for SOLIDSHELL
4. MPC connection SOLIDBEAM and SHELLBEAM
5. MPC connection between the FE model and loading point
1. Introduction, What is MPC?
L
u i +
• MPC means: Multipoint Constraint PC ∑ C u = C
j =1
j j 0 ( j ≠ i )
4
+ UY ( 1 ) = Sin ( ROTZ ( 3 ) ) • L L ( 1 )
Beam
1 3 2
− UY ( 2 ) = Sin ( ROTZ ( 3 ) ) • L L ( 2 )
L L ( 1 ) + ( 2 )
Solid 0 = UY ( 1 ) − UY ( 2 ) − 2 L • Sin ( ROTZ ( 3 ) )
MPC
For small rotation:
( 1 )
UY ROTZ ( 3 ) 0 = UY ( 1 ) − UY ( 2 ) − 2 L • ( ROTZ ( 3 ) )
( 2 ) CE , 2 , 0 , 1 , UY , 1 , 2 , UY , −1 , 3 , ROTZ , −2 L
UY
1. Introduction, What do you need MPC?
• To connect the dissimilar mesh:
– If the geometries are not topologically connected, you can mesh the geometry
independently and connect the FE model via MPC.
Geometry Dissimilar mesh Stress distribution

Connected via MPC
• To connect the different element types:
– If the different element types are used on the connection region, because of
the different DOFs, the connectivity is not consistent. The consistence can be
achieved in the FE model via MPC.
Geometry Solids and Shells Deformation

Connected via MPC
• To apply the remote load:
– If the loading point is not connected to the FE model, the connection can be
achieved in the FE model via MPC.
Loading point and FE model
Connected via MPC
Stress distributions
1. Introduction, Why the existing contact algorithm is not used?
• The results may depend on specified contact stiffness.
– The existing bonded contact algorithm using the penalty method, because of
contact stiffness(cause the illconditioning) and the penetration, it might
influence the accuracy of the result.
• Multiple iterations are required to adjust penetration in order to
satisfy equilibrium even for small deformation problems.
– This will cause the iteration, even for linear problem.
• Occasionally spurious natural frequencies can occur in modal analysis.
– This is because of the contact stiffness used.
• Only translational DOFs are treated.
– This will cause the accuracy problem, if the distance between the contact and
target is not zero.
– Shell/beam assembly can not be handled.
1. Introduction, Why the existing contact algorithm is not used?
• It is only suitable for small strain.
– Because the existing CE method always uses the original nodal orientation.
• The RBE3 constraint can only support low order elements.
– 10 nodes tetrahedron element are most commonly used element.
• It is not allowed to apply displacement constraints on the master node
of RBE3
1. Introduction, Advantages of new MPC approach
• Build MPC equations internally.
– It is not necessary to define the equations by hand, the user treats the
connection as bonded contact, ANSYS will generate automatically the MPC.
• Degrees of freedom of the contact surface nodes are eliminated.
– This will improve solution efficiency.
• No contact stiffness is required as an input.
– The accuracy of the solution is not dependent on tryanderror anymore.
• For small deformation problem, it represents “true linear contact”
behavior.
– No iteration is needed in solving system equations.
• For large deformation problems, the MPC equations are updated
during each iteration.
1. Introduction, Advantages of new MPC approach
• Not only translational but rotational degrees of freedom can also be
constrained.
– It will improve the solution accuracy, and makes the connection between
solidshell, shellshell, solidbeam and shellbeam more reasonable.
• The generation of internal MPC is also very easy thanks to contact
pair definition.
– For the users, it is nothing new, if you know how to define the contact.
• It is not like MSC/Nastran (RBE3 type)
– Shape functions are taken into account automatically; no weight factor
is needed.
– not only forces but also displacements can be applied.
Procedure:
1) Treat the connection as contact surface, use commands or Contact Wizard
to define the contact and the target.
2) Set the contact element keyoptions:
KEYOPT(2)=2 this will activate the MPC method
KEYOPT(4)=2 nodal based
KEYOPT(12)=5 or 6 Set the bonded contact key
3) Run the analysis
Caution: if the mesh between the contact and the target is
similar, the MPC method gives the same solution as the
continued mesh.
if the mesh between the contact and the target is largely
different, the stress gradient will be influenced. The
closer the mesh, the better will be the result.
Accuracy Test
10 Closed solution Solid45 solution
1
PL 3 62 . 5 * 20 3
δ= = = 1
20 3 EI 5 E 5
E=2e5 Nu=0 F=62.5
Displacement
Stress
Similar mesh connected via MPC Dissimilar mesh connected via
MPC
/prep7 rect,2,10,0,10
rect,5,15,7,11 lsel,s,,,4,10,3 !select the contact side
et,1,42 asba,1,2 nsll,s,1 !select the contact
et,2,169 !Target element rect,5,11,0,3
nodes
et,3,171 !Contact element asba,3,1
adel,all type,3 !turn on the contact type
Keyopt,3,2,2 !MPC method lfil,11,12,1 real,3 !turn on the ID
Keyopt,3,4,2 !nodal based lfil,8,6,1
Esurf !generate the contact
al,all
keyopt,3,12,5 bonded contact
rect,10,5,5,15
mp,ex,1,2e5 rect,2,20,0,10 lsel,s,,,18 !select the target side
mp,prxy,1,.3 asba,2,3
lsel,a,,,21,22 !
smrt,3
ames,1 nsll,s,1 !select the target nodes
esiz,1.5 type,2 !turn on the target type
smrt,off
ames,4 Esurf !generate the target
nsel,s,loc,x,10 alls
d,all,ux
Define the element types nsel,s,loc,y,5 Define contact and the
and the keyoptions d,all,uy
target elements
nsel,s,loc,y,15
cp,1,uy,all
nsel,s,loc,x,10
sf,all,pres,1
alls
Model1: mesh is pretty Model2: mesh is quite Model2: consistent

similar SMAX=1.71 different SMAX=1.71 mesh SMAX=1.71
If you have the geometry penetration: Model2: Penetration and
1) Set the PINBALL to catch the contact KEYOPT(9)=1 SMAX=1.71
2) Use KEYOPT(9)=1 to ignore the
pentration
If you have the geometry gap: Model2: Gap and KEYOPT(9)=1
1) Set the PINBALL to catch the contact SMAX=1.73
2) Use KEYOPT(9)=1 to ignore the
pentration
Closed solution
D = 20 d = 10 g = 1
π • 10 3
M b =
32
σ b = 1
σ = 1.74 • σ b = 1.74 • 1 = 1.74
Hex Tets
Stress concentration
Caution: for nonplaner connection, set KEYOPT(9)=1 to
ignore the local penetration caused by dissimilar mesh.
d1=20 rect,0,l/2,0,d1/2
KEYOPT(9)=0 d2=10 rect,l/2,l,d1/2(d1d2)/4,d1/2
g=1 aadd,16,17
l=10 rect,2*l0.5*l,2*l,0,d2/2
/prep7 vrot,16,18,,,,,2,1,180,2
et,1,95 smrt,off
et,2,170 esiz,d2/5 /solu
et,3,174,,2,,2 vsweep,4,18,28 nsel,s,loc,x,0
keyopt,3,9,1 vsweep,6,28,39 d,all,all
keyopt,3,12,5 vsweep,3 nsel,s,loc,z,0
mp,ex,1,2e5 vsweep,5 d,all,uz
mp,prxy,1,.3 asel,s,,,2,6,4 nsel,s,loc,x,l*2
rect,l/2,l,0,d1/2(d1d2)/4 asel,a,,,7,9,2 sfgrad,pres,0,y,0,2/d2
rect,l,2*l0.5*l,0,d2/2 asel,a,,,13,14 sf,all,pres
aadd,all nsla,s,1 alls
adel,all type,3 eqsl,pcg,1e7
lfil,7,10,g esurf solv
asel,s,,,20,22
KEYOPT(9)=1 al,all
asel,a,,,27,31,4
vrot,1,,,,,,2,1,180,2
smrt,1 asel,a,,,33,38,5
vsweep,1,1,8 nsla,s,1
vsweep,2,8,15 type,2
esurf
Consistent shell mesh Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC
/PREP7 BLOCK,0,500,0,40,0,50, asel,s,,,2 /solu
et,1,181 vdel,all nsla,s,1 nsel,s,loc,x,0
et,2,170 adel,5,6 type,2 nsel,a,loc,x,500
et,3,175,,2 BLOCK,225,275,0,40,50,500, real,2 d,all,all
keyopt,3,12,5 vdel,all esurf nsel,s,loc,z,500
mp,ex,1,206000 adel,5,6 lsel,s,,,13,16 *get,nn,node,,count
mp,prxy,1,0.3 esiz,12 nsll,s,1 f,all,fx,1000/nn
r,1,2 ames,all type,3 f,all,fy,1000/nn
esurf f,all,fz,1000/nn
1st mode 3rd mode 5th mode
1 88.370 0.033% 1 88.349 First 10

First 10 2 190.52 1.197%
Frequency from 2 192.80 Frequency from
3 668.62 0.322% 3 670.77
Modal analysis Modal analysis
4 711.48 0.208% 4 710.00
With consistent 5 1203.3 0.220%
With dissimilar
5 1200.4 shell mesh via MPC
shell mesh 6 1212.9 0.412% 6 1217.9
7 1261.5 0.254% 7 1258.3
8 1503.3 0.578% 8 1494.6
9 1628.1 0.725% 9 1616.3
10 1735.2 0.536% 10 1725.9
Consistent shell mesh Difference Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC

MPC connection for SOLIDSOLID(static analysis)
Displacement Displacement
Stress Stress
Consistent solid mesh Dissimilar solid mesh via MPC
MPC connection for SOLIDSOLID(modal analysis)
0.04%
0.09%
0.08%
0.05%
0.07%
0.05%
Consistent solid mesh Dissimilar solid mesh via MPC
MPC connection for SHELLSHELL(static analysis)
Displacement Displacement
Stress
Stress
Consistent shell mesh Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC

Without offset with offset
MPC connection for SHELLSHELL( Modal analysis)
1 111.35 0.02% 1 111.37 0.02% 1 111.37
2 203.86 0.04% 2 203.95 0.04% 2 203.95
3 227.26 0.02% 3 227.34 0.02% 3 227.34
4 272.38 0.01% 4 272.42 0.01% 4 272.42
5 323.39 0.07% 5 323.63 0.07% 5 323.63
6 361.17 0.17% 6 361.85 0.17% 6 361.85
Consistent shell mesh Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC

Without offset with offset
MPC connection for SHELLSHELL(EdgetoEdge)
Contact175
Target170
Example Bonded contact with MPC method
Part2
Part 3 to 5
Part 6 to 8
Part1
Single part solution
It does not require alignment between the solid mesh and shell mesh
Procedure:
1) Treat the connection as contact, use Target170 for solid and Contact175 for shell.
3) Set the target element keyoptions:
KEYOPT(5)=0 Automatic constraint type detection (default)
KEYOPT(5)=1 Solidsolid constraint (no rotational DOFs are constrained)
KEYOPT(5)=2 Shellshell constraint (both translational and rotational
DOFs are constrained)
KEYOPT(5)=3 Shellsolid constraint (both translational and rotational
DOFs are constrained on shell edges; only translational
DOFs are constrained on solid surfaces)
4) Run the analysis
Accuracy Test 10
Closed solution
1
PL 3 62 . 5 * 20 3
δ= = = 1
20 3 EI 5 E 5
E=2e5 Nu=0 F=62.5
Displacement
Stress
Consistent solid mesh Solidshell connected via MPC
Shell
elements New
(thickness t ) Virtual KEYOPT(5)=1
Contact shell
Solid elements elements New Contact
elements (preexisting) elements
SHELL181
CONTA175
MPC equations
Target elements (translation DOF only)
TARG170 Shell
Virtual shell solid thickness
(on top of solid)
Original FEA mode
surface 1 st Approach: solidsolid constraint
The virtual shell is generated
with SHSD,ID
/prep7 lsel,s,,,16
et,1,45 nsll,s,1
et,2,181 type,4
et,3,170 real,3
keyopt,3,5,1 !KEYOPT(5)=1 esurf
et,4,175,,2 !KEYOPT(2)=2 asel,s,,,6
keyopt,4,12,5 !KEYOPT(12)=5 nsla,s,1
mp,ex,1,2e5 type,3
mp,prxy,1,.3 esurf
r,1,1 shsd,3 !Virtual shell
block,0,10,0,10,0,10 nsel,s,loc,x,0
wpof,0,0,5 d,all,all
rect,10,20,0,10 nsel,s,loc,x,20
esiz,1.5 f,all,fz,1000
vmes,1 alls
type,2 /SOL
ames,7 solv
Solids solution
Shell
elements New Virtual
(thickness t ) KEYOPT(5)=2
Contact shell
elements elements
Solid
elements (preexisting)
MPC equations
Target elements (translation + Rotation
TARG170 DOF)
FTOLN
(on top of solid) shell edge virtual shell
Original FEA mode Influence
2 nd Approach: shellshell constraint distance
The virtual shell is generated
with SHSD,ID
/prep7 lsel,s,,,16
et,1,45 nsll,s,1
et,2,181 type,4
et,3,170 real,3
et,4,175,,2 !KEYOPT(2)=2 asel,s,,,6
mp,ex,1,2e5 type,3
mp,prxy,1,.3 esurf
r,1,1 shsd,3 !Virtual shell
block,0,10,0,10,0,10 nsel,s,loc,x,0
wpof,0,0,5 d,all,all
rect,10,20,0,10 nsel,s,loc,x,20
esiz,1.5 f,all,fz,1000
vmes,1 alls
type,2 /SOL
ames,7 solv
Solids solution
Shell
elements
(thickness t )
KEYOPT(5)=3
Contact elements
Solid (preexisting)
elements
MPC equations
shell edge – solid surface
Target elements FTOLN
TARG170 Influence
(on top of solid) distance
Original FEA mode 3 rd Approach: shellsolid constraint
The virtual shell is not
necessary
/prep7 lsel,s,,,16
et,1,45 nsll,s,1
et,2,181 type,4
et,3,170 real,3
et,4,175,,2 !KEYOPT(2)=2 asel,s,,,6
mp,ex,1,2e5 type,3
mp,prxy,1,.3 esurf
r,1,1 nsel,s,loc,x,0
block,0,10,0,10,0,10 d,all,all
wpof,0,0,5 nsel,s,loc,x,20
rect,10,20,0,10 f,all,fz,1000
esiz,1.5 alls
vmes,1 /SOL
type,2 solv
ames,7
Solids solution
Summary: For most applications, default KEYOPT(5)=0 or 3 can be used. Many test
cases show the best solution with KEYOPT(5)=2.
New New
Virtual New Contact Virtual
elements
shell shell
elements CONTA175 elements
SHELL18
1
MPC equations
MPC equations
MPC equations
(translation DOF only)
(translation + Rotation
Shell shell edge – solid FTOLN
Virtual shell solid DOF) FTOLN
thickness surface
surface Influence Influence
shell edge virtual
shell distance distance
KEYOPT(5)=1 KEYOPT(5)=2 KEYOPT(5)=0,3

SHSD,ID SHSD,ID
1 st Approach: 2 nd Approach: 3 rd Approach:

solidsolid constraint shellshell constraint shellsolid constraint
2. MPC connection for SolidSHELL
Two ways to exclude gap between contact and target:
1) if there is an intersection between the contact normal and the target surface,
you can use PSOLVE to physically extend the contact surface
contact surface contact surface
Example
Gap
/solu
target surface target surface psolve,elform
PSOLVE
fini
/solu
anty,modal
Gap before PSOLVE After PSOLVE modopt,lanb,7
mxpand,7
solv
2. MPC connection for ShellSHELL
Without PSOLVE
KEYOPT(9)=1
With PSOLVE
SET FREQ SET FREQ SET FREQ
1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000
2 0.0000 2 0.11336E02 2 0.0000
3 0.0000 3 0.19459E02 3 0.34178E03
4 0.12203E02 4 0.72671E01 4 0.11133E02
5 0.10909E02 5 0.23382 5 0.11707E02
6 0.13362E02 6 2.7936 6 0.34944E02
7 94.876 7 95.110 7 94.933
Modal Analysis
Consistent mesh MPC Distance=0.1
2) if there is no intersection between the contact normal and the target surface,
constraint equations are still built as long as contact node and target
segments are inside the pinball region, if you use KEYOPT(5)=4
In case, that the PSOLVE can not
move the nodes, You should use
KEYOPT(5)=4,
Otherwise, there will be no
constrains generated,
independent of the PINBALL
size.
KEYOPT(5) default KEYOPT(5)=4
SET FREQ SET FREQ SET FREQ
1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000
2 0.0000 2 0.11336E02 2 0.0000
3 0.0000 3 0.19459E02 3 0.21223E03
4 0.12203E02 4 0.72671E01 4 0.90930E03
5 0.10909E02 5 0.23382 5 0.12339E02
6 0.13362E02 6 2.7936 6 0.34500E02
7 94.876 7 95.110 7 97.702
Modal Analysis
Consistent mesh MPC Distance=0.1
2 nd Approach
Solids 3 rd Approach SolidShell

SMX=25.3 MPC
csys
/prep7 v,26,25,23,24,13,14,15,16 cswp,11,1 alls,belo /solu
et,1,185,,2 v,30,29,31,32,26,25,23,24 kgen,2,13,14,,25 vsym,x,all local,11,0,0,0,0,0,60
et,2,181 a,29,31,3,4 l,9,10,10 numm,node lsel,s,,,30,65,35
et,3,170 a,6,7,32,30 kgen,2,9,9,,,,500 numm,kp sfl,all,pres,6.4282
keyopt,3,5,3 va,18,10,6,14,17,1,5,2 l,9,11,4 asel,inve csys
et,4,175 asel,s,,,1,2 adra,25,,,,,,28 type,2 nsel,s,loc,z,1100
keyopt,4,2,2 asel,a,,,5 csys,1 ames,all nsel,a,loc,z,580
keyopt,4,12,5 acca,all kgen,2,2,8,6,25 alls,belo,area dsym,symm,z
mp,ex,1,2e5 lsel,s,,,2,7,5 l,18,19,5 arsym,x,all nsel,s,loc,y,0
r,1,50 lsel,a,,,12 kgen,2,2,2,,,40 numm,node dsym,symm,y
r,2,,,,,,300 lcca,all l,2,20,3 numm,kp nsel,s,loc,x,1,1
cylin,375,425,80,600,40,90 lsel,s,,,4,5 adra,33,,,,,,34 alls d,all,ux
wprot,,60 lsel,a,,,10 kgen,2,7,7,,25 asel,s,,,8,31,318 d,all,roty,
cylin,85,140,0,750,90,90 lcca,all l,27,19,6 asel,a,,,1,2 d,all,rotz
vdel,all alls kgen,2,27,27,,,,500 asel,a,,,5 alls
adel,6,7,1,1 lesi,20,,,3 l,27,28,3 asel,a,,,41,43 solv
adel,11,12,1,1 lesi,9,,,5 adra,40,47,,,,,48 nsla,s,1
aovl,3,9 lesi,37,,,10 kgen,2,3,3,,25 type,3
aovl,4,10 lesi,17,,,20 l,36,18,6 real,2
adel,3,9,6,1 lesi,5,,,6 kgen,2,36,36,,,,500 esurf
adel,6,7,1,1 lesi,42,,,10 l,36,37,3 type,4
afil,11,12,39 vmes,all adra,39,54,,,,,55 real,2
afil,13,14,30 lsel,s,,,25,62,6225
lsel,a,,,33,47,14
lsel,a,,,54,68,14
lsel,a,,,78,87,9
nsll,s,1
esurf
Modal analysis
1 111.99 0.02% 1 112.08

2 206.05 0.04% 2 206.14
3 229.44 0.01% 3 229.42
4 273.70 0.17% 4 274.16
5 324.42 0.32% 5 325.47
6 368.72 0.38% 6 370.14
Consistent solid mesh 3 rd Approach: shellsolid constraint
Shells
Solids
Boundary conditions FEModel Results
Consistent solid mesh shellsolid MPC constraint
Original Solids DEfeatured Solids
shellsolid MPC constraint
Procedure:
1) Treat the solid surface and/or shell edge as contact surface, treat the beam
node as target pilot node. No additional target is needed.
KEYOPT(4)=1 Forcedistributed surface
KEYOPT(4)=2 Rigid constraint surface
3) Run the analysis
/prep7 vext,all,,,,,150
et,1,45
acle,all
et,2,188
k,100,0,0,150
et,3,173,,2 !KEYOPT(2)=2
k,101,0,0,300
Keyopt,3,4,1 !KEYOPT(4)=1
k,102,1,1,150
keyopt,3,12,5 !KEYOPT(12)=5 l,100,101
et,4,170
lsel,s,,,33
mp,ex,1,2e5
LATT,1,,2,,102,,1
mp,prxy,1,0.3
lmes,33
SECTYPE, 1,BEAM, CTUBE
real,10
SECOFFSET, CENT type,4
SECDATA,10,11
tshap,pilo !Pilot node on beam
pcir,10,11,0,90
e,2017 !Pilot node on beam
pcir,10,11,90,180
pcir,10,11,180,270
nsel,s,loc,z,150 SOLIDBEAM
nsel,u,,,2017
pcir,10,11,270,360
esel,s,type,,1
numm,kp
type,3
lesi,4,,,2
Esurf !Contact on solid
esiz,,8
/solu
et,10,42 nsel,s,loc,z,0
esha,2 d,all,all
type,10
nsel,s,loc,z,300
ames,all
f,2018,fx,1000
esiz,,20
alls
type,1
KEYOPT(4)=2
Rigid constraint surface
Solid solution SolidBeam via MPC
KEYOPT(4)=1
Forcedistributed surface
Example
/prep7 adra,1,4,7,10,,,6
et,1,181 real,2
et,2,188 ames,5,8
et,3,175,,2,,2 !KEYOPT(2)=2 k,100,0,0,150
Keyopt,3,4,2 !KEYOPT(2)=2 k,101,0,0,300
keyopt,3,12,5 !KEYOPT(12)=5 k,102,1,1,150
et,4,170 l,100,101
mp,ex,1,2e5 lsel,s,,,18
mp,prxy,1,0.3 LATT,1,,2,,102,,2
r,2,1 lmes,18
SECTYPE, 2, BEAM, CTUBE real,10
SECOFFSET, CENT type,4
SECDATA,10,11 tshap,pilo
pcir,0,10.5,0,90 e,673 SHELLBEAM
pcir,0,10.5,90,180 nsel,s,loc,z,150
pcir,0,10.5,180,270 nsel,u,,,673
pcir,0,10.5,270,360 esel,s,type,,1
numm,kp type,3
lsel,s,,,1,10,3 esurf
lesi,all,,,8 /solu
esha,2 nsel,s,loc,z,0
esiz,,20 d,all,all
k,50 nsel,s,loc,z,300
k,51,0,0,150 f,674,fx,1000
l,50,51 alls
KEYOPT(4)=2
Solid solution ShellBeam via MPC
KEYOPT(4)=1
Solid solution ShellBeam via MPC
Procedure:
1) Treat the FE surface and/or edge as contact surface, treat the loading node
as target pilot node. No additional target is needed.
KEYOPT(4)=1 Forcedistributed surface
KEYOPT(4)=2 Rigid constraint surface
3) Run the analysis
/prep7
et,1,42
et,2,169
et,3,171,,2,,11 !KEYOPT(2)=2 !KEYOPT(4)=1
keyopt,3,12,5 !KEYOPT(12)=5
mp,ex,1,2e5
mp,prxy,1,.3
rect,0,10,0,2
esiz,1
ames,1
n,100,5,5
lsel,s,,,2
nsll,s,1
type,3
real,3
esurf
alls
type,2
tshape,pilot
e,100
nsel,s,loc,x,0
d,all,all
alls
f,100,fy,100
KEYOPT(4)=1
KEYOPT(4)=2
/prep7 n,1000,0,0 Rigid constraint surface
et,1,42 lsel,s,,,5,8
et,2,169 nsll,s,1
/solu
et,3,171,,2,,1 type,3
nsel,s,loc,x,10
keyopt,3,12,5 real,3
d,all,all
mp,ex,1,2e5 esurf
alls
mp,prxy,1,.3 alls
f,1000,mz,.7e6
rect,10,10,5,5 type,2
nlgeo,on
pcir,3 tshape,pilot
solv
asba,1,2 e,1000
smrt,4
ames,all
Bending moment Shear force Torsion moment
/prep7 cylin,10,20,0,100,0,90 type,3 /solu

et,1,45 *rep,4,,,,,90,90 real,3 nsel,s,loc,z
et,2,170 numm,kp esurf d,all,all
et,3,173,,2,,1 esiz,3 alls alls
keyopt,3,12,5 vmes,all type,2 f,10000,mx,4.766e3
mp,ex,1,2e5 n,10000,0,0,100 tshape,pilot alls
mp,prxy,1,.3 asel,s,,,2,20,6 e,10000 solv
nsla,s,1
Bending moment Shear force Torsion moment
/prep7 cylin,10,20,0,100 type,3 /solu

et,1,63 esiz,3 real,3 nsel,s,loc,z
et,2,170 ames,3,4 esurf d,all,all
et,3,175,,2,,1 n,10000,0,0,100 alls alls
r,1,1 lsel,s,,,9,12 type,2 f,10000,mx,4.766
keyopt,3,12,5 nsll,s,1 tshape,pilot e3
mp,ex,1,2e5 e,10000 alls
mp,prxy,1,.3 solv
MPC applications
Parts are connected
via MPC
Boundary conditions
Remote force via MPC
Hex dominant mesh
MPC applications
MPC applications
Connection options
Four different methods to connect
t
the surface bodies with nonzero t
distance:
1) MPC t
2) Beam
3) Common nodes
4) Single body
MPC applications
Beam contact MPC contact
Common nodes Single solid part
MPC applications
Summary
0,5
0,485 0,487 0,487 0,473
0,4
Surface extension
Single solid part
0,3
Beam contact
MPC contact
0,2
+Joint
0,1
0
Connection methods
ANSYS Contact
Workbench Features
Workbench Features
Tim Pawlak
Corporate Fellow
ANSYS, Inc.
Objective and Outline
• Contact related features available in
ANSYS Workbench
– Contact objects
– Initial contact status
– Contact meshing
– Solution information
– Contact results
– Wizards
Workbench Contact Modeling
• Automatic contact generation for a
variety of CAD geometry
• Various options for specifying contact
behavior
• Associative with geometry changes
Contact Folder: Details
Automatic generation
based on pair options
Disable transparency
Rename based on
geometry names
Tolerance type:
a) slider
b) numeric value
Search sphere size
indicator appears in
graphics window
Contact Folder: Details
Auto detection types:
Face/Face
Face/Edge
Edge/Edge
Priority for type during
auto generation
Automates construction of
connections between part,
manual effort is sometimes
Joins solid and surface bodies necessary
together by defining contact Setting the appropriate priority
relationship between improves the outcome of the
corresponding faces and automatic generation, review
edges of generated objects is good
practice
Examples of Contact Types
Surface body face to
surface body edge
Solid body edge to
surface body edge
Surface body edge to
surface body edge
Contact Folder: Worksheet View
• Lists details for each contact object
• Good for verifying intentions
• Rows can be sorted by clicking column header
Contact Folder: Worksheet View
Columns can be sized by sliding header
divider
The RMB on the
header displays
options to add,
removed, and reset
columns
Contact Object Display
• Contact side is
red
• Target side is
blue
Contact Object Display
• Click on detail and
corresponding part
highlights
• Makes it easy to
understand definition
Contact Objects: Transparency
Selected contact
objects in tree will be
shown in graphics
window displayed
with corresponding
parts as more opaque
than other parts
Transparency can be
disabled, level of
opaqueness can be
adjusted in options
Contact Objects: Object Details
Highlight of geometry
entities by selection details
Symmetry behavior on
individual basis, including
auto asymmetry
Interface treatment
Contact stiffness
specification and update
options (very important for
good solution convergence)
Contact Object: RMB Options
Disable
transparency
Flip contact and
target
Rename based on
geometry
Initial Contact Status (Beta)
Available by inserting
a contact tool in the
contact folder.
Initial information
result object displays a
table of information
about the initial state
of contact throughout
the model
Initial Contact Status (Beta)
Lists useful
information such as:
1) Status
2) Number elements
contacting
3) Penetration and/or
gap (gap is negative)
4) Size of gaps closed
Valuable information
when setting up
contact simulations
Contact Meshing
Based on the sphere of Element size is synchronized
influence capability across the contact interface
Contact Meshing
Contact objects
can be drug and
dropped
Solution Information
• Convergence History
• Result Trackers
• Newton Raphson Residuals
Convergence History
Useful for
understanding the
solution progress
Solution output text
Force convergence
Max DOF increment
Line search parameter
Time increment
Result Trackers
Valuable for know how the
model performs with
increasing load
• Available for each
contact pair
• Converged
solution data
• Various types
Result Tracker Types
• Directional Deformations (x, y, z)
• Contact
– Number Contacting
– Number Sticking
– Pressure
– Penetration
– Gap
– Frictional Stress
– Sliding Distance
– Chattering
– Elastic Slip
– Normal Stiffness
– Max Tangential Stiffness
– Min Tangential Stiffness
– Resulting Pinball
Newton Raphson Residuals
Objects appear in tree if Shows regions where
activated and solution fails convergence is having difficulty,
to converged in this case the contact below the
washer and the bracket
Details
Contact Tool
• Collected by a
parent object
• Automatic
transparency
Contact Results
• Includes:
– Frictional stress
– Pressure
– Sliding distance
– Penetration
– Gap
– Status
– Reactions
Contact Tool Reactions
Command Objects
ANSYS macro
• Multiple instances allowed
• Can be exported or inserted
• Parametric output back to WB
Contact in 2D (Beta in 8.1)
2D surface
bodies
Options for
plane stress,
plain strain,
axisymmetry
Contact in 2D (Beta in 8.1)
Large Deflection 2D Sliding Contact
Contact Custom Wizard
• Purpose
– Helps ensure preferred
and proven options are
used
– Highlights recommends
features
Contact Features ANSYS Workbench
• Easy to use
• Wide variety of features
• Useful results
• Sophisticated simulation
Conclusions
• Variety of algorithms
• Higher order contact
• Selfcontact
• MPC assemblies
• Multiphysics applications
• Large contact/assembly models (100M)
• Ease of use
• Robustness
• Diagnostic tools

Ansys Contact Analysis Overview PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ansys Contact Analysis Overview PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contact Analysis in ANSYS

ANSYS offers a series of CONTA178 CONTA175 CONTA171­

High order No No Yes

Pure Yes Yes Yes

Delete Select Element type to view or list: Run CNCHECK command: List/Select

42 iterations FKN=0.01, KEY(10)=0 FKN=0.01,

81: MPC with 81: Penalty with 81: MPC without 81: Penalty without 80: MPC without

δΨ = ∫ σ T δε dV + ∫ ( ε N g N δg N + ε T g T δg T ) dA

ê Some finite amount of penetration, ∆ > 0, is required mathematically to maintain

ê Some finite amount of penetration, ∆ > 0, is required mathematically to maintain

Iteration n Iteration n+1 Iteration n+2

205 100 130

KEYOPT(10)=0 KEYOPT(10)=1 KEYOPT(10)=2

ITER. Conv. Large deflection problem:

δΨ = ∫ σ T δε dV + ∫ ( λ N δg N + λ T δg T ) dA

Penetration Pressure Penetration Pressure

Sy Pene Sy Pene Sy Pene

Pure Lagrange Pure Penalty(FKN=1) Pure Penalty(FKN=1e4)

Pure Lagrange Pure Penalty(FKN=1e4) Augmented Lagrange

point load Geometry Mesh

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

FE model Instable point Next solution

FE model Load step­1, ends shortly Load step­2, starts shortly

Contact­1 Target­1 Status­2

Geometry Sphere influence Mesh

Geometry & Boundary condition Start mesh Contact settings

Geometry Dissimilar mesh Stress distribution

Geometry Solids and Shells Deformation

Model­1: mesh is pretty Model­2: mesh is quite Model­2: consistent

1st mode 3rd mode 5th mode

1 88.370 0.033% 1 88.349 First 10

Consistent shell mesh Difference Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC

Consistent shell mesh Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC

Consistent shell mesh Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC Dissimilar shell mesh via MPC

KEYOPT(5)=1 KEYOPT(5)=2 KEYOPT(5)=0,3

1 st Approach: 2 nd Approach: 3 rd Approach:

Solids 3 rd Approach Solid­Shell

1 111.99 0.02% 1 112.08

Consistent solid mesh 3 rd Approach: shell­solid constraint

Boundary conditions FE­Model Results

Bending moment Shear force Torsion moment

/prep7 cylin,10,20,0,100,0,90 type,3 /solu

Bending moment Shear force Torsion moment

/prep7 cylin,10,20,0,100 type,3 /solu

You might also like

ANSYS offers a series of CONTA178 CONTA175 CONTA171

FE model Load step1, ends shortly Load step2, starts shortly

Contact1 Target1 Status2

Model1: mesh is pretty Model2: mesh is quite Model2: consistent

Solids 3 rd Approach SolidShell

Consistent solid mesh 3 rd Approach: shellsolid constraint

Boundary conditions FEModel Results