AnsweredAssumed Answered

"Free Contact" as Opposed to "Allow Penetration"?

Question asked by John Willett on Nov 19, 2016
Latest reply on Nov 23, 2016 by Bill McEachern

I have been making very thin extruded cuts purely to prevent automatic bonding between parts in certain areas.  Of course this results in poor mesh quality.  What is the best way to prevent parts that are coincident from being bonded in a static study, especially when I want most other coincidences (even between the same parts) to be bonded with compatible mesh?

 

Should I be placing split lines around the coincident areas that I don't want to be bonded and then using "Allow Penetration" contact sets to enforce this?  Does this effectively prevent the program from checking for contact, thereby saving processing time?

 

I just noticed a cryptic reference to "Free Contact" in SW Help (nothing useful in Knowledge Base), but I don't understand exactly what it does, nor how to invoke it without losing compatible mesh at other bonded contacts.  Is this equivalent to, or better in some way than, "Allow Penetration" for my application?

 

I'm running SW Premium 2016 SP5.0 under Windows 7 SP1.  The idea here is to represent welds that seep between part, but not all, of contacting faces, without making the geometry more complex with thin cuts.  (Ideally the weld would both add a bonded "fillet" on the outer edge between the contacting parts and bond a short distance into the contacting faces between them.  I haven't found a way to add a fillet between parts at the assembly level, but it's relatively easy to add an extruded or revolved boss on the edge of one of the two parts that will be coincident with the other.  The problem is controlling the bonding of the contacting face between the parts...)  Any guidance would be most welcome! -- John Willett

 

Message was edited by: John Willett for clarification and correction of typos

Outcomes