hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • State Not Answered
  • Replies 10 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 101 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Ideas for smoothing solid-flex contacts (PSHELL)?

erik_spe
Attached model drags a simple block across a simple flexible plate's surface. Force is too unsteady to be of any use. Even with flexbody rigid, force is unsteady.
 
I've noticed using SI2 solver dramatically helps, but hoping someone out there has other tricks up their sleeve (other than just softening the contact parameters).
Attached Files (2)
Parents
  • 0
    Thanks. I definitely did appear to take these valid and important considerations for granted. Indeed, reducing error and hmax does resolve.
     
    But the intent of my question was a bit different. More or less, what you're suggesting is a brute force approach that results in a smaller timesteps / longer run times. I was hoping to get some feedback on alternative approaches that inherently result in more stable solutions, shorter run times.
     
    For example, splitting the block into 3 spheres appears to improve performance (attached "v1")
     
    In attached "v2", noting that even the rigidized mesh had convergence issues, I created an identical grid of blocks merged to ground, which resulted in better (but not perfect) behavior. I guess understanding why this would work better than the original mesh is at the heart of the question.
     
    If I had to guess, it appears as if the number of contact traces tends to vary a lot, changing the effective center-of-contact, and resulting in poor behavior (at large error/hmax). This would be why the "v1" sphere approach acts better, since spheres always result in 3 traces at fixed locations.
     
    But, in all this, I guess I don't really have another question. bit please comment if this spurs some related thoughts.
    Attached Files (1)
Reply
  • 0
    Thanks. I definitely did appear to take these valid and important considerations for granted. Indeed, reducing error and hmax does resolve.
     
    But the intent of my question was a bit different. More or less, what you're suggesting is a brute force approach that results in a smaller timesteps / longer run times. I was hoping to get some feedback on alternative approaches that inherently result in more stable solutions, shorter run times.
     
    For example, splitting the block into 3 spheres appears to improve performance (attached "v1")
     
    In attached "v2", noting that even the rigidized mesh had convergence issues, I created an identical grid of blocks merged to ground, which resulted in better (but not perfect) behavior. I guess understanding why this would work better than the original mesh is at the heart of the question.
     
    If I had to guess, it appears as if the number of contact traces tends to vary a lot, changing the effective center-of-contact, and resulting in poor behavior (at large error/hmax). This would be why the "v1" sphere approach acts better, since spheres always result in 3 traces at fixed locations.
     
    But, in all this, I guess I don't really have another question. bit please comment if this spurs some related thoughts.
    Attached Files (1)
Children
No Data
© 2025 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement