|
[Sponsors] |
Difference in friction curve; penalty formulation (Abaqus) vs ideal coulomb friction |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
September 21, 2020, 20:45 |
Difference in friction curve; penalty formulation (Abaqus) vs ideal coulomb friction
|
#1 |
New Member
Ryan Carpenter
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0 |
I am working with an inner steel cylinder, outer steel cylinder and grout (concrete) inbetween. Grouted joint connection in wind turbines. The inner steel part is fixed, while the outer steel part and concrete has not been given any boundary condition. I have applied uniform pressure to activate coulomb friction, and the step is dynamic implicit with instantaneous load application. Gravity acts in the vertical direction. I dont understand why I get that jiggly acceleration in the second attached picture. Might it have something to do with the penalty method which requires an initial displacement of the springs before entering slipping behavior. Because in the classic coulomb friction model we instantaneously get the correct acceleration "a", while in abaqus it wiggles up and down and then converges at "a". I am trying to understand why it does that.
|
|
Tags |
abaqus, contact, friction, penalty |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Gmsh] gmshToFoam generates patches with 0 faces and 0 points | Simurgh | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 4 | August 25, 2023 08:58 |
OpenFOAM error | Vinay Kumar V | Main CFD Forum | 0 | February 20, 2020 10:17 |
[Gmsh] Extrude on gmsh | Pedro Felix | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 0 | October 30, 2019 13:33 |
[Gmsh] Vertex numbering is dense | KateEisenhower | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 7 | August 3, 2015 11:49 |
CFX4.3 -build analysis form | Chie Min | CFX | 5 | July 13, 2001 00:19 |