|October 31, 2013, 05:51||
[Autodyn and Explicit Dynamics]
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3Rep Power: 3
How do I resolve overlapped mesh in Explicit Dynamics?
I had imported a complex CAD model (with many parts) into Explicit Dynamics to mesh, before exporting it to AUTODYN.
Under AUTODYN "interaction" button, I clicked on the “Check” function and it returns with “there are initial penetration".
I know this can be easily resolved if I have Design Modeler, by:
a)Group all Bodies into a single Part
b)Set the Shared Topology Method for the Part to “None”
c)In Meshing, insert Match Control objects scoped to the contact surfaces (This step may not be necessary if a single global element size is used)
I do not have DM. So is there any other method to resolve this?
Thanks in advance.
|November 1, 2013, 04:20||
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 443Rep Power: 13
Since you don't have DesignModeler you should simplify the geometry in the CAD package it was made in.
I use ANSYS Explicit STR (the Workbench integrated Autodyn Lagrangian solver) and one of the first things I was told on the product demostration (the ANSYS Customer Portal has lots on explicit dynamics and it's meshing needs) was that explicit dynamics models should be simplified as much as possible (e.g. use surface and line bodies, omit parts if possible but certainly their details), mainly because the timestep (and hence simulation time) is driven by the minimum cell size.
Explicit dynamics models should not be treated like implicit FEA models, as an example see http://www.edr.no/blogg/ansys_blogge..._tests_in_2013
So I don't think you should fix the overlapped mesh but rather simplify the geometry and then regenerate the mesh.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Explicit vs Implicit VOF in Fluent||MachZero||FLUENT||5||August 7, 2013 18:17|
|Explicit method for more than two phases||sachinthakre||FLUENT||1||February 17, 2011 13:07|
|Euler (explicit or implicit)||anybody||Main CFD Forum||2||May 8, 2006 02:12|
|LES (explicit) filtering||John||Main CFD Forum||2||July 29, 2004 18:03|
|explicit formulation||Phonics User||Phoenics||0||December 10, 2003 14:07|