Assignment No.

Objective: To analyze and compare different cases with various contact

types and different parameters as well as notch positions and compare the
results for the same boundary conditions.

Given model is a crash tube with hollow square configuration meshed with
all Quad QEPH 24 shell elements. Two halves of the tube are joined with a
weld contact (Type 2). The face of tube has several notches placed
symmetrically.

CASE 1: The Crash tube model is run as it is. Default parameters for the
contacts. Type 7 contact defined as to prevent penetration(due to
crushing).
* Contact interfaces:
* Results: 1.Rigid wall forces:
*The peaks in rigid wall force
are seen after valley as the
crumbling of tube divides
the tube in two parts
momentarily ,which
consumes some energy and
hence less force is
generated on wall. The
continuation of force as
velocity pushes the upper
part into lower causing it to
become single unit again.
This process repeats itself
till the whole tube is
crushed into a small dense
box. After peaking at 28ms
no further transmission of
force is seen as the thick
crushed tube below the rigid
body node resists further
compression. A significantly
higher force is required to
flatten the crushed tube.
* 2.Forces
* The initial velocity
applied being 13.3m/s or
around 50km/h the steel
material tube with
Plas_john material card
undergoes elasto-plastic
deformation. The Max
von mises stress is
recorded at 26ms.
696N/mm2 . Like the
plastic strain, Von mises
stress are maximum on
the corner edges of the
tube as the faces
undergo bending and
crushing. The contact
forces are low till 26ms
and go up after.
* Energies:
* As described in the previous slides the Internal energy of the system is
mirroring K.E. Plot. The contact energy which represents contact forces is 0
till 20ms. As there isn’t room for further absorption of energy the whole
crushed tube acts as a block undergoing compression. The type 7 contact
keeps nodes from penetrating segments of the tube and is reflected in the
energy plot.
* Case:2 ‘Inacti=6’ to compensate for initial
penetrations.
* Results: 1.Rigidwall forces
* The Inacti
=6 setup is
only influential when
there are any initial
penetrations. As in our
case the contact
defined is type-7 self
contact, no any
changes in any output
are seen.
* 2.Contact forces
* The same outputs as
in case 1 are seen
here.
* 3.Energies:
* The same nature of energy plot is seen here as in case 1.
* Case 3: Add a Type 11 contact and recommended parameters for better
coverage.
The recommended
parameters are defined
for the already present
type-7 contact.Type-11
edge to edge contact
(self contact here)with
similar parameters is
defined for better
coverage. The gap
minimum is kept lower
in type-11 than that in
type-7 to compensate
for bigger the element
size.
 * Results: 1. Rigid wall Forces
* The nature of the Rigid
wall plot is same as Case-1
till 20ms afterwards no
dips and peaks are seen as
in case-1 and the plot
climbs steadily till a peak
of 1.5MN a good 100 KN
more than case 1. The
added parameters and
additional contact type-11
gets better details of the
analysis. The internal
energy plot gets a bit
steeper for the same time
window.
 * 2.Stresses and
Forces

The max. Von Mises stress comes

out to be a little less than that
in Case 1.The significant
difference is seen in the
contact force analysis. The
peak value is 317.7 KN
compared to 93KN for case-1
with concentration at the
type-2 contact site. As seen
previously the jump is
experienced from 20ms
onwards where the tube is
acting more like a crush box.
 * 3.Energies
* Even though the plot nature of the energies is almost the same as
case-1, there is small differences in peak values, specially in contact
energy plot. The noticeable difference is seen post 20ms mark.
 * 2.Stress and forces

* As suggested, except the difference between the contact forces all other outputs
are similar to the analysis of a notched surface. The crumbling pattern was also
different as there isn’t a notch to initiate.

Contact Forces:
250KN v/s 324KN.
 * Case: 4- Removing notches and boundary conditions on node.

* The notches are removed with the help og ‘align node’ option. The boundary
conditions(DOFs) applied on the rigid node at the upper end are removed as shown.
 * Results:1. Rigid wall Forces
As seen from the plot due to
the absence of notches the
crushing of tube is random
and hence uncontrolled.
This gives sharp spikes as
output here. The usual
climb around 20ms is a bit
delayed in this case and
after that a significantly
lower peak value of 13MN is
achieved. A rough estimate
being non-concentrated
stresses due to absence of
notches means random
loading and hence random
straining and may cause
failure in case of surface
defects.

A boundary condition
removed, notched tube
result for the same is a
good comparison material
to assess the effects of
notches.
 * Comaparing Case_5 and Case_6

Von mises stress:

436KN/mm2 v/s
600KN/mm2
 Plastic strain:
1.71 v/s 1.146
* 3. Energies
* The plots are almost
similar the only
difference being the
slopes for internal
energy and K.E. Are a bit
steeper on the notched
tube post 20ms
compared to zero
notched tube. The
reason if nitpicked the
initial delay in crumbling
of the tube due to
absence of notch.
* Case 5: Adding a notch on one of the faces at the middle.
* Using the ‘move node’ option a square set of nodes was pushed inwards on one
of the faces approximately in the middle of the lower part of tube. All the
other analysis parameters and inputs were kept the same.
* As stated previously the notches
dictate crushing procedure of the
tube. The notch is the first part of
* Results:1. Rigid wall Forces
the tube that undergoes bending
and bulges of such bent metal are
formed on either side of the notch.
The placement of notch along the
length of the tube divides the tube
in two parts such that the lower
part gets crushed first as it is
transmitting the load into wall. If
such a divided lower part is big
enough, al large bulge on each end
of the part is formed. This bulge or
bent metal is out of the line of
force and doesn’t undergo
compression initially as the tube
continues to crush. When the tube Zeronotch
is compressed into a block around
18ms, these series of bulges get in
contact with each other and
undergo compression as they now
come into line of action, till the
tube is completely crushed to a
plate. The peaks on valleys in Rigid-
wall plot post 18ms is due to the
compression of such bulges. In a no
notch tube the bulge size is almost
random and hence the spikes in the
plot. A carefully placed notch
makes sure the bulges formed get
compressed right away and
smoothens the plot.
* 2.Stress and forces
* As there is a node on
only one face a non-
uniform compression
is recorded. Similar
to the no notch case
the contact forces
are high due to
forces in vertical
direction pulling the
type-2 contact
elements apart. A
minor difference in
von mises stress and
max. rigid wall force
is seen.
* 3. Energies
Due to the presence
of notch the first
compression is
recorded
immediately and is
shown by the high
slope in I.E. Plot.
The magnitudes in
both the plots for
single notch and
zero notch tubes are
almost the same
with smaller
variations in the
slopes and nature of
the graphs after the
initial 7ms.
 * Case 6: Another notch is added to the opposite face with same setup.

* Similar to the previous

case another notch is
added to the opposite
face of the tube using
‘move node’ option. The
notches are randomly
placed around the middle
of the lower half of the
tube.
 * Results:1. Rigid wall Forces

The placement of the notch

dictates how the bulges due to
bending of metal tube faces
occurs. In this case the notch is
a bit too near the bottom and so
instead of 2 only a single bulge
is formed and the bottom end
collapses unfavourably causing a
spike around 6ms. Similarly the
bulge formed above the notch is
too near the top. As the usual
climb initiates at 17ms the
smaller portion of the tube
above the top bulge first Single notched tube
collapses into it at 19ms causing
a sharp valley after which the
whole crushed tube acts like a
box and further compresses as
seen previously.
* 2.Stress and forces

* The contact forces are

significantly lower
than a single notched
tube as even though
the placement could
be better, two notches
result in a more
uniform compression
and bending of the
tube. Other outputs
are similar to single
notched tube.
* 3. Energies
There is close to no
difference between
the single and two
notches tube energy
plots, similar
immediate
compression around
the notch is
recorded.
No. Contact forces Max. Rigid wall Max. Von mises
force
Well defined 317.7KN at 1.5 MN 643N/mm2 @ 30
notched tube. 26ms.
Notched tube 324KN. At 26ms 1.5MN 648N/mm2 @ 30
without B.C.
No notches no 251KN at 27ms 1.29MN 669N/mm2 @30
B.C.
No notches 251KN @ 27 1.3MN 645N/mm2 @29
with B.C.
Single notch no - - -
B.C.
Single notch 417KN @26 1.41MN 639N/mm2 @26
with B.C.
2 notches no 373KN @26 1.41MN 613N/mm2 @25
B.C.
2 notches with 331KN @26 1.41MN 600N/mm2 @27
B.C.
Mid notch 307 KN @ 26 1.41MN 634N/mm2 @ 30
without B.C.
Mid notch with 303KN @26ms 1.4MN 646N/mm2 @26
B.C.
 * Conclusion:

* Summing up the results given in the previous slide a zero notched tube with
boundary conditions gives out the least outputs for contact forces, however
the compression and stresses are non-uniform.
* The plastic strain across the cases is within limit as no deletion of elements is
recorded.
* A notched tube results in higher contact forces but a smoother transmission
of load is seen. When placed carefully a symmetrically notched tube can
undergo predictable compression with similar sized bulges to prevent any
spikes in loads.
* When input with recommended parameters, a zero notched crash tube with
both type-7 and type-11 contact interfaces gives out best/realistic results.