yahoo 讨论组摘录--contact+overclosure

8776 Urgent help: overclosure of contact problems

I have a contact problem which the mesh of the master Surface and the slave surface are of the same size.
Acturally the Master nodes and the slave nodes are sharing the same coordinates. They have the same location
but different node numbers. But when i run the abaqus. The warning message of " the Overclosure of the master
surface and slave surface is too much Severe.".
In abaqus manual, one way to slove it is to use " Adjust=0.0 " in the "contact pair" to establish contact at the
Initial configuration?
Or to use " contact interference" ? How to manange contact when master surface and slave Surface are the
same location, but will seperate or penetrate when Loading??
Re
Liang, I had solved a similar problem by increasing the mesh density of the Slave surface by about 2 times and
increasing the distance between master and Slave surface so that there is a small gap between them. I am not
sure if you Can do that in your problem but this is an option.
These are the warnings you are seeing. What are the error messages when it aborts as seen from the message
file? What exactly asre you simulating? Usually your slave surface (more deformable?) Must be more finely
meshed than the master surface.

5996 Exponential contact pressure-overclosure relationship & separation

I am dealing with an interface where I have defined a softened interface following an exponential relationship.
It appears that this configuration does not allow the separation of the two surfaces. Would you know how to
disable this behavior? I have found in the doc how to not allow separation, but I have here the oposite case, I
need the separation.
Re
You can just toggle off the box for "allow for separation" :)
Yes, just erase NO SEPARATION on the *CONTACT PAIR card !! Softened contact DO allow separation,
the particularity is that you will have a contact pressure even if the surfaces are opened.

5176frction and contact

I have a co-axial cylindrical shell structure in which a polymeric cylinder has been placed between two steel
cylinders and then pressure is applied on the external surface of the structure. I am looking for the collapse
pressure of the structure when de-bonding between polymeric layer and steel layers is allowed. So far I have a
model which works with low and moderate friction coefficient (0.1 to 0.6).
However, to make sure that my model is behaving well, I decided to run a fully bonded model (layers sharing
node with each other) and then compare the result with a de-bonded model with high friction coefficient (e.g.
0.9-1.0). I expect that the buckling pressure should be close.
Now the problem is as friction coefficient is going up (>0.7), analysis fails without a single increment progress
with messages regarding overclosure and contact opening, etc. Looking at the ABAQUS manual, it seems that
there are two different methods to solve the problem. One is using NO SEPARATION contact behaviour and
the other one is to use UNSYMM=NO. Both of them are working in my case when applied but I do not know
which one is the correct one or the most appropriate one.
My questions are: 1- Is my understanding of the high friction and the way to avoid convergence problem is
right? 2- How can I decide what should I choose (NO SEPARATION or UNSYMM=NO)? Any help would be
greatly appreciated.

4473 how to model the two plate contact together?

1
I model the two steel plates connected, the sides of them are modeled by connector element, and the contact
surface, I use contact command. But ABAUQUS, give me the warning below:
***WARNING: THE SYSTEM MATRIX HAS 239 NEGATIVE EIGENVALUES.
***WARNING: OVERCLOSURE OF CONTACT SURFACES ANGLEPLANE and GUSSETPLANE IS TOO
SEVERE -- CUTBACK WILL RESULT. YOU MAY WANT TO CHANGE THE VALUE OF HCRIT ON THE
*CONTACT PAIR OPTION. SLAVE NODE 3513 OF CONTACT PAIR (ANGLEPLANE,GUSSETPLANE)
HAS JUST CLOSED. A NEW CONTACT PATCH NEEDS TO BE DEFINED FOR THE SLAVE NODE.
And I use this commond *Surface Behavior, no separation, pressure-overclosure=HARD and connenctor
element is 3D Connector element : beam to located at the edge nodes of two plates I only want to model the two
contact surface deform with each other without friction,They can't penetrate into each other's inside. Would you
give me some suggestion! Thanks in advance
Re
I am not all that experienced with Abaqus, but I think what the error means is that there are 239 negative
volumes / elemenst in ur model. It might be due to meshing very close surfaces together that your elements
between the plates have turned inside out. Ur model has to be free of all the negative elements before you can
do any analysis on it. If u are modeling two simple plates, u can try meshing them on another meshing program
and then make sure that there is no negative elements in the mesh before u import it in Abaqus to do any
analysis. Guys, feel free to correct me if I have mistaken.
May be ur initial penetration is too much (modeling) or ur initial time step is too high. ABAQUS is trying to
resolve overclosure there. Either adjust model so that it will be "just contact" or "just before contact" distance,
or reduce ur initial time step so that u can avoid overclosure thingy. But it may be because of normal issue ?
If it it plate contact, I think it will be working fine with few adjustment...
By the way, how are u dealing with edge line contact ???
I get the same messages when running a contact problem. Is it realted to ABAQUS CAE, did anyone tried to
use the "Contact Pair" option in ABAQUS Explicit?
If it worked some other way please advice, thanks

**4400contact
I am currently doing some analyses including contacts for a composite shell. To have a better understanding
about contact, I started by modelling a composite beam consisting of three layers (Steel/Polymer/Steel). The
steel plates were master surface and polymeric layer was slave. I was expecting that when I am pressing the
steel plates, the polymeric layer should slide and squeeze out (the Poisson抯 effect).
I was using solid elements (brick element). On the contact surfaces, the slave and mater nodes had the same
coordinate but different node numbers. When I was using reduced integration point formulation for 1st or 2nd
order elements, the solution did not converge and I had warning messages regarding numerical singularity and
overclosure suggesting to change HCRIT, etc. Even when I refined the mesh for slave surface (twice as master
surface), the problem did not disappear until mesh refinement in slave surface was in a way that the nodes in
slave and master were not 揷oincide? Furthermore, I had to use full integration elements rather than reduced
integration elements -even in 2nd order elements- to allow the analysis converges, which is strange to me. First
of all, my question is why this is a case (mesh refinement in slave surface and avoiding reduced integration
point formulation for the 2nd order elements)? Having succeeded in analysis of composite beam (although I
have problem to understand why this is a case), I modelled a long shell (L/D=10) with three layers
(Steel/Polymer/Steel), allowing the same sort of contact describing above. I ended up with memory shortage (I
have modified the pre-memory and standard memory as high as I could). A simple solution to memory is to add
RAM, but I am hopefully trying to solve the problem in other ways. Now my second question is, how one can
搊ptimise?The size of the model when you are dealing with contact. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Re
2
It's very hard to define "optimal contact definition" in general. It depends on many variables...but usually... 1.
Define contact where only contact is occuring. Usually I run without contact (disp loading) to see where it
penetrates, then grow contact from that region... 2. If it really is not serious contact (large sliding etc), try to use
simplified version (small sliding, etc).
So, I think the less contact I have it's better situation... I am not sure about full-integration, reduced integration
shell...I thought ABAQUS is using kinematic relation type contact (penalty in explicit), surface is generated
based on nodes/surface (master), then keep calculating relative distance between master/slave (nodes) etc...not
sure where integration point thing comes in.
More node (refined) will generate smoother surface..depends on what contact u are using (finite sliding, small
sliding, etc), the number of nodes to check distance will increase.....
Solution will converge if u use small step, displacement type loading until it reaches problem points, apply very
small initial increment and check in what instance ABAQUS is having trouble...(assuming no serious
overclosure)..

4337 modeling an arch dam

I'm trying to model an arch dam by CAE scripting. As far as i've understood, the solid modeling is based on
extrusion operation for 3D solids. But this may not be applicable for generation of the arch dam blocks. Any
idea on this?
Re
This may be create in others cad/cam/cae & then should be convert to *.inp for abaqus.
Thanks for your reply. But I think ABAQUS should consider adding some more features for creating base solid
models in next versions. Feature based modeling is quite a strong tool and I beleive adding further capabilities
to it, CAE can be used as a very strong mesh generator.
Do U have Abaqus 6.3.3?
Yes, truly, all depends on terms. Up to an output of the new version it is possible to make, probably, only so
with required quality.

4141 Possible contact problem

Hi group, I am running an impact simulation using ABAQUS/EXPLICIT between an analytical rigid body and
a deformable element based solid. At the start of the step the rigid body is in contact (no overclosure) with the
node based surface of the element based solid. A force is then applied to the reference node of the rigid body. I
am interested in the displacement of the surface nodes on the deformable body, but they are consistently too low
in comparison to the experimental results I have.
I have read of lots of people having contact problems and was wondering if it is possible that I am having a
contact related problem. I have checked the total contact force between the surfaces and it seems to be about
right. Is it possible that the contact is not working properly if I am getting the right contact force between the
surfaces?
Re
You haven't said anything about the nature of your deformable body. Is the real object undergoing plastic
deformation or creep that you are not modeling?
In rereading your original question , I see that you are doing impact. Creep is probably not an issue and I'm not
sure about plasticity or viscoelasticity. How great is the discrepancy between FEA and experiment?
Hi Danny, thanks for your reply. Impact occurs over a short time (~1ms) so as you say creep, viscoelasticity
shouldn't be a factor. I expect a displacement of 2.8mm based on experiment, and FEA yields a value of 1.5mm.
There are other possible sources of error in the simulation that I am investigating, but I wanted to eliminate the

3
possibility that the contact wasn't working properly.

*4004 simulate micro indentation

I am using ABAQUS 6.2/Standard to simulate micro indentation procedure. (ABAQUS/Explicit is not
available) At first, I wanna to do a very simple simulation. A sphere indenter is put into aluminum block
material. I set the indenter as rigid and constrain it fully. Then the Step is static and distributed load on the
bottom surface of the block. Contace pair is the top surface of the block (slave) and the rigid sphere surface
(master). Unfortunately, I always got the warning information: overclosure of contact surfaces is too severe.
What has gone wrong? What shall I do to get rid of it and reach the right solution?
Re
(1) check, if the surfaces do not touch each other
(2) use a small increment for the calculation start
(3) check if your rigid surface definition is o.k., sometimes the surface normal points to the wrong direction, see
manuals for right definition
--- > the program computes the distance of the slave nodes from the master surface and takes into account this
surface normal - so you will get always a overclosure for separated surfaces if you choose the wrong direction
I have noticed that you are modelling micro-indentation in ABAQUS. I wonder if you know of any references
that can help me to get started with a micro-indentation model? I have no idea on how to do it, since all the
literature that I have found says that classical plasticity does not apply but that I should use strain gradient
plasticity theory, which is not available in ABAQUS. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Strain gradient plasticity is just a new kind of theory to consider the size effect of material. It means the material
properties in small size scale (nano or micro) is different from large scale. The theory is called to be a bridge
between continuum mechanics and dislocation theory. It is mainly proposed by Gao Huajian and Nix in
Stanford univeristy and Huang in UIUC. They have done indentation simulation based on the theory. (check
their papers). The constitutive equation should be changed in the simulation. I believe it is a quite complicated
job. I am using classical plasticity theory because currently my scale is much larger. (Dozens of microns)

**3666 CONTACT PROBLEMS

I am facing problem defining the Contact. I must define whats the Geometry, Its 2D problem, Axis
Symmetric. 2 Rigids body are holding Material Sheet, In the CONTACT Region of Rigid bodies and material,
The material is not allowed to flow when the Deformation takes place, The rest of material part is facing Fluid
Pressure, I hope you understand its Forming Process.
The problem is overclosure, The Nodes of material body with in Rigid bodies get the problem and Convergence
is not reached so it aborts. Some body please guide me what options i should use to overcome this problem
Re
Are you applying load or displacement to your rigid bodies?
*Does your problem start out with an overclosure? If it is your intention to have the rigid bodies contact the
deformable solid with an initial line-to-line contact, you may want to use the ADJUST parameter on the
*CONTACT PAIR command.
I am not applying ne force on rigids bodies, they are just holding the material, the nodes of material that are
under rigid bodies are fixed,
*Good, ABAQUS has trouble resolving contact with load applied to rigid bodies; applying a displacement to
the rigid bodies rather than load is much easier for ABAQUS to resolve. As Danny suggested, ADJUST might
help. Also, it will make your message file large, but you can try using *PRINT, CONTACT=YES to give you a
better idea of what is going on at the contact interface (this will tell you which nodes are overclosing and by
how much).

4
This is puzzling. Do you mean that:
a) The rigid bodies are controlled by displacements (zero or non-zero) and
b) The nodes on the surface of the deformable body which are in contact with the rigid body are fixed????
Then nothing will move and no deformation will occur.
This geometry is almost the same as an example in "ABAQUS Example Problems Manual - Volume 1", the
Example is CYLINDRICAL CUP DEEP DRAWING.
Now I want a little change in this.
1-- Instead of Punch I want to use the FLUID PRESSURE.
2-- Material held between the HOLDER and DIE should not be moved, when the deformation takes place
meaning only part of material under FLUID PRESSURE is deformed. I hope this will clear what i want to do.
I will be greatly looking for the suggestion.

3535 composite structure and contact

I would like to model 搒liding?Behaviour of middle layer of a three-layer composite structure. For simplicity,
imaging there is a solid rectangular beam (C3D8RH), consisting of three layers. The middle layer (core) is
much softer than the exposing (face) layers. Then structure is going under external pressure from one of the face
layers. In reality, the nodes of core have the same coordinate than faces (i.e. Sharing the same nodes). But when
you want to study the sliding behaviour of core, you need to have, I suppose, different series of node sets (for
face and core respectively), but with same coordinates and then allow the contact between them. My problem is
I will get the following warning message in the .msg file, which it is understandable:
***WARNING: OVERCLOSURE OF CONTACT SURFACES 揂NN-I?Br> and 揊LINE?IS TOO SEVERE
-- CUTBACK WILL RESULT. YOU
MAY WANT TO CHANGE THE VALUE OF HCRIT ON THE *CONTACT PAIR OPTION.
Now if I want to change the HCRIT, it will not be a case and in the case of 搒ame coordinates? I do not know
how much it should be. Have anybody crossed such problems? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Re
***I have faced similar problems earlier and the following worked for me:
Use ADJUST parameter to specify the depth of adjustment zone. This might allow you to avoid changing the
HCRIT value.In most contact problems, overclosure, due to smaller than required HCRIT, occurs right at the
beginning of the simulation, which means that the slave nodes are penetrating the master surface in the initial
configuration itself. ADJUST parameter will reposition the nodes and enable modeling of the sliding behvior
with good accuracy.
Thank you very much for your email. Actually, I have tried it and still could not perform the analysis
successfully. I also had problem with memory shortage which means that I should make my model smaller. If
it does not make any problem, could you please forward me the contact part of input file you have written for
your own model to my email address

3517 Contact Simulation...Severe Cut Back Problem

I am having problem in my simulation my message file is giving this warning
***WARNING: OVERCLOSURE OF CONTACT SURFACES SA000005 and SP000009 IS TOO SEVERE --
CUTBACK WILL RESULT. YOU MAY WANT TO CHANGE THE VALUE OF HCRIT ON THE
*CONTACT PAIR OPTION.
I have reduced the value of HCRIT till 0.0001 m. But still having the same message. Is it due to the high load?
And how can I get rid of this message as it sometimes stop after a no. Of iteration step due to this problem.
Waiting...
Re

5
Check your surface normals. If they are in the wrong direction, ABAQUS thinks your surfaces have already
penetrated each other.
Thanks Rich for the reply...
My *.dat file shows that the normals have been assumed by ABAQUS. The message is
***WARNING: NODE 4 ON SURFACE SP000009 HAS FACETS WITH NORMAL VECTORS DIFFERING
BY MORE THAN 30 DEGREES. CONVERGENCE DIFFICULTIES MAY OCCUR AT THIS NODE WITH
FINITE-SLIDING CONTACT. THE NORMAL CONTACT DIRECTION AT THIS NODE WILL BE
(0.0000,0.70622,0.70799).
Any remedial action to avoid this.
I think this topic of Contact Penetration has been discussed in the previous mails. Try a word search with
contact.

*3504 Values for softened contact

I am considering using the pressure-overclosure=linear option on the *SURFACE BEHAVIOUR card. I am
interested in using this in conjuntion with the NO SEPARATION parameter and hopefully to have tension
between the contacting bodies also (I don't think hard contact with no separation does this?).
My problem is what values to pick for the pressure-overclosure relationship. There is no particular data I need
to use so is there numbers which people tend to use in general to get the advantages of softened contact (I am
having problems with hourglassing) and to have tension available?
Re
I believe that NO SEPARATION parameter can't be used in conjuntion with the modified surface behavior such
as pressure-overclosure=linear at least in ABAQUS/standard. My understanding to this is that once contact was
established the slave nodes will be constrained fully to the master surface.

***3200 Contact overclosure

I have a model with 3D-solid elements (quad. Tetrahedral) and a static step in abaqus/standard. I defined a
contact between two round surfaces, initially separated. During the second step the surfaces get in contact with
each other. I allways have an overclosure of the surfaces and the increments are getting smaller and smaller
untill the analysis stops. I changed master/slave and tried every value of hcrit, but it didn't work. It's allways the
same. What could I do else?
Re
Perhaps you should use C3D10M instead of C3D10. C3D10M are designed for contact problems.
Are you using ABAQUS/Standard? And is it a high enough speed impact? If so, like I had to, Explicit may be a
better option. Just my thoughts,
Thanks for your answer, but I use C3D10M elements.
*Yes, I am using abaqus/standart. Can I do in explicit a static analysis?
--Not really I think, it is only for dynamic analysis. Sorry, I thought from your previous mail you were running a
dynamic analysis. Didn't read properly!
A couple of suggestions. Try adding command *CONTACT CONTROLS, AUTOMATIC TOLERANCES in
your steps. This helps to reduce 'chattering' at the contact face (see the manual for detail. Alternatively change
your element type to 4 nodes (especially on the slave surface side) maybe C3D4 ?
*The element choice plays a crucial part in contact element. Many of the problems like overclosure,
Hourglassing atc can be reduced to a great extent by the right choice of elements. I would suggest you try to
change the element type and run it once and the try observing at what point of the second time step is the
overclosure starting. Keep checking for these in between the solution. Also if the geometry is not too complex
try the brick elements.

6
**Try to impose a small displacement instead of a load in order to initialized the contact.
First step: small displacement
Second step: you replace the displacement by the load
Becarfull: do not forget your real boundaries.
Second method: use the parameter APPROACH in *Contact Controls command
Do you have SMALL SLIDING or finite sliding ? How do you move your second body? Just a force load ? If
this is true, try a step with a small prescribed motion to close the contact, then run a second step, remove the
boundary and add your force. This will run. Use *CONTACT CONTROLS, ANALYSIS=DISCONTINUOUS.

1378 Explicit and Contact

I'm trying to do a simulation of a axisymmetric bolt thread being formed. I followed an example in the
examples manual as a guide, but I'm still having problems with the contact.
1) The die is made of a rigid surface.
2) The bolt material starts out as a rectangular slab.
3) The rigid surface is the master surface.
4) Friction is used (mu=0.2).
5) Material of bolt is steel
6) The bolt mat'l is fixed along the line of symmetry.
7) The die moves towards the bolt at a velocity of 1600 mm/s.
The problem I encounter is that the forming result is totally bizarre.
First, I get an initial warning that my overclosure is 1.33 (mm?) And the ABAQUS will compensate for it in the
first step. I think my problem is here. What I end up with is that the material "moves" to contact the die
without the die moving in the first increment. At least that is what is looks like to me. I checked it in
ABAQUS/POST, and it does look like the elements first form around the die (which doesn't move in that
increment), and then the when the die does move, it doesn't deform anything. Any ideas or suggestions???
Re
What I end up with is that the material "moves" to contact the die without the die moving
Abaqus post and viewer rescale the graphis to keep things centered on each increment. I'm guessing this is
causing the illusion of motion.
Have you checked if the outward normal at the contact surface is in the right sense? Perhaps it is the reason of
having an initial overclosure.
Yep, that was the problem. The model works just fine now. Thanks for all help. Since i've never used rigid
analytical surfaces, I didn't realize this was an issue. It is.

*1294 contact overclosure

We have a problem involving too many contacts. Is there any other option other than ADJUST (*CONTACT
PAIR - keyword) parameter to curb penetration / overclosure. We understand this ADJUST is to take care of
geometry modelling / meshing errors. While we donot give this the solution terminates at the beginning itself.
Giving ADJUST = 0.0 makes the solution progress. But we have been told not to use this parameter. Is there
any other way in place. Thanks in advance.
Re
Between what type of bodies are you modeling contact? The problem depends to some extent on this. If you are
modeling contact between deformable bodies, you might want to try the WEIGHT parameter. Also, try
adjusting the mesh size of the elements belonging to master and slave surfaces.
You might try *CONTACT INTERFERENCE,SHRINK

7
**593 Couple of Questions
I'm wondering nobody couldn't give me guide(s) about my questions? Could you please reply me if you can?
Soheil (below is my previous message) Dear Group I'm a phd student at Heriot-Watt University, UK.
I want to model the bending of pipe on rigid circular surface. I faced with problem in "contact" of pipe which
has been modelled by "S4" element and the rigid surface which modelled by "R3D4" elemnt. I would like to
know:
1- What is the best way for modelling of a 3-D circular rigid surface (e.g. An exterior surface of a quarter of
cylinder)?
2-What is the command name in ABAQUS for "merging" of nodes? In other softwares like LUSAS or NISA,
the "merge" command is used. I guess it is MPC in ABAQUS, isn't it?
3-Which parameters should be taken into account when you want to choose a magnitude for increment, i.e.
INC=....?
4- I faced the following WARNING message in .msg file. What should I do to overcome it? What does it mean
"VALUE OF HCRIT"?
***WARNING: OVERCLOSURE OF CONTACT SURFACES SHELSUR and RGDSUR IS TOO SEVERE --
CUTBACK WILL RESULT. YOU MAY WANT TO CHANGE THE VALUE OF HCRIT ON THE
*CONTACT PAIR OPTION.
(SHELSURF is positive side of pipe and RGDSUR is rigid surface).
5-Finally, about print of .odb files, what is the procedure? I couldn't find any rough described path in
ABAQUS/Viewer manual. I want to know what should I type in "Print Command" box when you open "print"
window. I seek help of everybody and I do appreciate your help in advance.
Re
1.Best way of modeling rigid surface is building up the surface with analytical surface. Analytical one is always
better than numerically discretized one in view of analysis costs, and accuracy. It's like mises is better than
tresca in terms of easiness of numerical implementation.
2.It's MPC TIED. It does not merge the nodes as you want, it simply eliminates dof of specified nodes in
stiffness matrix and makes this node inactive during current analysis.
3.Im not sure what is the keypoint of this question. If you want to use user defined time increment , use
DIRECT keyword in *STATIC.
4. This message generally arise when there is large amount of penetration during current sdi. HCRIT means ... If
there developed contact penetration larger than this value, there'll be cut-back rather than more iteration.

305 Problems of Overclosure

I am trying to model a machining process, where the workpiece is clamped onto the machining platform.
Different sections of the workpiece are machined at different stages and this requires new set of clamps to be
introduced into the model for each stage. The clamps are idealised by using contact analysis. This is because I
do not want some sections of the workpiece to be rigidly constrained.
The problem is that I have severe overclosure in the model for some contact pairs when I activate new contact
pairs in the restart analysis, to introduce the new set of clamps for machining the next section of the workpiece.
I am not very familiar with contact analysis, but I have read that we can use commands such as *contact
interference, shrink or *contact pair,adjust to solve such problems (I was not aware of these command initially).
However, as these comands are defined at the first step of the analysis, would the overclosure problems be
rectified for the reactivated contact pairs that were previously inactive in the restart analyses? I would very
much appreciate any other suggestions to solving the problem too.
Re
The clamps are idealised by using contact analysis. This is because I do not want some sections of the
workpiece to be rigidly constrained. I'd say dont use contact pairs at all. You are adding a complicated
8
nonlinearity where all you want is a stiff-but-not-rigid boundary condition. Imagine your clamp is jsut a stiff
spring and use *EQUATION.
If you must model the clamping, start with the clamp slightly away from the part and push it into contact as a
step. Soft contact helps quite alot with convergance as well.

*5994 assembly parts instance options in ABAQUS

I hope everybody is doing fine. I am using the assembly, parts instance options in ABAQUS/Explicit to build
my model. I am facing problems at the common interface of two parts of a model. Does anybody know--how
abaqus joins the two parts or how they define the commmon nodes for two parts? When I am checking my data
file I found that globally abaqus is definig two nodes at the same location. And if it is doing that then how the
nodes are coneected between parts? Do I need to define the connection at the common interface or assembly
option is supposed to do it automatically?
If any body has any idea or any experience with the assembly parts instance options in ABAQUS please, reply,
ASAP.
Re
Abaqus will not join the two instances together. You will need to define some interaction between the two
instances using interaction module. If u want to merge two parts then you can merge using assembly module
itself. If u want to merge the nodes of the two instances then you can do the following, if your part is a
geometrical representation then, mesh it and create input file for that. Open it using abaqus, which will open it
with only nodes and elements (orphan mesh)...then you can opt for merging the two orphan mesh part instances
in assembly module (but make sure to you dont merge the nodes)...then that creates third part with the nodes at
the interface unmerged. Then in part module you can click the node on the interface you want to merge and then
merge it,
Thanks a lot for your reply. But actually i am not using ABAQUS/CAE. We don't have the license for that. So I
am building my model trough text editior. I am definig the parts first and meshing them. Each part contains tie
constraints is some regions. The tie constarints are defined with in each part. Then I am definig the assembly by
positioning the parts using *parts instance option. When the whole assembly is built I am defing the boundary
conditions and contact regions. I have contact between steel and concrete at one face. And i am definig that (in
the step data) afetr definig the assembly.
My model is running and there is no error message in any file. But the only thing is that each part is behaving
individually.
As u have have mentioned about the merging option, how can I do that by text editor?
The solution is to define a *CONTACT,TIED card between the two parts. But the stresses in this region won't
be accurate...

584 Couple of Questions about "CONTACT"

I'm a phd student at Heriot-Watt University, UK.
I want to model the bending of pipe on rigid circular surface. I faced with problem in "contact" of pipe which
has been modelled by "S4" element and the rigid surface which modelled by "R3D4" elemnt.
I would like to know:
1- What is the best way for modelling of a 3-D circular rigid surface (e.g. An exterior surface of a quarter of
cylinder)?
2-What is the command name in ABAQUS for "merging" of nodes? In other softwares like LUSAS or NISA,
the "merge" command is used. I guess it is MPC in ABAQUS, isn't it?
3-Which parameters should be taken into account when you want to choose a magnitude for increment, i.e.

9
INC=....?
4- I faced the following WARNING message in .msg file. What should I do to overcome it? What does it mean
"VALUE OF HCRIT"?
***WARNING: OVERCLOSURE OF CONTACT SURFACES SHELSUR and RGDSUR IS TOO SEVERE
-- CUTBACK WILL RESULT. YOU MAY WANT TO CHANGE THE VALUE OF HCRIT ON THE
*CONTACT PAIR OPTION.
(SHELSURF is positive side of pipe and RGDSUR is rigid surface).
5-Finally, about print of .odb files, what is the procedure? I couldn't find any rough described path in
ABAQUS/Viewer manual.
I seek help of everybody and I do appreciate your help in advance.

10