33 vues

Transféré par tonisugus

Finite element

Finite element

© All Rights Reserved

- 53615590 Non Linear Analysis of Spur Gear Using Matlab Code
- AEROSPACE_ENGINEERING.pdf
- Aeronautical Engineering
- Non-Linear Contact Analysis of Meshing Gears
- Creating a Continuous and Interactive Simulation Using Bicycle Dynamics and Real World Factors
- Fundamentals of Stress Analysis - Lec 04
- SALOME Meca Code Aster Abbreviations
- Friction of Rocks
- 3b
- Analysis of Traction Forces in a... Kannel 1986
- 2012_Explizit_Kontakte_UM (1)
- JJ310 STRENGTH OF MATERIAL Chapter 1(a)Forces on Material
- Shell Element
- 692262
- ME_F211_1083.pdf
- Walker Pres
- Behavior etc.pdf
- Tutorial 2
- Reference Manual V8
- Truss

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 62

(Contract G1RT-CT-2001-05034)

FENET RTD (Durability & Life Extension)

Report Title:

Benchmarks

Author:

A.W.A. Konter

Netherlands Institute for Metals Research

Date:

20 July 2005

Report No:

FENET-UNOTT-DLE-09

1/62

FENET Foreward

Contact analysis has been identified as an important area of development of FE

technology in the FENET EU thematic network (2001-2005). A series of four

workshops dedicated to contact analysis were launched under the Durability and Life

Extension RTD, chaired by Professor A.A. Becker (University of Nottingham).

The first FENET contact workshop (27-28 February 2002, Copenhagen) was focussed

on the current issues regarding the FE simulation of contact problems. The workshop

stimulated many discussions regarding difficulties experienced by FE users, current

limitations of commercial FE software, desirable contact features not currently being

offered by FE software, and the need for further research in FE contact analysis.

It was agreed that there is a need for developing advanced contact benchmarks

through the FENET network. Further FENET workshops were launched to devise

new advanced contact benchmarks. An invitation was issued to all FENET members

to suggest new potential contact benchmarks, and a new FENET Contact Working

Group was formed to discuss the merits of the benchmarks.

In the second FENET contact workshop (25 March 2004, Majorca), the requirements

for advanced contact benchmarks were discussed and a list of new advanced contact

benchmarks was proposed. The merits and disadvantages of each of the candidate

contact benchmarks were evaluated, and it was agreed to concentrate on only five

advanced contact benchmarks.

It was recognized that the dimensions and the material properties will play an

important role in highlighting the relevant features of the contact benchmarks.

Therefore, further FE analyses were performed to establish the geometric parameters,

material constants, values of the applied loads and the coefficient of friction. The task

of running the benchmarks was assigned to A.W.A. Konter (Netherlands Institute for

Metals Research).

Two further workshops on the FENET contact benchmarks were held; to discuss

comments and solutions received from various FENET members (7 October 2004,

Glasgow) and to discuss the final FE solutions (25 February 2005, Budapest).

This report is the final FENET report on the advanced contact benchmarks, and will

be subsequently released as a NAFEMS document. We would like to acknowledge

the support of the FENET Contact Working Group and the many individuals who

attended the four contact workshops and provided useful feedback on the contact

benchmarks.

University of Nottingham, UK

(Coordinator- FENET Durability and Life Extension)

2/62

Table of contents

1.

Introduction.........................................................................................................4

2.

2.1

Summary ...................................................................................................6

2.2

Introduction...............................................................................................7

2.3

Requested solutions ..................................................................................7

2.4

Analytical solution ....................................................................................7

2.5

FEM Solutions ..........................................................................................8

2.6

Modelling tips .........................................................................................13

2.7

Parameter study.......................................................................................14

3.

3.1

Summary .................................................................................................15

3.2

Introduction.............................................................................................16

3.3

Requested solutions ................................................................................16

3.4

FEM solutions.........................................................................................16

3.5

Modelling tips .........................................................................................25

3.6

Parameter study.......................................................................................25

4.

4.1

Summary .................................................................................................26

4.2

Introduction.............................................................................................28

4.3

Required solutions ..................................................................................28

4.4

Experimental results................................................................................29

4.5

FEM solutions.........................................................................................29

4.6

Modelling tips .........................................................................................39

4.7

Parameter study.......................................................................................40

5.

5.1

Summary .................................................................................................41

5.2

Introduction.............................................................................................42

5.3

Required solutions ..................................................................................42

5.4

FEM solutions.........................................................................................42

5.5

Modelling tips .........................................................................................53

5.6

Parameter study.......................................................................................53

6.

6.1

Summary .................................................................................................54

6.2

Introduction.............................................................................................55

6.3

Required solutions ..................................................................................55

6.4

FEM solutions.........................................................................................56

6.5

Modelling tips .........................................................................................59

6.6

Parameter study.......................................................................................59

References....................................................................................................................62

3/62

1. Introduction

NAFEMS has published a survey on FE Analysis of contact and friction [1] and a

booklet on how to undertake contact and friction analysis [2]. A contact benchmarks

report on two-dimensional problems was published as the first step in establishing a

set of FE Contact benchmarks [3]. It was acknowledged that although the current

published NAFEMS benchmarks were limited in scope, they were important as the

first step in establishing contact benchmarks.

A small FENET Working Group on Contact has been assembled with the

collaboration of the NAFEMS Non-linear Working Group. Following discussions on

the development of new advanced benchmarks, it was agreed to concentrate on only 5

contact benchmarks, as follows

2D Contact of cylindrical roller

3D Punch (Rounded edges)

3D Sheet metal forming

3D Loaded pin

3D Steel roller on rubber

The selected contact benchmarks exhibit the following features:

- 3D contact

- Frictional stick-slip in contact area

- 2D/3D Linear versus quadratic elements

- Shell contact

- Large strain contact

- Metal forming

- Mesh dependency

- Compression of rubber

- Rolling contact

Further FE analyses were performed to establish the geometric parameters, material

constants, values of the applied loads and the coefficient of friction.

The current report presents the results of the FE analyses performed on 2D and 3D

approximations of the proposed problems. Since all proposed benchmarks can be

reasonably well approximated with a 2D or an axisymmetric solution, all target results

presented here have been obtained with a 2D or an axisymmetric FE analysis. In

addition, 3D analyses have been performed and the results have been compared with

the initial 2D solutions (with the exception of Contact Benchmark 1).

Frequently, reports on results of benchmark analyses present numerical solutions for

selected problems, generated by different users using different FE codes. Often the

selection of different numerical input parameters by the analyst is not presented in the

report and the analyst presents his best choice of the generated solutions for a

particular problem.

As a result the effect of specific parameters, such as applied mesh density, element

type, contact parameter settings, number of loading steps etc. is difficult to quantify

and it is not clear whether obtained differences are caused by differences in the

applied FE code or differences in user input. The results presented in this report not

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

4/62

only compare results of different FE codes using as closely as possible identical input

parameters, but also show the effect of variations in these parameters.

5/62

2.

2.1

Summary

Ref. No.

Contact Benchmark - 1

Title

Contact

features

Curved contact surfaces

Deformable-deformable contact

Friction stick-slip along the contact line

Comparison of linear and quadratic elements

2D plane strain

Block height = 200 mm

Block width = 200 mm

Cylinder diameter =100 mm

Geometry

Material

properties

E punch = 210 kN / mm 2

E foundation = 70 kN / mm2

Analysis type Linear elastic material

Geometric non-linearity

Non-linear boundary conditions

Displacement Symmetry displacement constraints (half symmetry)

boundary

Bottom surface of the foundation is fixed (u x = u y = 0)

conditions

Applied

Vertical point load F = 35 kN

loads

Element type 2D plane strain

8 node quadratic elements

4 node linear elements

Contact

2 different cases:

properties

coefficient of friction = 0.0

coefficient of friction = 0.1

FE results

1. Plot of contact pressure against distance from centre of contact

2. Plot of tangential stress against distance from centre of contact

3. Plot of relative tangential slip against distance from centre of

contact

6/62

2.2

Introduction

A steel cylinder is pressed into an aluminium block. It is assumed that the material

behaviour for both materials is linear elastic. The cylinder is loaded by a point load

with magnitude F = 35 kN in the vertical direction. A 2D approximation (plane

strain) of this problem is assumed to be representative for the solution. An analytical

solution for the frictionless is known.

2.3

Requested solutions

Two solutions, one using friction coefficient 0.1 between the cylinders and one

frictionless solution, are requested for:

- length of contact zone

- pressure distribution as function of arc-length along contact surface

- tangential stress distribution as function of arc-length along contact

The solutions presented include:

- Element size, in particular near the contact zone

- Method for normal contact detection (penalty stiffness) or hard/direct contact

- Indication which surface is treated as master (contacting) and slave (contacted)

- Method for stick slip approximation (true stick-slip, penalty based, other)

The analysis results are presented with linear and quadratic elements.

2.4

Analytical solution

An analytical solution for this contact problem can be obtained from the Hertzian

contact formulae [4] for two cylinders (line contact). The maximum contact pressure

is given by:

pmax =

Fn E*

2 BR*

where Fn is the applied normal force, E * the combined elasticity modulus, B the

length of the cylinder and R* the combined radius.

The contact width 2a is given by:

8Fn R*

a=

.

BE*

Using the normalised coordinate = x / a with x the Cartesian x-coordinate, the

pressure distribution is given by:

p = pmax 1 2

The combined elasticity modulus is determined from the modulus of elasticity and

Poissons ratio of the cylinder and block E1 , 1 and E2 , 2 , as follows:

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

7/62

E* =

2 E1 E2

E2 (1 12 ) + E1 (1 22 )

The combined radius of curvature is evaluated from the radius of curvature of the

cylinder and block R1 and R2 , as follows:

RR

R* = 1 2

R1 + R2

For the target solution, the block is approximated with an infinitely large radius. The

combined radius is then evaluated as:

RR

R* = lim 1 2 = R1

R2 R + R

1

2

Using the numerical parameters for the problems the following results are obtained:

a = 6.21 mm

pmax = 3585.37 N/mm

Note that half the contact length is equal to 6.21 mm which corresponds to

approximately 7.1 degrees of the ring. Hence it is clear that in order to simulate this

problem correctly a very fine mesh near the contact zone is needed.

2.5

FEM Solutions

Abaqus/Standard and MSC.MARC. Typical element meshes applied for the

determination of the target solutions are shown in Figure 1. For the solution generated

with MSC.MARC the smallest element edges near the contact zone have been chosen

as 0.59 mm for the cylinder and 1.5 mm for the block. The block consisted of 1400

elements and the cylinder of 1431 elements. The solution obtained with

Abaqus/Standard used approximately the same mesh density. A slightly different

mesh for the cylinder was generated (1703 elements): the same seed points along the

curved edges were chosen, the applied advancing front mesher in both codes resulted

in slightly different meshes.

Numerical solutions have been obtained with plane strain linear elements using

reduced integration and with fully integrated quadratic plane strain elements (applied

nominal thickness 1 mm) . The applied elements types for the listed FE codes are

listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Applied element types in numerical solutions (Benchmark 1)

linear

quadratic

Abaqus/Standard

Type CPE4R

Type CPE8

MSC.MARC

Type 115

Type 27

In the contact algorithm, hard contact (i.e. based on direct coupling of the

displacements using automatically generated constraint equations) has been used. For

the simulations with friction either a true stick-slip model (MSC.MARC) or the

Lagrangian multiplier method (Abaqus/Standard) has been selected. The slave nodes

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

8/62

(contacting nodes) have been set to the nodes on the cylinder; the master nodes

(contacted nodes) have been set to the upper edge of the block.

The obtained lengths of the contact zones is listed in Table 2. The exact length of the

contact zone cannot be determined due to the discrete character of contact detection

algorithms (nodes are detected to be in contact with an element edge). It is clear

however that the numerical solution is in good agreement with the analytical one.

Table 2 Length of the contact zone (Benchmark 1)

linear

quadratic

Abaqus/Standard

5.88 < a < 6.42

5.88 < a < 6.18

MSC.MARC

5.89 < a < 6.42

5.88 < a < 6.17

9/62

(Benchmark 1)

Figure 2. A plot of the Hertzian contact solution for the pressure and the solutions

along the nodes of the cylinder obtained with linear and quadratic elements with two

different FE codes is shown in Figure 3.

Benchmark 1 - no friction

5000

Analytical

MSC.MARC - linear

MSC.MARC - quadratic

Abaqus - linear

Abaqus - quadratic

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0

Figure 3 Comparison of analytical and numerical solutions (Benchmark 1)

The contact pressure is plotted for the slave (contacting) nodes and shows even with

this applied mesh density a rather oscillating type of behaviour. Generating the same

plots along the nodes of the master (contacting) nodes produces a smoother curve. A

comparison of the calculated contact pressure along the cylinder node path and along

the block node path is shown in Figure 4.

10/62

Benchmark 1 - no friction

5000

Analytical

linear - cylinder

quadratic - cylinder

linear - block

quadratic - block

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0

Figure 4 Calculated contact pressure using different node paths [MSC.MARC] (Benchmark 1)

Numerical solutions have been obtained for a contact analysis with a friction

coefficient 0.1 (true stick-slip modelling). The contact normal stress and the contact

tangential stress along the nodes of the circle obtained with MSC.MARC have been

plotted in Figure 5. The same results obtained with Abaqus/Standard have been

plotted in Figure 6.

Benchmark 1 - friction coefficient 0.1

5000

pressure_linear

pressure_quadratic

tangential_linear

tangential_quadratic

4500

stress [N/mm2]

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0

10

x-coordinate [mm]

Figure 5 Contact normal and contact tangential stress [MSC.MARC] (Benchmark 1)

11/62

5000

pressure_linear

pressure_quadratic

tangential_linear

tangential_quadratic

4500

stress [N/mm2]

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0

x-coordinate [mm]

Figure 6 Contact normal stress and contact tangential stress [Abaqus/Standard] (Benchmark 1)

The tangential slip at the nodes of the cylinder obtained with Abaqus/Standard have

been plotted in Figure 7.

Benchmark 1 - friction coefficient 0.1

0.025

linear

quadratic

slip [mm]

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

0

Figure 7 Slip long nodes of cylinder [Abaqus/Standard] (Benchmark 1)

All path plot results show an oscillating type of behaviour. This can be improved by

refining the mesh in the contact zone (and the surrounding part assuring connection

with the remaining part of the structures.

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

12/62

2.6

Modelling tips

Although generally accepted as a good problem for testing various contact algorithms,

the numerical solution of the Hertzian contact problem is a challenging one. This is

caused by the fact that contact is only present in a small zone, thus requiring a fine

mesh density. The following are some guidelines and tips for modelling this

benchmark:

For the given numerical parameter combinations, the length of the contact

zone can be determined analytically and is plotted as function of the applied

normal force in

8

7

6

a [mm]

5

4

3

2

1

0

0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04

force [N]

Figure 8.

Figure 8 Half length of the contact zone versus applied normal force (Benchmark 1)

present along the slave (contacting) surface. If stick-slip is to be considered in

the analysis this number has to be increased for an accurate description of the

contact zone. Ensuring correct connectivity with the remaining part of the

structure makes the meshing of this problem more difficult than the actual

contact analysis

It is recommended to select the curved surface as the slave (contacting)

surface and the straight surface as the master (contacted) surface. The slave

(contacting) nodes will be positions on the edge between the master

(contacted) surface and this edge is frequently assumed to be straight (linear

elements) or approximated (quadratic elements).

The numerical solution is strongly dependent upon the absence of penetration.

This is ensured in the hard contact algorithm, while penalty based algorithms

cause a specific amount of penetration depending upon the numerical value of

the applied penalty stiffness.

13/62

2.7

Parameter study

Effect of changing the contact body detection (master and slave)

Effect of different penalty settings for penalty based contact

Effect of different friction approximations

14/62

3.

3.1

Summary

Ref. No.

Contact Benchmark - 2

Title

Contact

features

3D contact

Stick/slip behaviour along the contact plane

Comparison of linear and quadratic elements

(Plasticity may be considered)

3D Continuum elements (can also be modelled as axisymmetric)

Geometry

Material

properties

Punch height = 100 mm

Foundation diameter = 200 mm

Foundation height = 200 mm

Fillet radius at the edge of the punch contact = 10 mm

E punch = 210 kN / mm 2

E foundation = 70 kN / mm2

Analysis type Quasi-static analysis using

Linear elastic material

Geometric non-linearity

Non-linear boundary conditions

Displacement Symmetry displacement constraints (quarter symmetry)

boundary

Bottom surface of the foundation is fixed (u x = u y = u z = 0)

conditions

Applied

A uniform pressure (distributed load) applied at the top surface of the

loads

punch P = 100 N / mm2

Element type 3D continuum

20-node quadratic elements

27-node quadratic elements

or 8-node linear elements

Contact

2 different cases:

properties

coefficient of friction = 0.0

coefficient of friction = 0.1

FE results

1. Plot of contact pressure against radial distance from the centre of

contact

2. Plot of tangential stress against radial distance from the centre of

contact

3. Plot of relative tangential slip against distance from the centre of

contact

15/62

3.2

Introduction

that the material behaviour is linear elastic. The punch is loaded by a uniform pressure

with magnitude P = 100 N / mm2 in axial direction. The effect of friction is taken into

account along the contact zone. In 3D analyses coarser element meshes are applied

than in 2D simulations, in order to keep the computer time within reasonable limits.

Since the problem is completely axisymmetric 2D solutions can be used to serve as

target solution for the subsequent 3D analysis. Initial 2D solutions with meshes,

representative for the subsequent 3D simulations are used to determine the target

solutions. It is sufficient to model one quarter of the assembly for the 3D solutions,

applying symmetry conditions.

3.3

Requested solutions

modelling the effect of stick-slip along the contact surface will be investigated. In

particular the effect of applied smoothing techniques in stick-slip modelling, such as

true-stick slip model or Lagrange multipliers, penalty based stick-slip or other

smoothing mechanisms is explored.

In the 3D modelling the effect of symmetry conditions in combination with contact

detection and the effect of linear and quadratic elements are evaluated.

Both for the axisymmetric and 3D analysis solutions are requested for the

displacement and stress field along the top surface of the punch, obtained with:

- Linear and quadratic elements

- Different methods for friction modelling

The results include the following:

- Element sizes near the contact zone

- Radial and axial displacement of top contact surface of cylinder as function of

coordinate

- Method used for normal contact detection (penalty stiffness) or hard/direct contact

- Indication which surface is treated as master (contacting) and slave (contacted)

- Method for stick slip approximation (true stick-slip, penalty based, other)

3.4

FEM solutions

Numerical solutions for an axisymmetric model have been obtained with identical

relatively coarse meshes with Abaqus/Standard and MSC.MARC. Typical element

meshes are shown in Figure 9. Typical element lengths along the punch are 4 mm and

along the foundation 3.5 mm.

16/62

simulations with MSC.MARC and Abaqus/Standard. The applied element types are

listed in Table 3.

Table 3 Applied element types in numerical solutions (Benchmark 2)

linear

quadratic

Abaqus/Standard

Type CAX4

Type CAX8

MSC.MARC

Type 10

Type 28

The straight edge of the foundation is selected as the master surface (contacted edge),

the nodes on the bottom edge of the punch are selected as the slave surface

(contacting nodes). Using this choice, the nodes always touch a straight segment in

the contact detection mechanism. The direct method for normal contact detection is

chosen (constraints on the displacements for the nodes which are found to be in

contact). The initial solution is obtained with the true stick slip implementation in

MSC.MARC and the Lagrangian multiplier method implementation for tangential

contact in Abaqus/Standard. Numerical solutions are presented for 2 values of the

friction coefficient ( = 0 and = 0.1 ), different friction implementations and using

different element types for 2 different FE codes.

The axial displacement as a function of the radial coordinate along the top surface of

the foundation, obtained with MSC.MARC using linear axisymmetric, fully integrated

elements, is shown in Figure 10. The analysis with frictions shows a slightly stiffer

behaviour.

17/62

0.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06

no friction

friction 0.1

-0.08

-0.10

-0.12

-0.14

radius [mm]

Figure 10 Axial displacement as a function of the radial coordinate (friction coefficient 0.0 and

0.1) obtained with linear elements [MSC.MARC] (Benchmark 2)

Radial displacement as a function of the radial coordinate at the top edge of the

foundation, from the same analyses, are shown in Figure 11. In the frictionless

solution all points move inwards, while for the solution with friction the points closest

to the axis move outwards.

0.002

0.000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

-0.010

no friction

friction 0.1

-0.012

-0.014

-0.016

-0.018

radius [mm]

Figure 11 Radial displacement as function of the radial coordinate (friction coefficient =0.0 and

0.1) obtained with linear elements [MSC.MARC] (Benchmark 2)

Comparisons of both the axial and the radial displacements obtained with different

element types and FE codes are shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13. The differences

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

18/62

between the results from different FE codes are smaller than the difference due to

different element types.

0.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08

linear MARC

quadratic MARC

linear Abaqus

quadratic Abaqus

-0.10

-0.12

-0.14

radius [mm]

0.002

0.000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

-0.010

linear MARC

quadratic MARC

linear Abaqus

quadratic Abaqus

-0.012

-0.014

-0.016

-0.018

radius [mm]

The effect of different methods for handling the strong non-linearity of the stick-slip

condition is evaluated with Abaqus/Standard using linear elements. The closest

approximation of the stick-slip condition is obtained with the Lagrangian multiplier

technique while often in numerical simulation a penalty formulation is used due to the

better convergence characteristics. The resulting radial displacements are shown in

Figure 14.

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

19/62

0.002

0.000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

Lagrange

Penalty

no friction

-0.010

-0.012

-0.014

-0.016

-0.018

radial coordinate [mm]

Figure 14 Effect of different friction coefficient and method of friction handling on the radial

displacement of the foundation edge [Abaqus/Standard linear elements] (Benchmark 2)

The calculated contact stress, obtained with the linear elements (true stick-slip model

with friction coefficient 0.1) with both FE codes are displayed in Figure 15. For the

same analyses the contact tangential stresses are displayed in Figure 16. Relatively

small differences between the results obtained with both codes are present.

In Figure 17 and Figure 18 a comparison is made of the contact stresses for the nodes

along the punch (slave or contacting nodes) and along the foundation (master or

contacted edges/nodes). The quadratic elements show an oscillating type of

behaviour.

The computed contact stresses and contact tangential stresses along the foundation

edge using different 2D element types and linear 3D elements have been compared in

Figure 19 and Figure 20. For the 3D solution a 90o expanded segment of the mesh

using linear elements, as shown in Figure 21 is used. Figure 22 shows that the

obtained solution for the contact stress is completely axisymmetric.

The computed tangential slip is plotted for the axisymmetric mesh with linear and

quadratic elements in Figure 23.

20/62

450

400

MSC.MARC

Abaqus

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 15 Comparison of contact stress along punch using linear elements (Benchmark 2)

45

40

MSC.MARC

Abaqus

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 16 Comparison of contact tangential stress along punch using linear elements

(Benchmark 2)

21/62

450

400

MARC_linear_foundation

350

MARC_linear_edge

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 17 Comparison of contact stresses along punch and foundation using linear elements

(Benchmark 2)

700

600

MARC_quadratic_foundation

MARC_quadratic_punch

500

400

300

200

100

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 18 Comparison of contact stresses along punch and foundation using quadratic elements

(Benchmark 2)

22/62

400

350

MARC_linear

MARC_quadratic

MARC_linear3D

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

10

20

30

position from axis [mm]

40

50

Figure 19 Comparison of contact stress along foundation using 2D linear and quadratic elements

and 3D linear elements [MSC.MARC] (Benchmark 2)

100

90

shear [N/mm2]

80

MARC_linear

MARC_quadratic

MARC_3D

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 20 Comparison of contact tangential stress along foundation using 2D linear and

quadratic elements and 3D linear elements [MSC.MARC] (Benchmark 2)

23/62

Figure 22 Contour plots of contact normal stress and contact tangential stress in 3D solutions

with linear elements obtained with MSC.MARC (Benchmark 2)

24/62

0.008

0.007

linear

quadratic

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0

0

10

20

30

distance [mm]

40

50

Figure 23 Relative slip along edge of interface for linear and quadratic elements plotted along

slave nodes [Abaqus/Standard] (Benchmark 2)

3.5

Modelling tips

and contact can be defined relatively simply. The following are some guidelines and

tips for modelling this benchmark:

To avoid problems with nodes touching a linear approximation of a curved

segment it is advantageous to model the foundation as the master (contacted)

surface.

Based on this contact definition it is better to give the punch the highest

number of nodes (i.e. the smallest elements)

Ensure that if a penalty stiffness for normal contact detection is applied that

the contact stiffness is sufficiently small (detect the amount of penetration and

increase the stiffness if necessary)

Evaluate the effect of the approximation of the true stick-slip model

The contact normal stresses and contact tangential stresses do not directly

result form the FE solution (are not element quantities) if the constraint

equation method for contact is used. Hence they have to be derived (in the

program) from the stress solution in the elements. If this capability is not

available, the stress components in the elements can be used.

3.6

Parameter study

Effect of changing the contact body detection (master and slave)

Results of a 3D model with a 30 degree segment instead of a 90 degree

segment

25/62

4.

4.1

Summary

Ref. No.

Contact Benchmark - 3

Title

Contact

features

Mesh dependency

Elasticity, plasticity and spring back

Sliding contact around circular surface

2D plane strain elements or shell elements

Geometry

Punch

Sheet

Initial position

R2

R3

Die

Punch radius = 23.5 mm

Die radius R2 = 25.0 mm

Die shoulder R3 = 4.0 mm

Width of tools = 50.0 mm

Length of sheet (initially) =120.0 mm

Thickness of sheet = 1.0 mm

Width of sheet = 30.0 mm

Punch stroke = 28.5 mm

Material

properties

Youngs modulus:

Poissons ratio:

Initial yield stress:

Final

position

E = 70.5 kN / mm2

= 0.342

0 = 194 N / mm 2

Hollomon hardening = K n

K = 550.4 N / mm2

n = 0.223

Analysis type Quasi-static analysis

Elastic plastic material (isotropic hardening)

Geometric non-linearity

Non-linear boundary conditions

Displacement Symmetry displacement restraints (half symmetry)

boundary

Bottom surface fixed

conditions

Prescribed vertical displacement for the punch

Applied

No applied forces

loads

Element type

2D plane strain 4 node linear elements

shell 4 node shell elements

26/62

Contact

properties

FE results

2 different cases

coefficient of friction = 0.0

coefficient of friction = 0.1342

1. Forming angle

2. Angle after release

3. Plot of punch force against punch displacement

27/62

4.2

Introduction

problem. Simulations are requested to determine the angle before and after spring

back. Experimental results are available for this benchmark, but it is noted that the

sheet is slightly anisotropic. The current problem uses an isotropic elastic plastic

hardening behaviour.

Source:

FREE BENDING BENCHMARK TESTING OF 6111-T4 ALUMINUM ALLOY SAMPLE

John C. Brem*, Frdric Barlat**, Joseph M. Fridy**Alcoa Technical Center, Pennsylvania,

4.3

Required solutions

Two solutions, one using friction coefficient 0.1342 (Coulomb friction model)

between the sheet and both tools and one frictionless solution are requested for:

- Forming angle (the angle at the end of the punch stroke)

- Angle after release (the angle after tool removal)

- Punch force - punch displacement diagram

The solutions, obtained with shell elements and plane strain elements, include the

following:

- Element size (in particular near the curved zones)

- Method used in discretisation of the tools

- Method for normal contact detection (penalty stiffness) or hard/direct contact

- Method for stick slip approximation (true stick-slip, penalty based, other)

28/62

4.4

Experimental results

determined for this problem as well using steel and aluminium material. In the

benchmark the material model has to be described with an orthothropic yield function

based on the experimental R-values. Although the material model to be applied for the

benchmark problem described here is slightly different (here an isotropic yield

function is applied for the steel material), the numerical results can be compared with

the mentioned experimental ones. Four different experiments have been carried out

and the range in experimental results is shown in Table 4. The experimental punch

force punch displacement curve from experiment BE-04 has been selected as

reference and is shown in Figure 25.

Table 4 Experimental values from the Numisheet 2002 (steel material) (Benchmark 3)

Forming angles

19.6- 21.0

53.4 - 55.8

250

Experiment BE04

200

150

100

50

0

0

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 25 Experimental punch force punch displacement result Numisheet 2002 benchmark,

steel BE04 (Benchmark 3)

4.5

FEM solutions

FEM solutions have been obtained with a plane strain approach using MSC.MARC

and Abaqus/Standard.

The 2D geometry, including the positions of the reference points is shown in Figure

26. Both the punch and die can be modelled either in analytical form or in a numerical

form with discrete line segments.

29/62

modelling the tool. The number of applied subdivisions is listed in Table 5.

Table 5 Number of elements applied in tool discretisation (Benchmark 3)

Part

Punch

Die shoulder

Die

Number of elements

720 for 360 degrees

150 for 90 degrees

20 for 90 degrees

Angle [degrees]

0.5

0.6

4.5

The sheet is modelled with quadrilateral plane strain (Abaqus type CPE4I - fully

integrated with incompatible modes) elements with 5 elements over the thickness.

Only half of the sheet is modelled and a fine mesh is applied. The applied element

lengths can be determined from Table 6.

Table 6 Number of elements in length direction (Benchmark 3)

position

0 x 27 mm

27 x 40.2 mm

40.2 x 60 mm

Number of elements

50

100

20

The total mesh consists of 850 elements. The smallest element size is 0.132 mm and

consequently a ratio of element size to radius of curvature of the die shoulder

is l R3 = 0.132 4 = 0.033 . The ratio of element size to radius of curvature of the punch

is l R = 0.54 23.5 = 0.029 .

A detail of the mesh of the undeformed structure is shown in Figure 27

30/62

Symmetry conditions (i.e. no displacement in horizontal direction) have been

applied to the left size of the strip

A reference point is specified on each rigid surface. For the reference point on

the die surface all degrees of freedom (i.e. displacement in horizontal and

vertical directions and rotation) have been suppressed. For the reference point

on the punch surface the displacement component in horizontal direction and

the rotation is suppressed, while the displacement of the punch in vertical

direction is specified using a table as a function of the time (see Table 7)

The springback phase can be modelled in two ways.

- A gradual release: the boundary conditions as given above.

- An instantaneous release: the middle of the sheet held fixed after the

forming stage and both the punch and the die are removed from the

sheet. Contact has been deactivated during this step. The springback

occurs in one increment (or in a number of increments, if convergence

problems occur as a consequence of removing the reaction forces or

contact forces in one step)

Table 7 Vertical displacement of punch as a function of time (Benchmark 3)

Time

0.0

1.0

1.5

Displacement

0

-28.5

0

The benchmark problem has been analysed both without friction and with a Coulomb

friction model with friction coefficient 0.1348. The Coulomb friction model is a true

stick-slip model and often a variant is implemented in FE codes, which reflects the

elastic stiffness. These approximations are then called tangential stiffness, elastic

stiffness, penalty friction model, smoothing function, etc. The default penalty

formulation in Abaqus/Standard has been applied. The true stick-slip Coulomb model

as implemented with a Lagrange multiplier approach often did not converge.

Characteristic deformed stages for the analysis without friction and with friction

during forming are shown in Figure 28 and during the release in Figure 29. In the

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

31/62

analysis without friction, contact is initially present between the sheet and the lower

section of the punch. Near the end of the deformation the sheet separates at the lower

section of the punch and gets in contact with the lower section of the die. As soon as

this contact is detected, the sheet is further bent into the final shape and the required

force in the force displacement history curve increases (Figure 28).

Figure 28 Various stages in the forming history (no friction left; with friction right)

(Benchmark 3)

32/62

Figure 29 Various stages in tool release process (no friction left; with friction right)

(Benchmark 3)

In the analysis with friction, the deformation behaviour is different. The tangential

forces due to friction result in a stretching of the sheet, causing contact between the

punch and the sheet to be present during the complete forming history.

The characteristic load displacement curves for the analysis without friction and with

friction are shown in Figure 30. The differences in the shape of the curves are caused

by the different contact conditions at the end of the forming stage.

Observe that the unloading stage is analysed by removing the punch slowly in the

upward direction. A high number of steps are required for this unloading (in particular

for the problem with friction; more steps required for the unloading than the loading

phase).

33/62

250

Abaqus/Standard - no friction

Abaqus/Standard - friction

200

150

100

50

0

0

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 30 Load displacement diagram plane strain analysis (friction and frictionless)

(Benchmark 3)

The characteristic values of the angles at the end of the forming stage and after

removal of the tool are listed in Table 8.

Table 8 Characteristic angles during process (Benchmark 3)

Friction coefficient

0

Forming angle

21.88

48.38

0.1348

21.84

54.45

A comparison of the results obtained with MSC.MARC (direct contact setting or hard

contact) and Abaqus/Standard (penalty based contact with numerical value 200

MPa/mm) is shown in Figure 31 (no friction) and Figure 32 (friction). In this last

figure also a comparison with the experimental result is made. Good agreement can be

obtained with both FE codes. The MSC.MARC results exhibit more oscillations in the

load displacement curve and this is caused by the use of hard contact instead of the

more weak approach applied in Abaqus/Standard. Good agreement with the

experimental result is obtained. The results can still be improved by modifying the

material behaviour of using different contact settings. It should be noted that no

experimental data points are available for the unloading.

34/62

250

Abaqus/Standard - no friction

MSC.MARC - no friction

200

150

100

50

0

0

10

15

20

25

30

Abaqus/Standard (no friction) (Benchmark 3)

250

Abaqus/Standard - friction

MSC.MARC - friction

Experimental data points

200

150

100

50

0

0

10

15

20

25

30

Abaqus/Standard (friction) and comparison with experimental values (Benchmark 3)

The problem has also been analysed with a 3D shell approach. The applied coordinate

system, the geometrical entities and position of the reference points for the tools are

shown in Figure 33. Only half of the plate has been modelled, with appropriate

symmetry conditions (i.e. no displacement I 1 direction and rotation about 2 and 3

direction zero) at the middle of the plate.

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

35/62

It is worth noting that in some FE codes the shell thickness may be ignored in

calculating the contact thickness. Consequently, the tool radii may have to be

increased by half the shell thickness in the current problem.

An analytical description of the tool geometry has been chosen for the analysis with

shell elements.

The applied element mesh is shown in Figure 34. Six elements in the width direction

have been applied and a very fine mesh in the length direction is used (Table 9). The

smallest element size in x direction is set to 0.25 mm. The applied Abaqus element

type is S4R: a doubly curved 4-noded thin or thick shell element with reduced

integration, hourglass control and allowing finite membrane strains.

Table 9 Number of elements in length direction shell analysis (Benchmark 3)

Position

0 x 40 mm

40 x 60 mm

Number of elements

160

10

The penalty method for contact analysis (both for the normal and the tangential

contact) has been chosen.

36/62

The shell analyses have been compared with the plane strain analysis for penalty

contact (equivalent numerical value 1000 MPa/mm) for both the cases with and

without friction. The load displacement curves are shown in Figure 35 and Figure 36.

300

shell_1000

plane_strain_1000

250

Force [N]

200

150

100

50

10

15

20

25

30

Displacement [mm]

Figure 35 Comparison plane strain and shell analysis (no friction) (Benchmark 3)

Shell versus plane strain_ friction

250

shell_1000

Plane strain 1000

200

Force [N]

150

100

50

0

0

10

15

20

25

30

Displacement [mm]

Figure 36 Comparison plane strain versus shell analysis (friction = 0.1348) (Benchmark 3)

37/62

Table 10 Comparison of angles plane strain and shell approach (no friction) (Benchmark 3)

Plane strain

Shell

Forming angle

20.94

20.89

47.69

43.30

Table 11 Comparison of angles plane strain versus shell (friction 0.1348) (Benchmark 3)

Plane strain

Shell

Forming angle

20.90

20.92

53.55

53.27

Table 10 and Table 11. For the case with friction a difference of 0.02 is present in the

forming angle whereas the difference after release is 0.28.

The frictionless situation clearly deviates more due to the bending of the sheet around

the axis of the sheet perpendicular to the major bending direction under the punch.

This bending effect in the analysis with friction is less pronounced due to the contact

between the sheet and the punch.

38/62

4.6

Modelling tips

contact between the plate and the curved shoulders of the die. In fact the contact is

almost a point (2D) or line (3D) contact with a large amount of sliding. Contact is

only verified between the nodes of the plate and the rigid dies. Hence, in the discrete

steps of the displacement history, points can be identified where no contact is

detected, especially if large elements are used near the shoulder of the die.

The following are some guidelines and tips for modelling this benchmark:

A fine mesh has to be used to describe the contact of the nodes of the sheet

with the die properly

A smooth representation of the die has to be chosen, either in an analytical

form or by a piecewise linear curve using a high number of segments

If a penalty based method of contact is applied the contact between the sheet

and the tools is modelled with springs (stiffness and forces) and depending

upon the applied penalty function value (i.e. value of the spring stiffness) the

contact will be less local at the cost of some penetration of the sheet between

the tools.

A too low value of the penalty stiffness causes too much penetration; a too

high value of the penalty stiffness causes a harder contact condition with more

local contact and potential numerical instabilities. In the presented solution a

numerical value of 200 MPa/mm is applied. If in a plane strain solution with

Abaqus/Standard, the thickness of the plane strain element is specified as the

width of the sheet (30 mm), the value of the penalty stiffness has to be

multiplied by this width (hence a value of 6000 in a plane strain simulation

corresponds to 200 in the shell approach).

The unloading behaviour is characterized by removal of the tools and at the

same time adding boundary conditions preventing the possibility of rigid body

movement.

The unloading behaviour should preferably be done in a number of steps. Note

that in these steps low values of the normal and consequently the friction

forces are present which makes it difficult to obtain a converged solution

39/62

4.7

be shown that this greatly influences the accuracy of the solution.

Parameter study

Interesting phenomena can be observed if the analyst varies the following parameters:

- Plane strain element versus true shell element solutions

- Analytical tool description versus discretised tool description

- Spring back in one step instead of gradual tool release

40/62

5.1

Summary

Ref. No.

Contact Benchmark - 4

Title

3D Loaded pin

Contact

features

Curved contact surfaces

Deformable-deformable contact

Friction stick-slip along the contact surface

3D continuum.

L1 = 200 mm

L2 = 20 mm

t

R1 = 50 mm

R2 = 100 mm

H = 100 mm

t = 10 mm

Geometry

F

2

5.

L1

R2

H

R1

Material

properties

E pin = 210 kN / mm 2

Esheet = 70 N / mm 2

sheet = pin = 0.3

Linear elastic material

Geometric non-linearity

Non-linear boundary conditions

Displacement Symmetry displacement constraints (quarter symmetry)

Left side of the sheet is fixed

boundary

conditions

Applied

Two equal point forces, resulting in a total force on the pin of100 kN .

loads

Element type 3D continuum

20-node quadric elements

or 8-node linear elements

Contact

coefficient of friction = 0.1

properties

FE results

1. Plot of contact pressure against angle

2. Plot of tangential stress against angle

3. Plot of relative tangential slip against angle

41/62

5.2

Introduction

boundaries. A cylindrical pin is located in the cylindrical hole of a strip. The

diameters of the hole and the pin are identical. Two equal point loads are applied to

the centre of the pin, resulting to a loss of contact at one side of the pin and a localized

contact area on the other side. It is assumed that the tangential contact can be

described with a Coulomb friction model using friction coefficient 0.1. For a 2D

solution it is sufficient to model only half of the assembly, while for a 3D solution

sufficient a quarter of the assembly is sufficient, provided that appropriate symmetry

conditions are applied.

5.3

Required solutions

A number of different quantities are requested along the curved boundary of the pin.

It is interesting to compare the numerical values obtained at the nodes of the strip with

those at the nodes of the pin. The solution is obtained with linear and quadratic

elements. Both the x and y component of the displacement are requested. In addition

the contact normal and the contact tangential stresses as well as the tangential slip

have to be generated as functions of the angle.

The solutions, obtained with 3D continuum elements (or 2D plane strain elements),

include the following:

- Element size at (in particular along the curved contact surface)

- Method used in discretisation of the tools

- Method for normal contact detection (penalty stiffness) or hard/direct contact

- Method for stick slip approximation (true stick-slip, penalty based, other)

5.4

FEM solutions

Numerical solutions have been obtained with Abaqus/Standard version 6.5 and

MSC.MARC version 2005. The typical mesh density is shown in Figure 39. Along

the curved strip boundary 18 elements (element edge 8.72 mm) have been applied.

Along the curved pin 40 elements (element edge size 3.93 mm).

Fully integrated elements have been applied in the numerical 2D plane strain

simulations with MSC.MARC and Abaqus/Standard. The applied element types are

listed in Table 12.

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

42/62

linear

quadratic

Abaqus/Standard

Type CE4

Type CE8

MSC.MARC

Type 11

Type 27

The nodes along the pin boundary are selected as slave (contacting) nodes, while the

nodes along the strip are specified to be the master (contacted) nodes. Observe that a

relatively coarse mesh density is used for the master surface, thus illustrating the

differences in approaches when nodes are considered to be in contact with the

segment between the master nodes. The normal contact is described with the

constraint equation method and the tangential contact is described with a true stick

slip model.

The left edge of the strip is fully clamped while at the bottom edge of both the pin and

the strip symmetry conditions have been applied.

The displacement solution obtained with the linear elements is shown in Figure 40,

while the solution obtained with quadratic elements is shown in Figure 41). The

numerical solutions obtained with the linear and quadratic elements using 2 different

FE codes are only slightly different.

The relatively coarse mesh of the strip is specified as the master (contacted) surface in

the presented solutions. Consequently the nodes of the pin touch the segments

between these master nodes. For Abaqus/Standard, linear segments with smoothing

between the intersecting segments are used, while in the selected analytical contact

algorithm in MSC.MARC first a spline between these (master) nodes is constructed

and the nodes of the pin are considered to be in contact with the spline.

43/62

0.8

MARC_linear_x

MARC_linear_y

Abaqus_linear_x

Abaqus_linear_y

0.7

displacement [mm]

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

-0.1

angle (degrees)

Figure 40 Displacement as a function of the angles obtained with linear elements in MSC.MARC

and Abaqus/Standard for the nodes of the master (contacted) surface (Benchmark 4)

0.8

MARC_quadratic_x

Abaqus_quadratic_x

MARC_quadratic_y

Abaqus_quadratic_y

0.7

displacement [mm]

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

-0.1

angle (degrees)

Figure 41 Displacement as a function of the angles obtained with quadratic elements in

MSC.MARC and Abaqus/Standard for the nodes of the master (contacted) surface

(Benchmark 4)

The displacements along the circular edge of the pin (slave or contacting surface) as

function of the angle are shown in Figure 42 and Figure 43.

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

44/62

0.800

x-displacement [mm]

0.780

0.760

MARC_linear

MARC_quadratic

Abaqus_linear

Abaqus_quadratic

0.740

0.720

0.700

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

angle (degrees)

Figure 42 Displacement in x-direction for nodes along the pin (slave/contacting nodes) as a

function of the angle (Benchmark 4)

0.004

MARC_linear

MARC_quadratic

Abaqus_linear

Abaqus_quadratic

0.002

0.000

y-displacement [mm]

30

60

90

120

150

180

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

-0.010

angle (degrees)

Figure 43 Displacement in y-direction for nodes along the pin (slave/contacting nodes) as a

function of the angle (Benchmark 4)

45/62

The resulting contact pressure is more sensitive to specific program settings for the

internal contact handling. Already mentioned are the spline approximation of the

contacted surface in MSC.MARC and the smoothing parameter of the intersecting

surface approximations in Abaqus/Standard. Additional options are stress-free

repositioning of the nodes at the start of the analysis (both MSC.MARC and

Abaqus/Standard) and choosing between default contact and small sliding contact

(Abaqus/Standard). A number of results for different contact parameter settings are

shown. An overview of the applied parameters in the various figures is shown in

Table 13.

Table 13 Applied contact parameter settings for various results (Benchmark 4)

Figure 40

Figure 41

Figure 42

Figure 43

Figure 44

Fiigure 45

Figure 46

Figure 47

Figure 48

Figure 49

Figure 50

Figure 51

Figure 52

Figure 53

Figure 54

Figure 55

element type

linear

quadratic

linear

quadratic

Abaqus/Standard

smoothing node repositioning

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

sliding type

large

large

large

large

linear

quadratic

on

on

on

on

large

large and small

quadratic

linear

quadratic

on

on

on

on

large

large

large and small

element type

linear

quadratic

linear

quadratic

linear and quadratic

linear

quadratic

linear

quadratic

linear

MSC.MARC

contact descrition

analytical

analytical

analytical

analytical

analytical

analytical

analytical

on

on

analytical and discrete

node repositioning

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on and off

on and off

off

linear

quadratic

quadratic and linear

3D linear

3D linear

analytical

analytical

analytical

analytical

analytical

on

on

on

on

on

The numerical values of the contact pressure along the slave (contacting) nodes and

along the master (contacted) edges are plotted in Figure 44. The global difference by a

factor of 2 between the pin and strip nodes is due to the difference in the thickness

applied in the plane strain approximation. In MSC.MARC the calculated pressure is

determined from the thickness values specified at the element attached to the node,

while in Abaqus/Standard the analyst has to specify the thickness value (here the

value of the pin thickness of 20 mm is used instead of the value of the strip thickness

of 10 mm).

Oscillations in the contact pressure are present and the magnitudes of the oscillations

are influenced by specific contact settings. In the solution presented in Figure 44 the

stress free projection of the nodes to the surface at the start of the analysis is applied.

46/62

300.000

pin_linear

strip_linear

pin_quadratic

strip_quadratic

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0.000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

angle (degrees)

Figure 44 Contact pressure along strip nodes and pin nodes obtained with linear and quadratic

plane strain elements in MSC.MARC (Benchmark 4)

The contact pressure along the slave (contacting) nodes is shown in Figure 45 (both

codes using linear elements) and Figure 46 (both codes using quadratic elements). For

the results obtained with Abaqus/Standard both the solutions obtained with small

sliding contact and the one obtained with large sliding contact is shown.

150.000

MARC_linear

Abaqus_linear

100.000

50.000

0.000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

angle (degrees)

Figure 45 Contact pressure comparison for linear elements using Abaqus/Standard and

MSC.MARC (linear elements) (Benchmark 4)

47/62

150.000

MARC_quadratic

Abaqus_quadratic

Abaqus_quadratic_small

100.000

50.000

0.000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

angle (degrees)

elements) (Benchmark 4)

It is clear that the presented solutions contain strong oscillations in the calculated

contact pressure variable. This oscillation is even larger if no stress free projection of

the nodes to the contact surface is applied at the start of the analysis, as is shown for

both the linear and quadratic elements using MSC.MARC in Figure 47 and Figure 48.

150.000

MARC_linear_no adjust

MARC_linear

100.000

50.000

0.000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

angle (degrees)

Figure 47 Comparison of contact pressure as a function adjusting the nodes at the start of the

analysis for linear elements (Benchmark 4)

48/62

150.000

MARC_quadratic_no adjust

MARC_quadratic

100.000

50.000

0.000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

angle (degrees)

Figure 48 Comparison of contact pressure as a function of adjusting the nodes at the start of the

analysis for quadratic elements (Benchmark 4)

adjusting the nodes improves the results, but if the pin is for instance subsequently

subjected to a rotation, the improvement in calculated contact pressure variable is not

guaranteed.

It is interesting to show the optimised result using the linear elements and compare

these with the results of the default contact settings. This is shown in Figure 49 and

Figure 50. It is clear that due to the lack of contact of some nodes with the straight

segments (default parameters: discrete contact in MSC.MARC and default smoothing

in Abaqus/Standard, with no stress free positioning of the nodes) large oscillations in

the contact pressure are present.

300.000

250.000

MARC_linear

MARC_linear_discrete

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0.000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

angle (degrees)

Figure 49 Comparison of contact pressure obtained with optimised parameter setting and default

parameter setting using MSC.MARC (Benchmark 4)

49/62

300.000

250.000

Abaqus_linear

Abaqus_linear_def contact

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0.000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

angle (degrees)

Figure 50 Comparison of contact pressure obtained with optimised parameter setting and default

parameter setting using Abaqus/Standard (Benchmark 4)

The contact tangential stresses show the same tendency in the sensitivity to specific

parameter settings. For the same parameter values as applied in Figure 45 and Figure

46 the calculated tangential stress is plotted in Figure 51 and Figure 52. The tangential

slip is shown as function of the angle in Figure 53.

20.000

MARC_linear

Abaqus_linear

15.000

10.000

5.000

0.000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

angle (degrees)

Figure 51 Contact tangential stress as a function of angle using linear elements (Benchmark 4)

50/62

20.000

MARC_quadratic

Abaqus_quadratic

Abaqus_quadratic_small

15.000

10.000

5.000

0.000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

angle (degrees)

Figure 52 Contact tangential stress as a function of contact angle using quadratic elements

(Benchmark 4)

0.050

0.000

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

-0.050

tangential slip

-0.100

-0.150

-0.200

Abaqus_linear

Abaqus_quadratic

-0.250

-0.300

-0.350

angle (degrees)

51/62

A 3D simulation has been performed with linear elements type 7 in MSC.MARC. The

applied mesh is a simple expansion in z-direction of the meshes applied in the 2D

analysis. The mesh and a contour plot of the s11 component are shown in Error!

Reference source not found..

Figure 54 Element mesh and results for 3D simulations with MSC.MARC (Benchmark 4)

master (contacted) surface when the analytical contact is specified. The smoothed

surfaces, which are internally used in the contact procedure, can be visualized in the

post-processor. The surfaces used along the curved outline are displayed in Error!

Reference source not found.. Observe that the algorithm needs to allow for

discontinuities in the edges to avoid smoothing over two intersecting surfaces.

Figure 55 Smoothed surfaces through the boundary nodes used internally in the contact

algorithm in MSC.MARC (Benchmark 4)

The resulting contact pressure is shown in Figure 56. The peak value in the contact

pressure is found to be around 260 N/mm2. Note that in z-direction a relatively coarse

mesh density is applied to capture the 3D effect near the edge of the pin and the strip.

It is also noticed that a comparison with Figure 44 reveals that the use of the 2D plane

strain nominal thickness of 20 mm for the pressure calculation may affect the value of

the 3D contact pressure. A better approximation of the 3D contact pressure would

have been obtained if the thickness of the strip is used since only half of the length of

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

52/62

Figure 56 Contact pressure in 3D calculation using analytical contact with linear elements

applied in MSC.MARC (Benchmark 4)

5.5

Modelling tips

Contact analysis with contact between two different curved boundaries is difficult to

analyse. Linear elements are relatively simple in the numerical treatment of contact

but fail to describe a curved boundary accurately, in particular if coarse meshes are

used. Quadratic elements can in principle better describe the curved boundary but the

evaluation of the contact pressure is more difficult to handle.

Along a curved boundary the following rules can be defined:

The less-stiff material should be discretised with the finest mesh to provide the

maximum number of nodes in contact (the slave or contacting nodes)

The coarser mesh results in a less accurate description of the geometric

contour, thus projecting the contacting node on the wrong boundary contour

If the code allows a numerical procedure constructing a spline (2D) or a

surface (3D) through the master surface, it is recommended to use this

procedure

5.6

Parameter study

the analyst varies the following parameters:

- Slave and master surface definitions

- Different mesh densities in both slave and master definitions

- Analytical tool description versus discretised tool description

53/62

6.

6.1

Summary

Ref. No.

Contact Benchmark - 5

Title

Contact features

3D deformable-deformable contact

Rolling contact

Incompressible material

3D continuum

Steel width= 20 mm

Mat width = 22 mm

R = 30 mm

R

H = 20 mm

steel

L1 = 60 mm

roller

L2 = 300 mm

Geometry

A

H

Rubber

L1

Material

properties

L2

Esteel = 210 kN / mm 2

steel = 0.3

Analysis type

Displacement

boundary

conditions

Applied loads

Element type

Contact

properties

FE results

Quasi-static analysis

Linear elastic material

Geometric non-linearity

Non-linear boundary conditions

Displacement history:

Centre of the roller is fixed in horizontal and vertical direction

Time period 0-1 second:

- no rotation of roller

- move bottom surface of rubber 3 mm up

- sheet x-displacement fixed

Time period 1-2 second

- prescribed rotation of steel roller (360 degrees)

- bottom surface of rubber sheet held at 3 mm y-displacement

- sheet is free to move in horizontal direction

No applied forces

3D continuum

20-node quadratic elements

or 8-node linear elements

coefficient of friction = 0.3

Horizontal displacement of the point A after 360 degrees motion

54/62

6.2

Introduction

If a cylindrical steel roller rotates on a rubber base, it is found that for a complete

revolution of the cylinder, it will have moved a horizontal distance less than the

circumference of the cylinder. This is because the rubber base will stretch under the

stresses induced by the cylinder. Friction will also play a part. This phenomenon was

looked at by Osborne Reynolds in 1874. Also, as Reynolds was the first Professor of

Engineering at The University of Manchester, this experiment has been re-created for

an Exhibition of his life.

This benchmark will test the ability of the algorithms to model the movement of the 2

surfaces when they are in contact because the rubber will stretch compared to the steel

cylinder.

In the current benchmark problem, the centre of rotation of the cylinder is held fixed.

The rubber sheet is moved a distance of 3 mm in an upwards direction, thus causing

sufficient pre-strain in the rubber sheet. The rubber sheet is subsequently free to move

in horizontal direction and the amount of horizontal displacement needs to be

determined.

It is assumed that the material behaviour of the rubber can be described with a NeoHookean material model with numerical parameter C10,rubber = 10 N / mm 2 ,

6.3

Required solutions

The cylindrical roller with radius 30 is rotating over 360 degrees. The circumference

of the cylinder with radius 30 mm is 188.5 mm. Point A is the point on the rubber

sheet, which is at the start of the analysis just below the lowest point of the steel

cylinder. The displacement component of this point in the x-direction needs to be

determined. Solutions are obtained with both linear and quadratic displacement field

elements.

The solutions, obtained with 3D solid elements and 2D plane strain elements, include

the following:

- Element size along top of rubber mat and along circumference of cylinder

- Method for normal contact detection (penalty stiffness) or hard/direct contact

- Method for stick slip approximation (true stick-slip, penalty based, other)

- Element types used in modelling the steel and the rubber

55/62

6.4

FEM solutions

Numerical solutions have been obtained with a 2D plane strain approach (applied

nominal thickness of 1 mm) using MSC.MARC and Abaqus/Standard. In addition a

simulation with MSC.MARC has been performed with a 3D approach using the

thicknesses mentioned in the summary. In the last analysis only half of the assembly

has been analysed with appropriate symmetry conditions.

Figure 57 Applied mesh density in obtaining target solutions with MSC.MARC (Benchmark 5)

The rubber mat is meshed with 10 elements in the height direction and 120 elements

in the horizontal direction, thus causing the element length along the surface to be 2.5

mm. The cylinder is meshed with 40 elements along the circumference resulting in an

element length 4.71 mm.

Different element types are applied for the rubber mat and the steel roller. The applied

elements are listed in Table 14.

Table 14 Applied element types in Benchmark 5

Linear rubber

Linear steel

Quadratic rubber

Quadratic steel

3D Linear rubber

3D Linear steel

Abaqus/Standard

CPE4H

CPE4

CPE8H

CPE8

MSC.MARC

Type 80

Type 11

Type 27

Type 32

Type 84

Type 7

The nodes on the outer surface of the roll have been set as contacted or master nodes,

the nodes on the top surface of the mat are specified as the contacting or slave nodes.

Both in Abaqus/Standard and MSC.MARC the direct method for contact checking is

applied. In MSC.MARC the true stick-slip model is applied, whereas in

Abaqus/Standard the penalty tangential slip formulation is applied.

The vertical motion of the mat has been specified in 10 increments with fixed size.

The rotation of the roll has been specified with 90 increments of equal size. Typical

deformed structure plots are shown in Figure 58.

FENET-Advanced Contact Benchmarks

56/62

The x- displacement of point A in the sheet has been obtained with MSC.MARC and

Abaqus/Standard for various element types and is listed in Table 15. Note that the

circumference is 188.5 mm and hence the effect of contact with a stretched surface is

clearly visible.

Table 15 Displacement of point A after one rotation of the roll (Benchmark 5)

Horizontal

displacement

Linear

elements

(discrete contact)

Linear elements

(analytic contact)

Quadratic elements

3D linear elements

(discrete contact)

MSC.MARC

Abaqus/Standard

175.8 mm

175.2 mm

175.3 mm

175.0 mm

175.0 mm

182.9 mm

The 3D solution differs from the 2D solution due to the displacement in z-direction

under the roller. The 2D plane strain approach has no freedom to deform in zdirection; hence the material will be slightly more stretched in x-direction.

The vertical reaction force on the roller (based on thickness dimensions 1 mm) has

been plotted for the two FE codes and the two element types in Figure 59. The time

period 0-1 seconds corresponds to the movement of the mat in the roller direction.

The time period 1-2 seconds corresponds to the rotation. Only small differences are

present between the linear and the quadratic solutions.

Figure 61 shows the vertical forces for the 2D plane strain simulation (thickness 1

mm) and the force on the roll for the 3D simulation divided by the width of the rubber

mat. It is clear that the 3D solution is less stiff.

57/62

300

MSC.MARC_linear

MSC.MARC_quadratic

Abaqus_linear

Abaqus_quadratic

250

Force [N]

200

150

100

50

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

time [sec]

Figure 60 3D analysis - undeformed and contour plots of contact pressure on deformed structure

(Benchmark 5)

300

250

MSC.MARC_linear

MSC.MARC_linear3D

Force [N]

200

150

100

50

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

time [sec]

Figure 61 Comparison plane strain and 3D analysis: force on roller versus time (Benchmark 5)

58/62

6.5

Modelling tips

number of elements within reasonable limits to avoid excessive computer times.

When comparing results of 3D analysis with essential 2D solutions the same mesh

density has to be applied. In the design of the mesh density, the following rules apply:

The weakest material (the mat) should have the highest number of nodes along

the surface

The steel roller does not need a high number of elements to describe the

deformation. However if the nodes of the mat are considered in contact with

the segments between the master nodes, a high mesh density along the roller

improves the solution

For modelling the (nearly) incompressible behaviour of the rubber special

elements have to be used to describe the incompressibility correctly

6.6

Parameter study

Interesting phenomena can be observed if the analyst varies the following parameters:

Effect of the magnitude of the applied displacement in upwards direction

Analytical tool description versus discretised tool description

Rigid steel cylinder instead of a deformable one

59/62

7. Concluding Remarks

At first glance, the proposed benchmark problems seem relatively simple. However, a

close study of the benchmark problems reveals that the obtained FE solutions can be

very sensitive to the parameters chosen in generating a particular FE solution. By

comparing the results of two different FE codes, well known for their ability to solve

complex contact problems, it became also clear that specific parameters or contact

control settings specified by the user can influence the obtained result.

Contact is mostly treated numerically as nodes getting in contact with segments, and

as a result the obtained solutions depend on the number of elements specified along

the boundary. Some general recommendations can be given:

A rule of thumb is to use a finer mesh for the weakest (less-stiff) part. This

surface with the fine mesh should then be used as slave (contacting) surface.

This will ensure that as many nodes as possible get in contact and will avoid

unnecessary penetrations of nodes in the surface.

specify the curved part as the slave surface.

For contact between two curved parts, the user should check to see if some

type of surface smoothing technique can be applied. If not available, quadratic

elements may be used since these elements can describe curved contours

better.

All solutions presented in this report have been analysed with the default

tolerance settings for global convergence. Some FE codes allow the user to

specify tolerance values, e.g. for contact detection and separation values.

- Verify, using the post-processor program, if nodal penetration can be

observed (ensure that deformation magnification factor is set to 1)

- Check which nodes are in contact

- Check if tensile contact normal forces or stresses are present at the

surface

After verification of the displacement field, the stress field inside the element

is usually right as well. The verification of the numerically obtained contact

pressure, tangential stress and slip is most effectively performed with a path

plot in a 2D analysis and a contour plot along the surface in a 3D analysis.

Other checks typically depend on the problem at hand and often some feeling

of the importance of a specific numerical parameter is obtained by performing

a sensitivity analysis for this parameter.

The proper meshing technique near the contact zone is extremely important in

benchmarks 1 and 3.

60/62

implementations) result in different solutions in benchmark 2.

the problem with contact using quadratic elements is illustrated in benchmark

4.

benchmarks 3 and 5.

displacement approach assuming a linear elastic material.

main reason for this choice is that in Abaqus/Standard the selection of a

geometrically non-linear step ensures the proper iterative procedure needed for

the strongly non-linear contact algorithm.

(stick-slip

61/62

References

[1]

NAFEMS Report R0025, 1993.

[2]

NAFEMS Booklet HT15, 2000.

[3]

Modelling of Contact, Gapping and Sliding, NAFEMS Report R0081, 2001.

[4]

Hertz, H., ber die Berhrung fester elasticher Krper. J. Reine Angew.

Mathm. 92, 156-171, 1881.

62/62

- 53615590 Non Linear Analysis of Spur Gear Using Matlab CodeTransféré parhazemismaeelradhi
- AEROSPACE_ENGINEERING.pdfTransféré parKarthik Ram
- Aeronautical EngineeringTransféré parRajib Das
- Non-Linear Contact Analysis of Meshing GearsTransféré parPrakash Kancharla
- Creating a Continuous and Interactive Simulation Using Bicycle Dynamics and Real World FactorsTransféré parSean_T_Robinson
- Fundamentals of Stress Analysis - Lec 04Transféré parعبداللهأحمد
- SALOME Meca Code Aster AbbreviationsTransféré parCostynha
- Friction of RocksTransféré parJuan Carlos Bazán Sotomayor
- 3bTransféré paradnandj
- Analysis of Traction Forces in a... Kannel 1986Transféré parPaulo Negrão
- 2012_Explizit_Kontakte_UM (1)Transféré parsuhas110
- JJ310 STRENGTH OF MATERIAL Chapter 1(a)Forces on MaterialTransféré parAh Tiang
- Shell ElementTransféré parDinesh Kumar Devendiran
- 692262Transféré parsuresh_mohite1524
- ME_F211_1083.pdfTransféré parPranjal Srivastava
- Walker PresTransféré parBullah Mizen
- Behavior etc.pdfTransféré parandra2013
- Tutorial 2Transféré parKS Chong
- Reference Manual V8Transféré parFlorin Dascalu
- TrussTransféré parUtsav
- Composites Part a- Applied Science and Manufacturing Volume 35 Issue 7-8 2004 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.compositesa.2004.01.014] J. Cugnoni; Th. Gmür; A. Schorderet -- Identification by Modal Analysis of CompoTransféré parkkkraja
- MoM Course Handout NewTransféré parSyed Sirajul Haq
- Caso Placa 4Transféré pargatitok5
- Gakwaya_SFEM for Degenarate ShellTransféré parhoneyb
- hwTransféré parDrSn Padhi
- ch03Transféré parRamesh Krishnan
- Thermal Stress Analysis of Structure (1)Transféré parPakistan's Got Talent
- Lab9 Sliding FrictionTransféré parNur Syamiza Zamri
- Ppr12.167alrTransféré parWan Jailani Wan Hussin
- ch02-mTransféré parHasan Alaswad

- TALAT Lecture 1501: Properties, Characteristics and Alloys of AluminiumTransféré parCORE Materials
- 119380Transféré partonisugus
- 0871706903_ASM Electircl and Magnetic Properties of MetalsTransféré parReza Besharati Tabrizi
- Stainless Steels for Design EngineersTransféré parbookseekr
- Natural ConvectionTransféré parKarthi Keyan
- Del West Roche CS EnTransféré partonisugus
- Dassa Phd Thesis CensTransféré partonisugus
- magneticpermeability(1)Transféré partonisugus
- ajp-jphyscol198445C1127Transféré partonisugus
- ManualTransféré partonisugus
- Developpement of a Fast Mechanical ProbeTransféré partonisugus
- Sap HireTransféré partonisugus
- BMW Leipzig CS EnTransféré partonisugus

- MnDOT2012-16.pdfTransféré parLakhwant Singh
- Jurnal Triaxial and True Triaxial ConfinementTransféré parAmbarr Sutanti
- Structural Unit Method for Nonlinear AnalysisTransféré partharane
- Comparison of Two FEA Models for Calculating Stresses in Shell-And-tube Heat ExchangerTransféré parDevang Desai
- PhysicsTransféré parDea Noc
- COMSOL_43_IntroductionToStructuralMechanicsModuleTransféré parJose Barbosa
- Nauticus Hull - Steel Plates UnstiffenedTransféré parbosskoj
- Material PropTransféré parJAcc COncepcion
- Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2014 ReportTransféré paremmanuel
- Soal Hibbeler UASTransféré parRokhim van Heaven
- Soil Structure InteractionTransféré parCarlos Satornicio
- Biomechanics of Mechanical Heart Valve3729Transféré parAndyYe
- Theories of Failure (1)Transféré parBas Karan
- P0002-Reel Handling Structures Design CalculationsTransféré parki
- Materials BehaviourTransféré parVishwarath Taduru
- Art 12_Hossain et al 2009_ICMSAO Sharjah Conf_41-44246_Exp Study_Phy.pdfTransféré parAndhika Galih Prasetyo
- Plates TheoryTransféré parmicheleling6696
- Axisymmetric ProblemTransféré parnguyenvanlinh
- Sp6_6 Stral Hand BookTransféré parproxywar
- tang ziqi exp2 lab reportTransféré parapi-321851643
- Soil StressTransféré parendang_kosasih
- wfvTransféré parHugo Duchovny
- SOlution Steel By William T. Segui 001.pdfTransféré parBunkun15
- Prestressed T-Beam.pdfTransféré parAbhilash Kumar
- Flac 3D 1Transféré parRobert Aguedo
- Basic of MechanicalTransféré parFawad Hassan
- MT_2019Transféré parAryan Roy
- INTRODUCCIÓN MeccanicaRocceTransféré parTherionhenry
- ANSYS Explicit Dynamics Analysis GuideTransféré parSuri Kens Michua
- A-LEVELTransféré parSeanGoonShengTang