XANSYS Message: 23726 [Go back to message list]
No rating yet
Rate item:

Subject: Re: Sanity check
Author: Kim Ravn-Jensen
Date: 2001-05-14 03:33:00

I agree with Jason: Implementing such a sanity check would seem like
a drop in the ocean in comparison with the potential insanity of all
imaginable ANSYS inputs added together.

But the implementation of the "new" ANSYS contact elements would
benefit from the addition of postprocessing features that I have had
to do through macros:

1. Contour plots of the "utilized mu": the length of the shear
traction vector divided by the normal pressure. This will enable you
to check your sanity after the analysis, which is much better than
never at all. I have also seen design criteria based on this quantity.

2. Contour plots of the sliding (vector length) during the last load
step. Many analyses consist of a settling step with large sliding
values followed by load steps with smaller sliding values which you
want to study for themselves.

Best regards
Kim Ravn-Jensen

Alfa Laval Copenhagen A/S - Maskinvej 5 - DK-2860 Søborg - Denmark
Phone: +45 39536000 - Direct Phone: +45 39536511 - Fax: +45 39536560
E-mail: kim.ravn-jensen@a...

--- In xansys@y..., Jason Husband wrote:
> Some alloys of aluminium (against each other) can easily exceed
mu=1.

> I would rather see ANSYS,ink spend their time improving parts of
the
> code that work poorly.
> Jason Husband

> Mark Rodamaker wrote:

> > I think it would be reasonable for Ansys to output a warning
however mu can
> > exceed 1.0 but not by much for normal materials like rubber on
concrete. Car
> > racing tires can have mu slightly over 1.0 but tire wear is
greatly
> > exaggerated compared to normal road tires. Lateral acceleration
of at least
> > 2.5 g's is possible in cars with aerodynamic down force but mu is
still
> > around 1.0.

> > Mark Rodamaker
> > MCR Associates
> > Sunnyvale,California
> > voice: 408-736-1636

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gardner, Kevin"
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:24 PM
> > Subject: RE: [xansys] Sanity check

> >> Dan,

> >> What if one were modeling velcro. I think it would have a mu
>>1. I

> > guess

> >> it's pretty easy to argue that velcro would hardly be considered
a

> > friction

> >> problem... but you never know how Ansys users are going to try
and use the
> >> code.

> >> Kevin Gardner
> >> Engineering Mechanics
> >> Honeywell Engines & Systems

> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dan Bohlen [mailto:dan.bohlen@a...]
> >> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:18 PM
> >> To: xansys@y...
> >> Subject: [xansys] Sanity check

> >> Dear Ansys Inc,

> >> A fellow engineer here ( really it wasn't me!) basically made a
typo and
> >> input a LARGE value for the coefficient of friction as a material
> >> property. By experience I know I get warnings when I set
densities to
> >> zero. Would it be reasonable to have Ansys issue a warning when
a mu>1
> >> is input. I'm not 100% sure if, theoretically, you can have a
value
> >> greater than one. But even if, in theory, you can - it's
probably a
> >> rare enough input that the few rare false alarms would be worth
the few
> >> sanity checks that might save some folks days of model de-
bugging.

> >> Dan Bohlen Phone: (513) 243-4645 / Dial Comm [8*332-
4645]
> >> Stress Analyst Email: dan.bohlen@a... M/D K-105
> >> GE Aircraft Engines Fax: (513) 243-4888 or 243-4886

> >> Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it
is time
> >> to reform. - Mark Twain


Posts possibly associated with message #23726AuthorDateScore
10449PRETS179 Sanity Check (PRRS or PRRF)Bob Weathers2000/04/17 
10525Re: PRETS179 Sanity Check (PRRS or PRRF)Mitch Voeh voehl@2000/04/185
10644Re: PRETS179 Sanity Check (PRRS or PRRF)Sheldon Imaoka2000/04/20 
10796Re: PRETS179 Sanity Check (PRRS or PRRF)Sheldon Imaoka2000/04/26 
23698Sanity checkDan Bohlen2001/05/11 
23699Re: Sanity checkBryan Baskin2001/05/11 
23700Re: Sanity checkKevin Gardner2001/05/11 
23701Re: Sanity checkRobart@2001/05/11 
23702Re: Sanity checkMark Rodamaker2001/05/11 
23703Re: Sanity checkJason Husband2001/05/11 
23726Re: Sanity checkKim Ravn-Jensen2001/05/14 
23735Re[2]: Sanity checkKen Rasche2001/05/14 
23845Re: Sanity checkDan Bohlen2001/05/16 
23857Re: Sanity checkChandresh Shah2001/05/16 
23859Re: Sanity checkParis Altidis2001/05/16 
23860Re: Sanity checkChandresh Shah2001/05/16 
23863Re: Sanity checkChristopher Wright1991/05/16 
23864Re: Sanity checkFernand Thomassy2001/05/16 
23870Re: Sanity checkJohn Ceko2001/05/16 
23898Re: Sanity checkDan Bohlen2001/05/17 
23899Re: Sanity checkDan Bohlen2001/05/17 
23902Re: Sanity checkRoth, John jroth@2001/05/17 
23904Re: Sanity checkRick Fischer2001/05/17 
23908Re: Sanity checkGordon May2001/05/17 
23910Re: Sanity checkJohn Crawford2001/05/17 
23915Re: Sanity checkFernand Thomassy2001/05/17 
23918Re: Sanity checkTerence Frankland2001/05/17 
23920Re: Sanity checkFernand Thomassy2001/05/17 
23929Re: Sanity checkChristopher Wright1991/05/17 
23933Re: Sanity checkKim Ravn-Jensen2001/05/18 
23935Re: Sanity checkFazilat Dar2001/05/18 
23936Re: Sanity checkGordon May2001/05/18