*contact pair, tied - option TIED parameter 3

[pecd]

Hi people

still related to a previous issue of mine. According to the User's Manual of Abaqus, the paragraph on section 21.2.5 says exactly

'Defining tied contact for a contact pair'(title)

#Include the TIED parameter and use the ADJUST parameter on the *CONTACT PAIR option to "tie" the surfaces of a contact pair together for an analysis. The ADJUST parameter must be used, because, as described below, it is very important that the tied surfaces be percisely in contact at the start of the simulation. ... The INTERACTION parameter must be used to asociate the contact pair with the surface interaction property definition.

Usage: *CONTACT PAIR, TIED, ADJUST=a or 'node_set_label', INTERACTION=name#

Well, I could already find through the ABAQUS/CAE graphic interface virtually everything associated with optional parameters related to definition of *contact pair (in the interaction module), but not the so-called 'TIED parameter'. Tried even to write it directly on the input deck, but what I get is an error message that the syntaxe is not corrected (astonishingly, the sequence is different than the one that appears above as 'usage' of the command). I tried also to insert the TIED, as mentioned above, in virtually every sequence, before and after adjust, first line, second line, etc, and still the same error message.

To turn things more complicated, using the constraint *TIE is not an option for me, because in my model I need to define this tied contact stepwise, and by the definition as a constraint I cannot release the points when necessary.

Does someone have any cue how to solve this problem, more exactly, how to define the contact in a way that in the input deck would appear exactly as *contact pair, tied,...etc, through ABAQUS/CAE functions? I need desperately a solution... so, if there is someone more experienced in this issues than me, I would be very thankful for a hint or directions on doing it. Because for someone like me, relatively new in dealing with the software, if I edit directly on the input deck, chances are high that conflicting requirements will appear...

 

[corus]

In the interaction module use Create Constraint - Tied.

The only way I know of avoiding the *Conflicts is to remove all previous edits and start again. Otherwise you have to carefully edit all your previous edits to remove those lines. Unfortunately 6.5 doesn't appear to highlight your previous edits so that way can be tiresome.

corus

 

[xerf]

Not all the keywords or keywords options are supported within CAE. Generally modifying keywords automatically generated by CAE (by using KEYWORDS EDITOR) can produce messy or incorrect input files.

As also Corus said , you can try to remove every contact related task you performed through CAE. Then try using Keyword editor to insert the contact related keywords.

 

[pecd]

Xerf and Corus, thank you very much... maybe you are right. My trials up to now (by editing directly through KEYWORDS EDITOR) were not successful... this is but maybe the only way to edit this 'tied contact'. I don't know if it is supported in Abaqus/CAE 6.5, but surely not in Abaqus/CAE 6.4 (the version I use). At least not in a logical assessable way. I will have to fight...

 

[pecd]

Hi,

well I finally could test my enquiry. I contacted also people from Abaqus about my problem. Got from them what I alreadx knew from your corus and xerf. The function *contact pair, tied, etc... is not supported through Abaqus/CAE icons... no problem, it still could be edited through KEYWORD EDITOR, or directly on the input deck. I got from them an input deck as example, once all my trials to edit it on my own failed. To my surprise, the syntaxe was the same I used to try... I tested their small sample routine and it worked without any problem. Then I said, well, so let's finally try defining it outside /CAE environment and see what happens. To my surprise I got the following error message:'... is a tied contact pair. *MODEL CHANGE cannot be used to remove tied contact pairs'

That's it... so, as reference for the future, better to try through definitions of boundary conditions...