Abaqus/Standard provides several contact fomulations. Each formulation is based on a choice of a contact
discretization, a tracking approach, and assignment of main and
secondary roles to the contact surfaces. For general contact interactions,
the discretization, tracking approach, and surface role assignments are selected automatically
by Abaqus/Standard; for contact pairs, you can specify these aspects of the contact formulation using the
interface described in About Contact Pairs in Abaqus/Standard. The default contact
formulation is applicable in most situations, but you may find it desirable to choose another
formulation in some cases. This section discusses in detail the formulations that Abaqus/Standard uses in contact simulations.
Your choice of a tracking approach will have a considerable impact on how
contact surfaces interact. In
Abaqus/Standard
there are two tracking approaches to account for the relative motion of two
interacting surfaces in mechanical contact simulations:
small sliding, which assumes that although two bodies may undergo
large motions, there will be relatively little sliding of one surface along the
other (see
Small-sliding interaction between bodies).
You can choose between node-to-surface contact discretization and true
surface-to-surface contact discretization for each of the above tracking
approaches.
By default, general contact in
Abaqus/Standard
uses the finite-sliding, surface-to-surface contact formulation. This
formulation can also be used for contact pairs, but it is not the default. The
discussions in this section of finite-sliding, surface-to-surface contact apply
equally to general contact and to contact pairs.
In a general contact domain the main and secondary roles are assigned to surfaces automatically,
although it is possible to override these default assignments. The behavior of main surfaces
and secondary surfaces is consistent across general contact and contact pair interactions.
The specification of main and secondary surfaces in a general contact domain is covered in
detail in Numerical Controls for General Contact in Abaqus/Standard.
Discretization of Contact Pair Surfaces
Abaqus/Standard
applies conditional constraints at various locations on interacting surfaces to
simulate contact conditions. The locations and conditions of these constraints
depend on the contact discretization used in the overall contact formulation.
Abaqus/Standard
offers two contact discretization options: a traditional “node-to-surface”
discretization and a true “surface-to-surface” discretization.
Node-to-Surface Contact Discretization
With traditional node-to-surface discretization the contact conditions are established such that
each “secondary” node on one side of a contact interface effectively interacts with a
point of projection on the “main” surface on the opposite side of the contact interface
(see Figure 1). Thus, each contact condition involves a single secondary node and a group of nearby
main nodes from which values are interpolated to the projection point.
Traditional node-to-surface discretization has the following
characteristics:
The secondary nodes are constrained not to penetrate into the main surface; however, the nodes
of the main surface can, in principle, penetrate into the secondary surface (for
example, see the case on the upper-right of Figure 2).
The contact direction is based on the normal of the main surface.
The only information needed for the secondary surface is the location and surface area
associated with each node; the direction of the secondary surface normal and secondary
surface curvature are not relevant. Thus, the secondary surface can be defined as a
group of nodes—a node-based surface.
Node-to-surface discretization is available even if a node-based surface
is not used in a contact pair definition.
Surface-to-Surface Contact Discretization
Surface-to-surface discretization considers the shape of both the secondary and main surfaces in
the region of contact constraints. Surface-to-surface discretization has the following key
characteristics:
The surface-to-surface formulation enforces contact conditions in an average sense over regions
nearby secondary nodes rather than only at individual secondary nodes. The averaging
regions are approximately centered on secondary nodes, so each contact constraint will
predominantly consider one secondary node but will also consider adjacent secondary
nodes. Some penetration may be observed at individual nodes; however, large,
undetected penetrations of main nodes into the secondary surface do not occur with
this discretization. Figure 2 compares contact enforcement for node-to-surface and surface-to-surface contact for
an example with dissimilar mesh refinement on the contacting bodies.
The contact direction is based on an average normal of the secondary surface in the region
surrounding a secondary node.
Surface-to-surface discretization is not applicable if a node-based
surface is used in the contact pair definition.
Choosing a Contact Discretization
In general, surface-to-surface discretization provides more accurate stress
and pressure results than node-to-surface discretization if the surface
geometry is reasonably well represented by the contact surfaces.
Figure 3
shows an example of improved contact pressure accuracy with surface-to-surface
contact compared to node-to-surface contact.
Since node-to-surface discretization simply resists penetrations of secondary nodes into the main
surface, forces tend to concentrate at these secondary nodes. This concentration leads to
spikes and valleys in the distribution of pressure across the surface. Surface-to-surface
discretization resists penetrations in an average sense over finite regions of the
secondary surface, which has a smoothing effect. As the mesh is refined, the discrepancies
between the discretizations lessen, but for a given mesh refinement the surface-to-surface
approach tends to provide more accurate stresses.
The bottom block is fixed to the ground, and a uniform pressure of 100 Pa is
applied to the top face of the top block. Analytically, the top block should exert a
uniform pressure of 100 Pa on the bottom block across the entire contact
interface. Table 1 compares the Abaqus analysis results for different contact discretizations and secondary surface
designations.
Table 1. Error (from analytical results) for various discretization/secondary surface
combinations.
Contact discretization
Secondary Surface
Maximum error in CPRESS
Node-to-surface
Top block
13%
Bottom block
31%
Surface-to-surface
Top block
~1%
Bottom block
~1%
If the surface geometry is not well-represented due to the use of a coarse
mesh, significant inaccuracies can exist regardless of whether
surface-to-surface contact or node-to-surface contact is used. In some cases
surface smoothing techniques available for surface-to-surface contact can
significantly improve solutions obtained with a coarse mesh. See
Smoothing Contact Surfaces in Abaqus/Standard
for a discussion of surface smoothing options for surface-to-surface contact.
Surface-to-surface discretization generally involves more nodes per
constraint and can, therefore, increase solution cost. In most applications the
extra cost is fairly small, but the cost can become significant in some cases.
The following factors (especially in combination) can lead to
surface-to-surface contact being costly:
A large fraction of the model is involved in contact.
The main surface is more refined than the secondary surface.
Multiple layers of shells are involved in contact, such that the main surface of one contact
pair acts as the secondary surface of another contact pair.
The surface-to-surface formulation is primarily intended for common situations in which normal
directions of contacting surfaces are approximately opposite. The node-to-surface contact
formulation is often preferable for treating contact involving feature edges or corners if
the respective secondary and main facet normal directions are not approximately opposite
in the active contact region.
Contact Tracking Approaches
In
Abaqus/Standard
there are two tracking approaches to account for the relative motion of two
interacting surfaces in mechanical contact simulations.
The Finite-Sliding Tracking Approach
Finite-sliding contact is the most general tracking approach and allows for
arbitrary relative separation, sliding, and rotation of the contacting
surfaces. For finite-sliding contact the connectivity of the currently active
contact constraints changes upon relative tangential motion of the contacting
surfaces. For a detailed description of how
Abaqus/Standard
calculates finite-sliding contact, see
Using the Finite-Sliding Tracking Approach
later in this section.
The Small-Sliding Tracking Approach
Small-sliding contact assumes that there will be relatively little sliding of one surface along
the other and is based on linearized approximations of the main surface per constraint.
The groups of nodes involved with individual contact constraints are fixed throughout the
analysis for small-sliding contact, although the active/inactive status of these
constraints typically can change during the analysis. You should consider using
small-sliding contact when the approximations are reasonable, due to computational savings
and added robustness. For a detailed description of how Abaqus/Standard calculates small-sliding contact, see Using the Small-Sliding Tracking Approach later in this
section.
Choosing the Main and Secondary Surface Roles in a Two-Surface Contact Pair
Abaqus/Standard enforces the following rules related to the assignment of the main and secondary roles
for contact surfaces:
Analytical rigid surfaces and rigid-element-based surfaces must always be the main surface.
A node-based surface can act only as a secondary surface and always uses node-to-surface
contact.
Secondary surfaces must always be attached to deformable bodies or deformable bodies defined as
rigid.
Both surfaces in a contact pair cannot be rigid surfaces with the
exception of deformable surfaces defined as rigid (see
Rigid Body Definition).
When both surfaces in a contact pair are element-based and attached to either deformable bodies
or deformable bodies defined as rigid, you have to choose which surface will be the main
surface and which will be the secondary surface. This choice is particularly important for
node-to-surface contact. Generally, if a smaller surface contacts a larger surface, it is
best to choose the smaller surface as the secondary surface. If that distinction cannot be
made, the main surface should be chosen as the surface of the stiffer body or as the surface
with the coarser mesh if the two surfaces are on structures with comparable stiffnesses. The
stiffness of the structure and not just the material should be considered when choosing the
main and secondary surfaces. For example, a thin sheet of metal may be less stiff than a
larger block of rubber even though the steel has a larger modulus than the rubber material.
If the stiffness and mesh density are the same on both surfaces, the preferred choice is not
always obvious.
The choice of main and secondary roles typically has much less effect on the results with a
surface-to-surface contact formulation than with a node-to-surface contact formulation.
However, the assignment of main and secondary roles can have a significant effect on
performance with surface-to-surface contact if the two surfaces have dissimilar mesh
refinement; the solution can become quite expensive if the secondary surface is much coarser
than the main surface.
Fundamental Choices Affecting the Contact Formulation
Your choice of contact discretization and tracking approach have
considerable impact on an analysis. In addition to the qualities already
discussed, certain combinations of discretizations and tracking approaches have
their own characteristics and limitations associated with them. These
characteristics are summarized in
Table 2.
You should also consider the solution costs associated with the various contact
formulations.
Table 2. Comparison of contact formulation characteristics.
Characteristic
Contact
formulation
Node-to-surface
Surface-to-surface
Finite-sliding
Small-sliding
Finite-sliding
Small-sliding
Account for shell thickness by default
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Allow self-contact
Yes
No
Yes
No
Allow double-sided surfaces
Secondary surface only
Secondary surface only
Yes1
Yes
Surface smoothing by default
Some smoothing of main surface
Yes for anchor points; each constraint uses flat approximation of main
surface
No
No for anchor points; each constraint uses flat approximation of main
surface
Default constraint enforcement method
Augmented Lagrange method for 3D self-contact;
otherwise, direct method
Direct method
Penalty method
Direct method
Ensure moment equilibrium for offset reference
surfaces with friction
No
No
Yes
Yes
1Double-sided main surfaces
are allowed with the finite-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation only if the
path-based tracking algorithm is used (see Path-Based Versus State-Based Tracking Algorithms).
Double-sided secondary surfaces are allowed with both tracking algorithms if the
main surface is not user defined.
Accounting for Shell Thickness
Most contact formulations will account for the surface thickness of a shell
when calculating contact constraints. However, the finite-sliding,
node-to-surface formulation will not account for shell thicknesses. These
calculations are discussed in more detail in
Accounting for Shell and Membrane Thickness.
Allowing for Self-Contact
Self-contact is typically the result of large deformation in a model. It is
often difficult to predict which regions will be involved in the contact or how
they will move relative to each other. Therefore, self-contact cannot use the
small-sliding tracking approach.
Allowing Double-Sided Surfaces
Doubled-sided contact surfaces based on shell-like elements are allowed to act as secondary
and/or main surfaces for the surface-to-surface contact formulation by default and are
allowed to act as the secondary surface for the node-to-surface contact formulation. For a
shell-like surface to act as the main surface for the surface-to-surface formulation with
the optional state-based tracking algorithm (see Path-Based Versus State-Based Tracking Algorithms below) or for
the node-to-surface contact formulation, the surface must be defined as single-sided (see
Defining Single-Sided Surfaces and Orientation Considerations for Shell-Like Surfaces for more information).
Surface Smoothing
When using node-to-surface discretization, corners or small protrusions of a jagged main surface
are allowed to penetrate the spaces between nodes in the node-based surface. It is
sometimes possible for a secondary node sliding along the main surface to snag on these
corners. Therefore, Abaqus/Standard automatically smooths the main surface for contact calculations utilizing
node-to-surface discretization to minimize this phenomenon. The details are discussed
further in Smoothing Main Surfaces for the Finite-Sliding, Node-to-Surface Formulation later in this section.
No surface smoothing occurs by default when using surface-to-surface discretization.
Surface-to-surface discretization considers contact conditions in an average sense over a
finite region, which tends to alleviate problems associated with small protrusions of the
main surface penetrating the secondary surface and introduces some inherent smoothing
characteristics at the constraint level. However, this inherent smoothing typically does
not significantly mitigate errors associated with poor geometric representations of curved
surfaces when a relatively coarse mesh is used. In some cases nondefault circumferential
or spherical surface smoothing methods available for surface-to-surface contact can
significantly improve solutions obtained with a coarse mesh (see Smoothing Contact Surfaces in Abaqus/Standard).
Constraint Enforcement Methods
In many cases
Abaqus/Standard
strictly enforces the contact constraints discussed previously by default.
However, strict enforcement of contact constraints can sometimes lead to
overconstraint issues (for example, see
Overconstraint Checks)
or convergence difficulty. To address these issues and allow for decreased
solution cost with typically minimal sacrifice to solution accuracy,
Abaqus/Standard
also provides penalty-based constraint enforcement methods. The numerical
constraint enforcement methods (and defaults) are discussed in detail in
Contact Constraint Enforcement Methods in Abaqus/Standard.
Moment Equilibrium
Based on Newton's third law of motion, contact forces should be
self-equilibrating; that is, the net contact forces acting on the respective
surfaces for each active contact constraint should be equal and opposite and
effectively act through a common point. Contact constraints based on
surface-to-surface contact discretization always exhibit this characteristic.
Contact constraints based on node-to-surface discretization always generate
zero net force, but under certain circumstances can generate a net moment in
the numerical solution. Frictional forces associated with node-to-surface
contact constraints will generate net moment if an offset exists between the
respective reference surfaces. The following factors can contribute to a
normal-direction offset between nodes of respective contact surfaces while
contact constraints are active:
The presence of a softened pressure-versus-overclosure behavior (due to
a user-specified, softened pressure-overclosure model or use of a constraint
enforcement method, such as the penalty method, that exhibits numerical
softening.
Contact calculations accounting for shell or membrane thicknesses (which
is not allowed with the finite-sliding, node-to-surface formulation).
Various usages of special-purpose contact elements, such as tube-to-tube
contact elements (see
Contact Modeling with Elements
and
Tube-to-Tube Contact Elements),
result in some normal distance between nodes that interact with each other.
While undesirable, the net moment that sometimes occurs with node-to-surface
contact constraints is typically not significantly detrimental to the analysis
results.
Effect of the Contact Discretization Method on Solution Cost
There is no easy way to predict which contact discretization method will
result in lower overall solution cost. Basic trends include:
Node-to-surface contact discretization tends to be less costly per
iteration than surface-to-surface contact discretization (because
surface-to-surface contact discretization generally involves more nodes per
constraint).
Contact conditions with finite-sliding contact tend to converge in fewer
iterations with surface-to-surface contact discretization than with
node-to-surface contact discretization (because surface-to-surface contact
discretization has more continuous behavior upon sliding).
Using the Finite-Sliding Tracking Approach
The finite-sliding tracking approach allows for arbitrary separation,
sliding, and rotation of the surfaces.
Abaqus/Standard
contact pairs use a finite-sliding, node-to-surface contact formulation by
default. General contact in
Abaqus/Standard
always uses a finite-sliding, surface-to-surface contact formulation.
Example
Consider the case shown in Figure 5, with surface ASURF acting as the secondary surface to
surface BSURF in a finite-sliding, node-to-surface
contact pair.
In this example secondary node 101 may come into contact anywhere along the main surface
BSURF. While in contact, it is constrained to slide
along BSURF, irrespective of the orientation and
deformation of this surface. This behavior is possible because Abaqus/Standard tracks the position of node 101 relative to the main surface
BSURF as the bodies deform. Figure 6 shows the possible evolution of the contact between node 101 and its main surface
BSURF.
Node 101 is in contact with the element face with end nodes 201 and 202 at
time .
The load transfer at this time occurs between node 101 and nodes 201 and 202
only. Later on, at time ,
node 101 may find itself in contact with the element face with end nodes 501
and 502. Then the load transfer will occur between node 101 and nodes 501 and
502.
Path-Based Versus State-Based Tracking Algorithms
Brief descriptions of the tracking algorithms available in
Abaqus/Standard
are provided below so that you can be aware of their characteristics and
available options.
Path-Based Tracking Algorithm
The “path-based” tracking algorithm carefully considers the relative paths of points on the
secondary surface with respect to the main surface within each increment and allows for
double-sided shell and membrane main surfaces. The path-based tracking algorithm is
available only for finite-sliding, surface-to-surface contact interactions involving
element-based main surfaces and is the default for those interactions. The path-based
algorithm is sometimes more effective than the state-based algorithm for analyses
involving self-contact or large incremental relative motion.
State-Based Tracking Algorithm
The “state-based” tracking algorithm updates the tracking state based on the tracking state
associated with the beginning of the increment together with geometric information
associated with the predicted configuration. This algorithm is well-suited for most
finite-sliding analyses but requires the use of single-sided surfaces and occasionally
has difficulty tracking large incremental motion. State-based tracking may miss
detecting contact if the incremental relative motion exceeds the dimensions of the main
surface or if the incremental motion cuts across corners of the main surface; specifying
an upper bound for the increment size helps avoid these problems. The state-based
tracking algorithm is:
the only tracking algorithm available for finite-sliding,
node-to-surface contact pairs;
the only tracking algorithm available for finite-sliding contact interactions involving an
analytical rigid main surface;
a non-default option for finite-sliding, surface-to-surface contact pairs involving an
element-based main surface.
Smoothing Main Surfaces for the Finite-Sliding, Node-to-Surface Formulation
The finite-sliding, node-to-surface contact formulation requires that main surfaces have
continuous surface normals at all points. Convergence problems can result if main surfaces
that do not have continuous surface normals are used in finite-sliding, node-to-surface
contact analyses; secondary nodes tend to get “stuck” at points where the main surface
normals are discontinuous. Abaqus/Standard automatically smooths the surface normals of element-based main surfaces (see Smoothing Deformable Main Surfaces and Rigid Surfaces Defined with Rigid Elements below) used in finite-sliding, node-to-surface contact simulations, including those
modeled with slide lines. You are expected to create smooth analytical rigid surfaces (see
Analytical Rigid Surface Definition). No such
smoothing of main surface normals is needed with the finite-sliding, surface-to-surface
formulation.
Smoothing Deformable Main Surfaces and Rigid Surfaces Defined with Rigid Elements
For finite-sliding, node-to-surface contact simulations with planar or axisymmetric deformable
main surfaces, Abaqus/Standard will smooth any discontinuous transitions between two first-order element faces with
parabolic curves. Discontinuous transitions between two second-order element faces are
smoothed with cubic curves connecting two points located on the element's faces. This
smoothing is shown in Figure 7 for first-order elements (linear segments) and in Figure 8 for second-order elements (parabolic segments). For finite-sliding, node-to-surface
simulations with three-dimensional deformable main surfaces and rigid main surfaces
using rigid elements, Abaqus/Standard will smooth any discontinuous surface normal transitions between the main surface
facets.
You can control the degree of smoothing of the main surface in node-to-surface contact
simulations or in analyses using slide lines and contact elements by specifying a
fraction f. The default value of f is 0.2.
For planar or axisymmetric deformable main surfaces, , where and are the lengths of the element facets that join at the surface node
and (see Figure 7 and Figure 8). Abaqus/Standard will construct either a parabolic or a cubic segment between two points at distances and from the node at which the discontinuity exists; this smoothed segment
will be used in the contact calculations. Thus, the contact surface will differ from the
faceted element geometry. Smoothing affects only segments where the normal to the
deformable main surface is discontinuous at the node joining two elements: it does not
affect the two segments adjacent to the midside nodes on second-order element faces.
For three-dimensional, element-based main surfaces, f is defined as a
fraction of the dimension of a facet as shown in Figure 9. The normal vector of a point within the region bounded by the dashed lines is
computed to be normal to the facet. Outside this region the normal is smoothed with
respect to the adjacent facets, using a generalization of the two-dimensional approach
shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. The physical geometry of a three-dimensional facet is not smoothed; only the surface
normal definitions associated with the facet are affected by the smoothing operation.
The implementation of the normal-direction smoothing algorithm is slightly different for
surfaces based on rigid type elements (see Rigid Elements) than other
element types. This difference typically has minimal effect on the convergence behavior
or solution results; however, for example, different solution behavior may occasionally
be observed between otherwise identical analyses in which a rigid body is modeled with
R3D4 elements in one case and
S4R elements assigned to a rigid body in
another case.
Smoothing a Deformable Main Surface along Symmetry Edges
When a two-dimensional or axisymmetric deformable main surface ends at a symmetry plane and
node-to-surface discretization is used, Abaqus/Standard will smooth and calculate the proper surface normals and tangent planes of the end
segment if the boundary condition at the symmetry end is specified with the symmetry
“type” boundary XSYMM or
YSYMM. This smoothing procedure is accomplished by
reflecting the end segment about the symmetry plane and constructing either a parabolic
or a cubic segment between the end segment and the reflected segment. Thus, the contact
surface may differ from the faceted element geometry near the end. Abaqus/Standard will automatically adjust the surface normal and tangent planes at of an axisymmetric main surface regardless of whether a symmetry
boundary condition is defined. The finite-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation has no
special treatment for surfaces ending at a symmetry plane. See Modifying the Main Surface Normals for a discussion of how the small-sliding, node-to-surface formulation treats main
surfaces ending at a symmetry plane. See Small-Sliding, Surface-to-Surface Contact for a
discussion of how the small-sliding, node-to-surface formulation treats secondary
surfaces ending at a symmetry plane.
Overriding the Default Smoothing Behavior for Finite-Sliding, Node-to-Surface Contact
To model a main surface with corners in two dimensions (fold lines in three dimensions), break
the surface into multiple surfaces. This technique prevents Abaqus/Standard from smoothing out the corners or fold lines and allows Abaqus/Standard to introduce constraints associated with each surface if a secondary node is in
contact with an interior corner or fold in the main surface.
To accurately model the main surface with a corner shown in Figure 10, you must define two contact pairs: the first contact pair has
ASURF as the secondary surface and
BSURFA as the main surface; the second contact pair
has ASURF as the secondary surface and
BSURFB as the main surface.
Finite Sliding in a Geometrically Linear Analysis
Finite-sliding simulations usually include nonlinear geometric effects
because such simulations generally involve large deformations and large
rotations. However, it is also possible to use the finite-sliding tracking
approach in a geometrically linear analysis (see
Geometric Nonlinearity).
The load transfer paths between the surfaces and the contact direction are
updated in finite-sliding, geometrically linear analyses. This capability is
useful for analyzing finite sliding between two stiff bodies that do not
undergo large rotations.
Unsymmetric Terms in Finite-Sliding Contact Simulations
Normal contact constraints due to node-to-surface discretization produce unsymmetric terms in the
system of equations when three-dimensional faceted surfaces come in contact. These terms
have a strong effect on the convergence rate in regions on the main surfaces with large
differences in surface normals between facets.
Normal contact constraints due to surface-to-surface discretization produce unsymmetric terms in
both two- and three-dimensional cases. These terms have a strong effect on the convergence
rate in regions where the main and secondary surfaces are not parallel to each other.
For a large class of contact problems the general tracking of the finite-sliding approach is
unnecessary, even though geometric nonlinearity may need to be considered. Abaqus/Standard provides a small-sliding tracking approach for such problems. For geometrically nonlinear
analyses this formulation assumes that the surfaces may undergo arbitrarily large rotations
but that a secondary node will interact with the same local area of the main surface
throughout the analysis. For geometrically linear analyses the small-sliding approach
reduces to an infinitesimal-sliding and rotation approach, in which it is assumed that both
the relative motion of the surfaces and the absolute motion of the contacting bodies are
small.
Abaqus/Standard attempts to associate a planar approximation of the main surface with each secondary node
of a small-sliding contact pair. Contact interactions are considered between a given
secondary node (or region nearby a given secondary node for the surface-to-surface
formulation) and the associated local tangent plane. An example for the small-sliding,
node-to-surface formulation is shown in Figure 11 (for example, the secondary node is typically constrained not to penetrate this local
tangent plane). Each local tangent plane, which is a line in two dimensions, is defined by
an anchor point, , on the main surface and an orientation vector at the anchor point (see
Figure 11).
The algorithm used to define anchor points is described below. If an anchor point cannot be
determined for a particular secondary node, no contact constraint will be enforced for that
secondary node.
Having a local tangent plane for each secondary node means that for the small-sliding tracking
approach Abaqus/Standard does not have to monitor secondary nodes for possible contact along the entire main
surface. Therefore, small-sliding contact is generally less expensive computationally than
finite-sliding contact. The cost savings are often most dramatic in three-dimensional
contact problems.
Small-Sliding, Node-to-Surface Contact
For node-to-surface contact Abaqus/Standard chooses the anchor point of a secondary node's local tangent plane such that the vector
from the anchor point to the secondary node coincides with a smoothly varying normal
vector on the main surface. The anchor point is chosen before the analysis starts using
the initial configuration of the model.
Smoothly Varying Main Surface Normals
The algorithm requires that the main surface have a smoothly varying normal vector , where is any point on the main surface. The first step in defining is to construct the unit normal vectors at each node of the main
surface. Abaqus/Standard forms these nodal normals by averaging the normals of the element faces making up the
main surface; only the element faces in the surface definition will contribute to the
nodal normals and, thus, to . Abaqus/Standard uses the initial nodal coordinates to compute these normals.
Figure 11 shows the nodal unit normals for a main surface, the anchor point , and the local tangent plane associated with secondary node 103. Abaqus/Standard uses the nodal unit normals and , along with the shape functions of the element containing the two
nodes, to construct on the 2–3 element face. Abaqus/Standard chooses the anchor point of the local tangent plane for node 103 so that passes through node 103. is the contact direction for secondary node 103 and defines the
orientation of the local tangent plane. In this example, as in many cases, the local
tangent plane is only an approximation of the actual mesh geometry.
Modifying the Main Surface Normals
Defining user-specified nodal normals on the main surface (see Normal Definitions at Nodes) will
improve the local tangent planes calculated for the small-sliding, node-to-surface
formulation in some cases. For example, a default nodal normal corresponding to an
average normal among adjacent facets can cause significant deviation from the true
surface normal direction at perimeter nodes, as shown in Figure 12. The nodal normal does not point along the symmetry plane, which means that secondary
node 100 will never intersect the main surface. In a small-sliding problem if a
secondary node fails to intersect the main surface at the start of the analysis, it will
be free to penetrate the main surface because no local tangent plane will be formed.
Defining a user-specified normal (1.00E+00, 0.00E+00, 0.00E+00) at node 1 on the main surface
CSURF will correct the problem, as shown in Figure 13. This method allows secondary node 100 to see the main surface, and the correct
contact normal direction will be used. Main surface normals at perimeter nodes are
adjusted automatically to lie along the symmetry plane if boundary conditions are
specified at these nodes in symmetry “type” format
(XSYMM, YSYMM, or
ZSYMM—see Boundary Conditions).
Small-Sliding, Surface-to-Surface Contact
A key difference with the surface-to-surface approach is that more than one secondary node is
involved in each contact constraint (except when the secondary surface is based on gasket
elements, as discussed below). This is related to the fact that the surface-to-surface
formulation enforces contact conditions in an average sense over regions nearby secondary
nodes rather than only at individual secondary nodes (see Surface-to-Surface Contact Discretization above). The
small-sliding, surface-to-surface contact formulation is a limit case of the
finite-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation, using a planar approximation of the main
surface per averaging region of the secondary surface. The constraint participation
factors for the secondary nodes remain constant for small-sliding contact. The effective
center-of-action on the secondary surface per contact constraint may differ slightly from
the location of the predominant secondary node associated with the constraint.
A special version of the small-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation is used if the secondary
surface is based on gasket elements to avoid a tendency to trigger unstable deformation
modes in the gasket elements. This special formulation has only one secondary node per
contact constraint and preserves the accuracy advantages of the surface-to-surface
formulation, but it is not well-suited for extension to finite-sliding and is otherwise
not as generally applicable as the regular small-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation.
(The finite-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation always uses multiple secondary nodes
per constraint and is not recommended for contact involving gasket elements.)
The small-sliding, surface-to-surface contact formulation determines main anchor points and
normal directions in a manner similar to that used by the small-sliding, node-to-surface
contact formulation; however, there are some differences. For the surface-to-surface
approach the anchor point approximately corresponds to the center of the zone on the main
surface where the averaging region of the secondary projects onto the main surface. This
projection occurs along the secondary surface normal direction. This method does not make
use of smoothed main surface nodal normals. The anchor point location typically does not
depend significantly on whether node-to-surface or surface-to-surface discretization is
used, unless the surfaces are significantly separated and non-parallel in the initial
configuration (in which case small-sliding contact may not be appropriate).
Abaqus/Standard
automatically reverts to the node-to-surface approach for individual
small-sliding contact constraints in the following circumstances, even if you
have specified use of the surface-to-surface approach:
if the secondary surface is a node-based surface;
if the projection along the secondary surface normal direction does not intersect the main
surface (but an anchor point can be found using the interpolated main surface normal
direction algorithm discussed above for the small-sliding, node-to-surface
formulation); or
if single-sided secondary and main surfaces have surface normals in approximately the same
direction.
For constraints based on surface-to-surface discretization it is not necessary that the
constraint associated with a node on a symmetry plane is parallel to the symmetry plane.
Hence, there is usually no need to specify specific normal directions. As in the case of
node-to-surface contact, the contact direction points from the anchor point to the
secondary node, and the tangent plane is normal to this direction. The contact normal for
the small-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation is adjusted automatically to lie along
the symmetry plane for each secondary node that has a boundary condition specified in
symmetry “type” format (XSYMM,
YSYMM, or ZSYMM—see
Boundary Conditions).
Orientation of Local Tangent Planes
The local tangent plane is by definition orthogonal to the contact
direction. You can override the default contact direction to specify a
direction with a spatially varying clearance or overclosure definition (see
Specifying the Surface Normal for the Contact Calculations).
Once the contact direction is defined, the orientation of the local tangent plane with respect to
the main surface facet remains fixed. Because small-sliding contact considers nonlinear
geometric effects, Abaqus/Standard continuously updates the orientation of the local tangent plane to account for the
rotation and, assuming that the main surface is deformable, the deformation of the main
surface. The position of the anchor point relative to the surrounding nodes on the main
surface facet does not change as the main surface deforms.
Load Transfer
In a small-sliding analysis each constraint can transfer load only to a limited number of nodes
on the main surface. These nodes on the main surface are chosen based on their initial
proximity to the anchor point. The magnitude of load transferred to each main surface node
is based on proximity in the current, deformed configuration to the center-of-action on
the secondary surface (which corresponds to a secondary node for the node-to-surface
formulation). For example, in Figure 11 node 103 transmits load to both nodes 2 and 3 on the main surface if node-to-surface
discretization is used (if surface-to-surface discretization is used, load may be
transmitted to additional nearby main nodes). Thus, if node 103 contacts the local tangent
plane, a larger share of the force would be transmitted to the main surface node, 2 or 3,
closer to the secondary node.
When the anchor point corresponds to a node on the main surface, as is the case with secondary
node 104 and main surface node 3 in Figure 11, the transmitted load for node-to-surface contact is shared by the node at and all of the main surface nodes that share an adjacent surface facet
with that node (additional main nodes may take part in the load transfer for
surface-to-surface contact). In Figure 11 the three main surface nodes sharing the force transmitted by secondary node 104 are
nodes 2, 3, and 4.
As the center-of-action on the secondary surface for a constraint slides along its local tangent
plane, Abaqus/Standard updates the distribution among the main surface nodes. However, no additional main
surface nodes are ever added to the original list of nodes associated with a given
small-sliding constraint. The constraint will continue to transmit load to the original
list of main surface nodes, regardless of the sliding distance. Figure 14 shows the potential problem that arises if small sliding is used but the relative
tangential motion of the surfaces is not “small.” It shows the possible evolution of
contact between secondary node 101 in Figure 5 and its main surface BSURF. Using the unit normal
vectors and , the anchor point is found for secondary node 101; for the purposes of this example,
assume that it lies at the midpoint of the 201–202 face. With this location of the local tangent plane for node 101 is parallel with the 201–202 face.
The load transfer always occurs between node 101 and nodes 201 and 202, no matter how far
node 101 slides along the local tangent plane. Therefore, if node 101 moves as shown in
Figure 14, it will continue to transmit load to nodes 201 and 202 when, in fact, it really slid
off the mesh forming the main surface BSURF.
What Can Be Considered Small Sliding
A contact pair in a small-sliding contact simulation should not grossly
violate any of the assumptions or limitations outlined above. Adhere to the
following guidelines:
Secondary nodes should slide less than an element length from their corresponding anchor point
and still be contacting their local tangent plane. If the main surface is highly
curved, the secondary nodes should slide only a fraction of an element length. The
accumulated slip at a secondary node
(CSLIP) can provide a good estimate
of how far a secondary node has moved.
The local tangent planes formed by Abaqus/Standard should be a good approximation of the mesh geometry; if necessary, define a
user-specified normal (Normal Definitions at Nodes) to
improve the smoothly varying main surface normal, .
The rotation and deformation of the main surface should not cause the local tangent planes to
become a poor representation of the main surface during the course of the analysis.
Choosing the Main and Secondary Surfaces in Small-Sliding Problems
The basic guidelines given in About Contact Pairs in Abaqus/Standard should still be followed
in a small-sliding simulation—the secondary surface should be the more refined surface or
the surface on the more deformable body. However, in a small-sliding simulation more
thought must be given when defining the main surface. With small-sliding contact each
secondary node views the main surface as a flat surface, which can be significantly
different than the true shape of the surface, even in the local region near the anchor
point. In some cases the local tangent planes provide a good local approximation to the
main surface in the initial configuration, but deformation and rotation of the main
surface can reorient the local tangent planes such that they become a poor representation
of the main surface. Figure 15 shows an example where distortion of the main surface results in such a situation.
This problem can be minimized to some extent by using a more refined mesh on the main surface,
thus providing more element faces to control the motion of the tangent planes. Excessive
mesh refinement should not be necessary since only small sliding should occur.
Infinitesimal Sliding
As was mentioned before, the small-sliding tracking approach reduces to an infinitesimal-sliding
tracking approach for geometrically linear analyses. Infinitesimal sliding assumes that
both the relative motions of the surfaces and the absolute motions of the model remain
small. The orientations of the local tangent planes are not updated, and the load transfer
paths and the weightings assigned to each main surface node remain constant during an
infinitesimal-sliding simulation.
As in the case of small sliding, you can choose between node-to-surface and
surface-to-surface discretizations with the infinitesimal-sliding tracking
approach. The same user interface applies, and the default is node-to-surface
discretization.
Local Tangent Directions on a Surface
Local tangent directions on a contact surface are a reference orientation by
which
Abaqus
calculates tangential behavior in a contact interaction.
Abaqus/Standard
calculates the initial orientation of the two local tangent directions by
default. The local tangent directions rotate with the contact surface in a
geometrically nonlinear analysis.
Calculating the Initial Local Tangent Directions for a Two-Dimensional Surface
Two-dimensional and standard axisymmetric models have only one local tangent
direction, .
Abaqus/Standard
defines the orientation of this direction by the cross product of the vector
into the plane of the model (0., 0., 1.0) and the contact normal vector.
Models consisting of generalized axisymmetric bodies have a second local tangent direction, , to account for the component of slip associated with relative
differences in circumferential twist between contacting bodies. The first local tangent
direction at any point on the surface is always tangent to the main surface in the local
r–z plane. The second local tangent direction
is orthogonal to this plane in the local circumferential direction. For more information
about generalized axisymmetric models, see Generalized Axisymmetric Stress/Displacement Elements with Twist.
Calculating the Initial Local Tangent Directions for a Three-Dimensional Surface
By default,
Abaqus/Standard
determines the initial orientation of the two local tangent directions,
and ,
using the following conventions:
Finite-sliding, surface-to-surface
formulation
The default initial orientations of the two local tangent directions are based on the secondary
surface normal, using the standard convention for calculating surface tangents (see
Conventions) with
the assumption that the contact normal corresponds to the negative normal to the
secondary surface.
Finite-sliding,
node-to-surface formulation
For contact involving a secondary surface based on three-dimensional beam-type elements, the
first and second local tangent directions are defined along the length of the beam
and transverse to the beam, respectively. For contact involving an analytical rigid
surface and a secondary surface that is not based on three-dimensional beam-type
elements, the first local tangent direction is tangential to the cross-section used
to generate the analytical rigid surface, and the second local tangent direction is
orthogonal to the plane of the cross-section in which the contact occurs.
In other cases, default initial orientations of the two local tangent directions are calculated
by first computing tentative and directions. For element-based secondary surfaces the tentative
directions are based on the secondary surface using the standard convention for
calculating surface tangents. For node-based secondary surfaces the tentative and directions are set at each node to coincide with the global
x- and y-axes, respectively. Abaqus constructs an orthogonal triad of , , and (where ), then rotates this triad such that becomes aligned with the main surface normal at the tracked point
on the main surface.
Small-sliding,
surface-to-surface formulation
The default initial orientations of the two local tangent directions are based on the main
surface normal, using the standard convention for calculating surface tangents.
Small-sliding,
node-to-surface formulation
The default initial orientations of the two local tangent directions are calculated at each point
on the main surface based on the main surface normal, using the standard convention
for calculating surface tangents.
Defining Alternative Initial Local Tangent Directions for Contact Pair Surfaces
If the default local tangent directions are not convenient to prescribe an
anisotropic friction model or to view contact output, you can define the local
tangent directions for three-dimensional contact pair surfaces. You cannot
redefine the local tangent directions for the following types of surfaces:
Surfaces in a general contact domain
Analytical rigid surfaces
Two-dimensional surfaces
You define the local tangent directions by associating an orientation definition (see Orientations) with a
contact pair surface. You can assign an orientation only to one surface of a contact pair.
The surface on which an orientation can be defined is the same surface on which the
default orientation would be calculated (see the conventions given previously). For
example, an orientation can be defined only on the secondary surface in deformable versus
deformable finite-sliding contact. If a second orientation is also given, an error message
is issued. Therefore, it is not possible to redefine the local tangent directions for
finite-sliding contact between a deformable secondary surface and an analytical rigid
surface.
An orientation that is defined on a secondary surface of a contact pair that is generated from
three-dimensional truss-type elements or from a list of nodes without rotational degree of
freedoms will not be rotated if the secondary surface undergoes finite motion. In this
case a warning message is issued during input processing.
Evolution of the Local Tangent Directions
For geometrically nonlinear analyses the local tangent directions rotate with the surface on
which these directions were initially calculated or redefined using an orientation
definition as described above with the exception that the local tangent direction rotates
with the main surface for the small-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation. These rotated
local tangent directions are further rotated to ensure that the normal vector, computed
using the cross product of the rotated local tangent directions, corresponds to the normal
vector on the main surface when the secondary node comes into contact.