20 views

Uploaded by Arun Mathew

- Tire Pavement Interaction Modelling Hyperelastic Tire and Elastic Pavement
- 17_Stress Concentration Tensors of Inhomogeneities_aoThjSOiDXl8
- A Geometrically Nonliear Theory of Elastic Plates
- ElBearLRFD12R5
- Models.mems.Layered Plate
- Ener Con Best Practices Web Handling Pp t
- Strength of Materials- Principal Stresses- Hani Aziz Ameen
- FE for Materials With Strain Gradient Effects
- Mechanics of Materials
- Simple Stresses and Strains
- 10.1.1.52.3575
- Fenet d3613 Dle Advanced Finite Element Contact Benchmarks
- Prediction of Field Response of Soil-support Systems in Deep Excavations.
- 24082400934.txt
- 24082400934
- Applicability of Burger Model in Predicting the Response of Viscoelastic Soil Beds
- 1123_02eprecast Seismic Design of Reinforced
- 2D 2 Reference
- Coeffcient of Friction
- Friction and Friction Coefficients.doc

You are on page 1of 62

FENET EU Thematic Network (Contract G1RT-CT-2001-05034) FENET RTD (Durability & Life Extension)

Report Title:

A.W.A. Konter Netherlands Institute for Metals Research

Author:

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.

Professor A.A. Becker University of Nottingham, UK (Coordinator- FENET Durability and Life Extension)

2/62

Table of contents

1. 2. Introduction.........................................................................................................4 Benchmark 1: 2D Cylinder Roller Contact ......................................................6 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 Benchmark 2: 3D Punch (Rounded Edges) ....................................................15 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 Benchmark 3: 3D Sheet Metal Forming .........................................................26 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 Benchmark 4: 3D Loaded Pin..........................................................................41 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 Benchmark 5: 3D Steel Roller on Rubber ......................................................54 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

3.

4.

5.

6.

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 Contact Benchmark - 1 2D Cylinder Roller Contact

Advancing contact area 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

punch = foundation = 0.3 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 2 E2 (1 12 ) + E1 (1 2 )

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

A set of numerical solutions has been obtained with the FE programs 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

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

9/62

Figure 2 Deformed structure plot at maximum load level (magnification factor = 1) (Benchmark 1)

The deformed structure plot (magnification factor 1.0) is shown in 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 4500

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 4500

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 4500 4000

stress [N/mm2]

10

x-coordinate [mm]

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

11/62

5000 4500 4000

stress [N/mm2]

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 0.020 slip [mm] 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000 0 2 4 arc length [mm]

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

linear quadratic

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]

force [N]

Figure 8.

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

For a reasonable contact description, at least 10 contacting nodes should be 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

It is interesting to generate additional solutions for: 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 Contact Benchmark - 2 3D Punch (Rounded edges)

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) Punch diameter = 100 mm Punch height = 100 mm Foundation diameter = 200 mm Foundation height = 200 mm Fillet radius at the edge of the punch contact = 10 mm

Geometry

Material properties

punch = foundation = 0.3 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

An axisymmetric steel punch is compressed on an aluminium cylinder. It is assumed 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

Both 2D (axisymmetric) and 3D solutions are requested. With the axisymmetric 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

Fully integrated elements have been applied in the numerical axisymmetric 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

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

-0.06

-0.08

-0.10

-0.12

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 -0.002 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

-0.006

-0.008

-0.012

-0.014

-0.016

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

-0.06

-0.10

-0.12

0.002

-0.006

-0.008

-0.010

-0.012

-0.014

-0.016

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 -0.002 -0.004 radial disp [mm] -0.006 -0.008 -0.010 -0.012 -0.014 -0.016 -0.018 radial coordinate [mm] Lagrange Penalty no friction 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

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 contact stress [N/mm2] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 arc length [mm] 40 50 60 MSC.MARC Abaqus

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

45 40 35 shear stress [N/mm2] 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 0 10 20 30 arc length [mm] 40 50 60 MSC.MARC Abaqus

Figure 16 Comparison of contact tangential stress along punch using linear elements (Benchmark 2)

21/62

450 400 normal pressure [N/mm2] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 position from axis [mm]

Figure 17 Comparison of contact stresses along punch and foundation using linear elements (Benchmark 2)

MARC_linear_foundation MARC_linear_edge

700 600 normal pressure [N/mm2] 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 position from axis [mm]

Figure 18 Comparison of contact stresses along punch and foundation using quadratic elements (Benchmark 2)

MARC_quadratic_foundation MARC_quadratic_punch

22/62

400 350 normal pressure [N/mm2] 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 position from axis [mm] 40 50 MARC_linear MARC_quadratic MARC_linear3D

Figure 19 Comparison of contact stress along foundation using 2D linear and quadratic elements and 3D linear elements [MSC.MARC] (Benchmark 2)

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 0.006 relative slip [mm] 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 0 10 20 30 distance [mm] 40 50 linear quadratic

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

The problem to be analysed is relatively simple in terms of the geometric description 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

It is also interesting to present solutions for: 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 Contact Benchmark - 3 3D Sheet metal forming

Rigid and deformable bodies Mesh dependency Elasticity, plasticity and spring back Sliding contact around circular surface 2D plane strain elements or shell elements

Punch

Geometry

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

Final position

Material properties

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

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

This benchmark problem is an approximation of the Numisheet 2002 Benchmark B 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

As described in the Numisheet Benchmark 2002, experimental results have been 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 Angles after release 53.4 - 55.8

250

200

Experiment BE04

150

100

50

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

In the presented numerical solution, a very fine curve subdivision is applied in modelling the tool. The number of applied subdivisions is listed in Table 5.

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

Number of elements 720 for 360 degrees 150 for 90 degrees 20 for 90 degrees

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)

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

The following set of boundary conditions has been applied: 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)

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

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 0.1348 Forming angle 21.88 21.84 Angle after release 48.38 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

Figure 31 Comparison of load displacement curve obtained with MSC.MARC and Abaqus/Standard (no friction) (Benchmark 3)

250 Abaqus/Standard - friction MSC.MARC - friction Experimental data points

200

150

100

50

Figure 32 Comparison of load displacement curve obtained with MSC.MARC and 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

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

200

Force [N]

150

100

50

10

15

Displacement [mm]

20

25

30

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

Shell versus plane strain_ friction

250

Displacement [mm]

20

25

30

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)

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

The resulting values of the characteristic angles are listed in 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

One of the complicating characteristics in this benchmark problem is a very local 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

Numerical damping is often recommended to stabilize the solution, but it can be shown that this greatly influences the accuracy of the solution.

4.7

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.

5.1

Summary Contact Benchmark - 4 3D Loaded pin

Receding contact area 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

L1 R2 H R1

Geometry

F

L 2

Material properties

E pin = 210 kN / mm 2

Esheet = 70 N / mm 2 sheet = pin = 0.3

Analysis type Quasi-static analysis 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

This benchmark problem evaluates the performance of contact algorithms at curved 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

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 0.7 0.6 displacement [mm] 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 -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)

30

60

90

120

150

180

0.8 0.7 0.6 displacement [mm] 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 -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)

30

60

90

120

150

180

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

0.780

x-displacement [mm]

0.720

Figure 42 Displacement in x-direction for nodes along the pin (slave/contacting nodes) as a function of the angle (Benchmark 4)

0.004

0.002

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

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 linear quadratic Abaqus/Standard smoothing node repositioning on on on on on on on on on on on on sliding type large large large large large large and small element type linear quadratic linear quadratic linear and quadratic linear quadratic linear quadratic linear linear quadratic quadratic and linear 3D linear 3D linear MSC.MARC contact descrition analytical analytical analytical analytical analytical analytical analytical on on analytical and discrete analytical analytical analytical analytical analytical node repositioning on on on on on on on on and off on and off off 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

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

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

Figure 45 Contact pressure comparison for linear elements using Abaqus/Standard and MSC.MARC (linear elements) (Benchmark 4)

47/62

150.000

100.000

50.000

Figure 46 Contact pressure comparison using Abaqus/Standard and MSC.MARC (quadratic 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

100.000

50.000

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

100.000

50.000

Figure 48 Comparison of contact pressure as a function of adjusting the nodes at the start of the analysis for quadratic elements (Benchmark 4)

The same tendency is present in results obtained with Abaqus/Standard. Clearly 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

150.000

100.000

50.000

Figure 49 Comparison of contact pressure obtained with optimised parameter setting and default parameter setting using MSC.MARC (Benchmark 4)

49/62

300.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

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

10.000

5.000

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

50/62

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

Figure 52 Contact tangential stress as a function of contact angle using quadratic elements (Benchmark 4)

0.050

-0.050

-0.100

tangential slip

-0.150

-0.300

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)

In order to describe contact properly, a smoothing procedure is applied along the 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

It is interesting to observe the consequence of the numerical values of the solutions if 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 Contact Benchmark - 5 3D Steel roller on rubber (Reynolds, 1874)

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

A Rubber L1 L2 H

Geometry

Material properties

Esteel = 210 kN / mm 2

steel = 0.3

Analysis type 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

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 175.8 mm 175.3 mm 175.0 mm 182.9 mm 175.0 mm Abaqus/Standard 175.2 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

300 250 200 Force [N] 150 100 50 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 time [sec] 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 MSC.MARC_linear MSC.MARC_quadratic Abaqus_linear Abaqus_quadratic

Figure 60 3D analysis - undeformed and contour plots of contact pressure on deformed structure (Benchmark 5)

300 250 200 Force [N] 150 100 50 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 time [sec] 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 MSC.MARC_linear MSC.MARC_linear3D

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

58/62

6.5

Modelling tips

A key issue in modelling of structural behaviour with 3D elements is to keep the 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. For contact of a curved part with a straight edge, it is generally better to 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. In the verification of the FE solutions, a number of checks can be made: - 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. Different handling of the normal contact (direct constraint based approach or 60/62

penalty method based method) is illustrated in benchmark 3. Different implementations of the tangential contact implementations) result in different solutions in benchmark 2. (stick-slip

The difficulty in handling contact between two curved boundaries, as well as the problem with contact using quadratic elements is illustrated in benchmark 4. Large sliding contact is clearly present in benchmarks 3 and 5. Difficulties with extending 2D solutions to 3D solutions are illustrated in both benchmarks 3 and 5. Elastic-plastic behaviour is illustrated in benchmark 3. Incompressible rubber behaviour is illustrated in benchmark 5. Benchmarks 1, 2 and 4 can be analysed using a small strain and small displacement approach assuming a linear elastic material. In the presented solutions a geometrically non-linear solution is presented. The 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.

61/62

References

[1] Mottershead, J E , FE Analysis of Contact and Friction- A Survey, NAFEMS Report R0025, 1993. Konter, A.W.A , How to undertake Contact and Friction Analysis, NAFEMS Booklet HT15, 2000. Feng, Q and Prinja, N K, NAFEMS Benchmark Tests for Finite Element Modelling of Contact, Gapping and Sliding, NAFEMS Report R0081, 2001. Hertz, H., ber die Berhrung fester elasticher Krper. J. Reine Angew. Mathm. 92, 156-171, 1881.

[2]

[3]

[4]

62/62

- Tire Pavement Interaction Modelling Hyperelastic Tire and Elastic PavementUploaded byram
- 17_Stress Concentration Tensors of Inhomogeneities_aoThjSOiDXl8Uploaded byNeha Kulkarni
- A Geometrically Nonliear Theory of Elastic PlatesUploaded byBharath Reddy
- ElBearLRFD12R5Uploaded byRolex11
- Models.mems.Layered PlateUploaded bythienhoangnc
- Ener Con Best Practices Web Handling Pp tUploaded byiyilmaz1
- Strength of Materials- Principal Stresses- Hani Aziz AmeenUploaded byHani Aziz Ameen
- FE for Materials With Strain Gradient EffectsUploaded byDamir Lončarić
- Mechanics of MaterialsUploaded byEmily Edwards
- Simple Stresses and StrainsUploaded byAnudeex Shetty
- 10.1.1.52.3575Uploaded byAbhishek Sharma
- Fenet d3613 Dle Advanced Finite Element Contact BenchmarksUploaded byansta17
- Prediction of Field Response of Soil-support Systems in Deep Excavations.Uploaded byMohamed Ezzat Ezzat
- 24082400934.txtUploaded byjack_hero_56
- 24082400934Uploaded byjack_hero_56
- Applicability of Burger Model in Predicting the Response of Viscoelastic Soil BedsUploaded byDaria Grošić
- 1123_02eprecast Seismic Design of ReinforcedUploaded byrakoll
- 2D 2 ReferenceUploaded byheru
- Coeffcient of FrictionUploaded byalphading
- Friction and Friction Coefficients.docUploaded byAnonymous Hy5Ir9QX
- Friction and Friction CoefficientsUploaded byAhmadSuhaimi
- An Analytical Model of Oblique Cutting With Application to End MillingUploaded byGeoffrey Armstrong
- Friction JDSMCUploaded byVijay Kumar
- Force, Torque and StrainUploaded byLungie Mbatha
- Experiment 5.docxUploaded byMuhammad Tanveer
- Bletzinger_162Uploaded byCristi Budau
- Www.dlsu.Edu.ph Academics Colleges Cos Physics PDF Cos-coefficient-frictionUploaded byNicole Vicencio
- Mechanics of Materials Solutions CH05Uploaded byArishChoy
- AGS_2006-1_article_3Uploaded byanalysethat
- Effect of internal pressure and dent depth on strain distributionUploaded bymaziar60

- Tubular Heat ExchangerUploaded byprashant_dc_in
- Plastic Sheeting: Its use for emergency shelter and other purposesUploaded byOxfam
- K007enUploaded byjnf
- Final Project Report of Base IsolationUploaded bySantosh Yadav
- Linea5 Training School Manual(1)Uploaded byAlin Budea
- Module 6 Material and HardwareUploaded byAvinda Sandamal
- 1-18 Easy Fix Double Glazing Counter Price ListUploaded byChris Pacey
- Organic Coated SteelUploaded byprasenjitsayantan
- Application Procedures-Chilled & Low Temp Pipwork.docUploaded byajayaghimire
- WeldingUploaded bypatilssp
- SandS Hinge Product and Service GuideUploaded byArjun
- estaUploaded byJosé Oliveira
- Arkanindo Utama Price List 2016Uploaded byAkhmadZulfiqar
- Aluminised Coils SpecificationUploaded bysweety1188
- 1. Sheet Metalworking Lab SheetUploaded byZain Aiman
- 43-Sheet Metal Punching MachineUploaded bysathish
- TKF2000_englisch.pdfUploaded byTadeusz Wośkowiak
- A1058-14 Standard Test Methods for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products—MetricUploaded byJulie Carolina Sanchez
- Updated Material Master Template 11.12.11Uploaded bypawandubey9
- Properties of Stainless SteelsUploaded byngoclinh87
- A 787 – 01 ;QTC4NW__Uploaded byLUISALBERTO06011985
- Interview QuestionsUploaded byJyoti Sharma
- Bao Steel CAL EngUploaded byvinayak
- berlinerluft_air_conduction_ducts_web_052016.pdfUploaded bykresimir.mikoc9765
- Dyplast Product InsulationUploaded bybargez
- Pipe and structural railingsUploaded bysori1386
- astm.b152.1997Uploaded byJose Carlos Vaz Carneiro
- Main Parts List.pdfUploaded byOmar Rodriguez Barrios
- DY_series Zamil Duct SplitUploaded byAnwar Syed
- IS 14246-1995 Galvalume SheetUploaded bykumarchem