Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10.

Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

10.1
1.1 Contact Patch test
1
REFERENCE NAFEMS
ELEMENTS Solid elements
MODEL FILENAME ContactAnalysis01.fea

Figure 10.1.1 shows a frictionless two-body model for a contact patch test. The bottom side of the foundation is
constrained in the vertical direction, with the center of this side constrained in all directions. Uniform pressure of
2
0.04 N/mm is applied on the top surface of the body 1. Nonlinear analysis is carried out to obtain contact pressure
on the contact interfaces with various regular and irregular meshes. The effect of geometric nonlinearity is
neglected.

q =0.04 MPa

Figure 10.1.1
Two-body contact model

contact
body 1
interface
(μ = 0.0)
1000

body 2

Picture 1.1.1 Units: mm

Strip footing model
1000

Material data Young’s modulus Epunch = Efoundation = 100 MPa

Poisson’s ratio  punch = foundation = 0.3

250 | Two-dimensional heat transfer with convection

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

Figure 10.1.2
Various meshes from top
left clockwise; regular
matching, regular non-
matching, irregular
matching and irregular
non-matching

50000
Figure 10.1.3 regular match
Contact pressure
regular non-match
distribution obtained
using various meshes irregular match
45000
Contact pressure (N/m2)

irregular non-match

40000

35000

30000
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
x-coordinate (m)

Two-dimensional heat transfer with convection | 251

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

10.2 Rigid punch contact

2
REFERENCE Gladwell
ELEMENTS Solid elements
MODEL FILENAME ContactAnalysis02.fea

Figure 10.2.1 shows a rigid punch pressed into a frictionless elastic foundation. The bottom surface of the
foundation is constrained in the vertical direction with the center of the surface constrained in all directions. The
vertical sides of the foundation are constrained in the horizontal direction. A prescribed vertical displacement of
0.05 mm is applied to the punch. Contact pressure is determined on the contact interface and compared with the
theoretical solution. The results are obtained without considering geometric nonlinear effects.

6
Units: mm
Figure 10.2.1 4 punch
Rigid punch contact
model contact
interface
(μ = 0.0)

30
foundation

48

Material data Young’s modulus Epunch = Efoundation = 100 MPa

Poisson’s ratio  punch = foundation = 0.3

Two-dimensional heat transfer in bi-material | 253

 Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

10
Figure 10.2.2 Midas
Contact pressure 9
distribution (3D) Reference
8
Contact pressure (N·m)

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Distance from punch center (mm)

254 | Two-dimensional heat transfer in bi-material

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

10.3 Hertzian contact

1 2
REFERENCE NAFEMS , Gladwell
ELEMENTS Solid elements
MODEL FILENAME ContactAnalysis03.fea

Figure 10.3.1 shows an elastic cylinder pressed onto a rigid foundation. The rigid foundation is constrained in all
directions. The cylinder is constrained in the horizontal direction along the inner edge to simulate the behavior of a
half cylinder. The results are obtained for three load values; F = 25, 50, and 100 N. Geometric nonlinear analyses are
carried out to determine the contact pressure along the contact interface, and the results are compared with the
theoretical solution.

F/2

Figure 10.3.1
Pressed elastic cylinder
model

deformable
8 mm cylinder

contact
interface

rigid foundation

Material data Young’s modulus Ecyl = 500 MPa

Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3

One-dimensional transient heat transfer - l | 255

 Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

50
Figure 10.3.2 Midas
Contact pressure 45
Reference
distribution
40
Contact pressure (MPa)

35
100 N
30

25

20
50 N
15
25 N
10

0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Distance from center (mm)

256 | One-dimensional transient heat transfer - l

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

10.4 Sliding wedge with linear springs

1
REFERENCE NAFEMS
ELEMENTS Solid elements
MODEL FILENAME ContactAnalysis04.fea

Figure 10.4.1 shows a sliding wedge on an elastic foundation under the gravity load. The bottom side of the
foundation is constrained in all directions. The left side of the wedge is connected to 9 linear 2-node springs in the
horizontal direction. Horizontal distances are determined for the four cases of frictional constants and spring
stiffness as summarized in Table 10.4.1. Geometric nonlinear analyses are carried out to obtain the horizontal
displacements, which are then compared with the reference values.

F = 1500 N, G = 3058 N Units: m

F
K

0.8
G
1.2

Figure 10.4.1
2.0

Sliding wedge model

1.3
contact
interface
0.7

Φ tan Φ = 0.1

1.0 4.0 1.0

6.0

Material data Young’s modulus E = 206 GPa

Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3

Table 10.4.1 Horizontal displacements obtained for four different friction coefficients and spring stiffness values

Spring stiffness Horizontal displacement [m]

Friction coefficient Force [N]
[N/m] Reference Midas

0.0 1500 132.6 1.0 1.0

0.1 1500 98.0 1.0 1.0

0.2 1500 62.6 1.0 1.0

0.3 1500 26.5 1.0 1.0

One-dimensional transient heat transfer - l | 257

 Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

10.5
1.1 Cantilever beam and a rigid curvilinear
surface
1 3
REFERENCE NAFEMS , Ayari et al.
ELEMENTS Solid elements
MODEL FILENAME ContactAnalysis05.fea

Figure 10.5.1 shows a cantilever beam loaded by a uniform pressure load over a frictionless rigid curvilinear surface.
The rigid surface is constrained in all directions at its reference node. The left side of the cantilever is constrained in
all directions. The vertical deflection of the cantilever tip and the horizontal distance from the root to the point of
separation are determined for three cases of pressure levels; = 0.05, 0.075 and 0.1 N/mm2 by carrying out
geometric nonlinear analyses.

Figure 10.5.1 L = 1000

Cantilever beam model
q

10

Y
R = 20xL
contact
X interface

Picture 1.1.1 Units: mm

Strip footing model

Material data Young’s modulus E = 206 GPa

Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3

Table 10.5.1 Vertical displacement at cantilever tip, and horizontal distance from root to point of separation,
2
q [N/mm ] 0.050 0.075 0.100

Reference 23.55 24.03 24.27

u y [mm]
Midas 20.60 22.05 22.81

Reference 410 518 583

xS [mm]
Midas 425 525 600

258 | One-dimensional transient heat transfer - l

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

10.6 Sliding and rolling of a ring on a rigid

surface
REFERENCE NAFEMS1
ELEMENTS Solid elements
MODEL FILENAME ContactAnalysis06.fea

A steel ring under the gravity load is allowed to slide and roll on a rigid surface, as depicted in Figure 10.6.1. The
friction coefficient between the two bodies is 1.0. The rigid plate is constrained in all directions. Geometric
nonlinear analysis is carried out to determine the horizontal displacement of the center point as the steel ring is
rotated by 90 degrees. The horizontal displacement and the maximum vertical displacement of the center of the
ring are compared to the theoretical solution.

Figure 10.6.1
Sliding and rolling of a
ring θ = π/2
●

G = 2443 N

contact
interface

Material data Density ρ = 7850 kg/m3

Young’s modulus E = 206 GPa
Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3

Table 10.6.1 Horizontal and maximum vertical displacements of center of the ring

One-dimensional transient heat transfer - l | 259

 Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

Reference Midas
785.398(circle)
u H [mm] 778.818
778.823(polygon)

uV [mm] 12.536 12.536

Horizontal displacement:
- circle: uH  2 R / 4  785.398
- polygon: uH  7R sin  0.5 / 7  778.823
Maximum vertical displacement:
- uV  R 1  cos  0.5 / 7    12.536

14
Figure 10.6.2
Contact pressure 12
distribution
Vertical diplacement YA (mm)

10

6
Midas
4 Reference(max. value)

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90

Rotation angle θ (degree)

260 | One-dimensional transient heat transfer - l

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

10.7 Crushing of a pipe

REFERENCE Peech et al.4
ELEMENTS Solid elements
MODEL FILENAME ContactAnalysis07.fea

Figure 10.7.1 shows a pipe section to be crushed. The rigid plates are constrained in all directions. A quarter of the
pipe section is modeled utilizing the symmetry, and the associated symmetric boundary conditions are applied. The
pipe material is defined by the von Mises plastic with isotropic hardening. The plastic curve is given in Table 10.7.1.
The reaction force per unit length is determined versus the relative anvil displacement.

Figure 10.7.1 L = 1.0

Pipe section and its
deformed shape

t = 0.349

Units: in

outer dia. = 4.5

2
Material data Young’s modulus E = 206 lbf/in
Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3

Table 10.7.1 Plastic Curve

Strain Stress [psi]

0.00000 35000

0.00350 40000

0.00830 43750

0.01330 46250

0.01820 50000

0.02810 52500

0.03800 55000

1.00000 215000

One-dimensional transient heat transfer - l | 261

 Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

12000
Figure 10.7.2 Midas
Vertical displacement as
the inner ring rotates 10000 Reference (Experiment)
Force per unit length (lbf/in)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Relative anvil displacement (in)

262 | One-dimensional transient heat transfer - l

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 10. Contact Analysis Analysis Performance

References
1 NAFEMS, The Standard NAFEMS Benchmarks, Rev. 3, NAFEMS, Glasgow, 1990

2 G.M.L. Gladwell, Contact Problems in the Classical Theory of Elasticity, Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen aan
den Rijn, 1980
3 M.L. Ayari and V.E. Saouma, “Static and Dynamic Contact/Impact Problems Using Fictitious Forces,”
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 32, pp. 623-643, 1991
4 J.M. Peech, R.E. Roener, S.D. Porofin, G.H. East, and N.A. Goldstein, "Local Crush Rigidity of Pipes and
Elbows," Proc. 4th SMIRT Conf. paper F-3/8, North Holland, 1977

References | 263