still checking, it’s running.
Ok. But I used MPa, so I was lucky!? what are the formulas for the correction?
Don Guido wrote this in hyperelastics.f
do i=1,3
k=jcoef(i,abs(ityp))
if(k.eq.0) exit
if(dabs(elcon(k,j,nmat)).lt.1.d-10) then
elcon(k,j,nmat)=(0.1d0/um)**i
write(*,*)
& '*WARNING reading *HYPERELASTIC: default value was'
write(*,*) ' used for compressibility coefficient
&s'
write(*,100) i,elcon(k,j,nmat)
endif
enddo
a surprising formula… 
I’ll post some results tomorrow, still stuck in the larger model 
looks like is a limitation of the method, but can’t figure out why so different in both sides
Theoretical background here https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/243fb840-e11e-40fc-b709-9fa7e4197602/content
I changed all D’s to 0.001 MPa^-1, no change in results.
mmmh. that could be a good clue.!.
Have you noticed there is the same master in two contact pairs?.
Surface 5 is master in Contact_Pair-2 and Contact_Pair-3.
That doesn’t happen in the lower surface.
right in the lower surface the stops are tied, no general contact. Good point.
that was it! I removed contact pair 3, and this is the result:
Many thanks to @Disla and all of you.
1 Like
Hi JuanP74,
I’m glad it finally worked. Seems there can’t be the same master in two contact pair definitions.
Regarding the default values I still consider there is some issue.
In my opinion, it is nonsense that the user’s value is discarded for being too small but it’s replaced by another value that is even much smaller.
I consider a check should be performed also to those new values (D2 and D3) to see if they also fulfill the minimum allowable value for compressibility.
Additionally, when using [Pa] as main units, there is no correspondence with the same model in [Mpa].
I guess the source is the way D2 and D3 are built as powers of D1 which makes the solution unit dependent.
Should we report it?
Regards
This is clearly a mistake.
The other point is related to the calculation of minimum values that as you said is faulty.
So yes, this has to be reported.