Is it necessary to define the contact between the tire and road? 1

[masterymw]

I had used pac_mc_120_70R17_cross.tir and 3d_bump.rdf road in my Model in Adams view 2019 where there is no need to define contact between tire and road. But when I changed the roads to other than 3d_bump.rdf ( I tried road_3d_sine_example.rdf ), the bike fell down through roads which means there is no default contact between tire and road in this case. Should I define the contact force between tire and road or something I have missed?

 

[GregLocock]

That's very odd. Having looked at 3D sine, I don't like it. Try building your own version generating actual Z points rather than relying on synthesised ones.

Having said that I have no experience of using View for whole vehicle events, and I don't know how you specify the tire/road interface in View, and I'm on holiday and can't be bothered to find out.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[newbie_user]

Strange, usually if there are "through" movements, it is only if the tire is 3D, but the road is not-3D. Or vice versa.
This also happens if the tire mass is incorrectly set (for example, too large).
Units (meters and millimeters) seem to be rebuilding itself automatically ...
In general, you were told correctly: check the coordinates of the road itself, and at the same time the location after the link to the file. Sometimes turning the road 180 degrees in a vertical plane helps because the tire interacts with one side of the road surface.