Scribd
Upload
112 views7 pages

ANSYS Contact Formulations - Which One To Use - FEA Tips

Uploaded by

Sachin Patel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
112 views7 pages

ANSYS Contact Formulations - Which One To Use - FEA Tips

Uploaded by

Sachin Patel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

X

#000000 Check out FEA Tips eBook - All Models are Wrong

FEA Tips

ANSYS Contact Formulations: Which one to use?

 5 (2)

Introduction
In this article, we will discuss some aspects of ANSYS contact theory and relate those to the
contact formulation options.

ANSYS offers five different contact formulations. If you go to the details of a contact
definition and under Advanced, click on Formulation, you will see the following drop down
menu:
X
#000000 Check out FEA Tips eBook - All Models are Wrong

We will expand on Augmented Lagrange, Pure Penalty and Normal Lagrange – MPC and
Beam are relevant for bonded and No Separation contact. You can read about MPC
contacts here.

Penalty vs Lagrange Methods


There are two basic methods of contact formulation in ANSYS: Penalty based and Lagrange
Based

The two types of methods differ in how the contact interaction (between the contact and
target surfaces) is treated mathematically.

With the Normal Lagrange method, the contact status is a step function. This type of
contact can sometimes result in a situation which is called “chattering” – A contact
continues to cycle between open and closed states and the solver is unable to settle on a
final contact state resulting from the applied loads and boundary conditions. In other
words the model does not converge to a solution.

One way to address the issue of chattering is by introducing the concept of contact
penetration. With this approach the nodes on the interfacing bodies are allowed to
interpenetrate. This can be seen in the image below. The contact points on the red body
are allowed to penetrate into the volume of the blue body.

We know that in real life, physical bodies do not interpenetrate. This is why it is necessary
to keep the penetration to a predefined minimum value. The way this is achieved is by
introducing an artificial spring as shown in the Figure below.
X
#000000 Check out FEA Tips eBook - All Models are Wrong

This spring applies a force to essentially “pull” the red surface back and minimize the
penetration. A “low enough” value of this penetration is required to achieve a converged
solution. This value depends on various factor including the mesh size, and several contact
settings.

It is best to view the differences between the two methods in a tabular form:

The Lagrange method is more accurate since it better represents real life – i.e. no
interpenetration. However, this comes at a computational cost in the form of higher run
times.

What is the Augmented Lagrange Method?


The main reason to choose the Lagrange Method is its accuracy and the main reason to
choose the Penalty method is its low computational cost. But what if we find an optimum
formulation which is essentially the best of both worlds? Something that provides both
acceptable accuracy and run time. This is where the Augmented Lagrange Method comes
in. This is also the default contact formulation in ANSYS.

Check out FEA Tips eBook – All Models are Wrong

The Augmented Lagrange Method allows minimal penetration but is able to achieve
robustness and low run times. The table below shows a comparison of the three contact
methods.
X
#000000 Check out FEA Tips eBook - All Models are Wrong

The last column in the table above shows the symbols for the various parameters which the
algorithm uses to determine the contact status.

FTOLN is based on the thickness of the contact element. A value of 0.10 indicates 10% of
the element thickness.

FKN ranges from 0.01 – 10

Using the Stiffness and Tolerance Factors to aid in


convergence
If you get a warning message related to too much penetration you have several options:

1. Use the Normal Lagrange method – This will take penetration (and contact stiffness) out
of the equation (no pun intended!)

2. Reduce the normal stiffness factor

For bending dominated problems, use 0.01

For bulk deformation problems, use 1.00

3. Reduce the Penetration tolerance factor to 0.01

Further Readings
ANSYS Contact Technology Guide is an essential read. You can search the pdf for relevant
topics and get quick and reliable information.
ANSYS APDL Element Reference may be used to study the contact capabilities of various X
elements. #000000 Check out FEA Tips eBook - All Models are Wrong

Here is a guide on best practices for contact modeling.

How useful was this post?


Click on a star to rate it!


Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 2

 Post Views: 2,028

Like 0
     

HP Chromebook
x360 14c-
cc0009TU
Ad HP IN

« Multi-Body Parts in ANSYS : A look at Conformal and Non-Conformal Meshes


Automatic Connections in ANSYS – Yes or No? »

Related Posts
How to make two cylindrical bodies concentric in Understanding Cylindrical Coordinate System in
X
Design Modeler
#000000 Check out FEA Tips eBook - All ModelsANSYS
are Wrong

How to make the results legend more readable in How to calculate moment reaction along a cross
ANSYS Workbench section in ANSYS Workbench?

ANSYS Contact Settings Explained How to free up disk space after an ANSYS Run?

Top 5 Most Viewed Posts Recent Posts

How to Verify Mesh Quality in ANSYS How to get the node number of the node
with the maximum stress (or any other
Workbench (2,118)
result) in ANSYS Workbench?

ANSYS Contact Formulations: Which one December 7, 2022

to use? (2,028)
ANSYS Mesh Metrics Explained
Solid vs Shell vs Solid-Shell Elements November 21, 2022

(1,740)
Stress Relief vs Stress Relaxation – What is
A Guide to Applying Bolt Pretension the difference?
(Preload) in ANSYS Workbench (1,678) November 15, 2022

Understanding Solver Types and Force


Dynamic Amplification Factor Explained
Convergence Plots in ANSYS (1,392)
November 10, 2022

Stress Concentration Factor vs Stress


Intensity Factor

November 4, 2022
X
#000000 Check out FEA Tips eBook - All Models are Wrong

Copyright © 2022 FEA Tips. Powered by PressBook Grid Blogs theme

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy