CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > General Forums > Structural Mechanics

Difference in friction curve; penalty formulation (Abaqus) vs ideal coulomb friction

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   September 21, 2020, 19:45
Default 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
warlic5 is on a distinguished road
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.
Attached Images
File Type: png Capture5.png (89.2 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg Capture3.jpg (28.5 KB, 1 views)
warlic5 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
abaqus, contact, friction, penalty

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[Gmsh] gmshToFoam generates patches with 0 faces and 0 points Simurgh OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 3 Yesterday 08:27
OpenFOAM error Vinay Kumar V Main CFD Forum 0 February 20, 2020 09:17
[Gmsh] Extrude on gmsh Pedro Felix OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 0 October 30, 2019 12:33
[Gmsh] Vertex numbering is dense KateEisenhower OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 7 August 3, 2015 10:49
CFX4.3 -build analysis form Chie Min CFX 5 July 12, 2001 23:19


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:17.