Could you put something together describing the real-world problem you're trying to simulate and what you want to capture.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
The hatched surface of rubber (yellow) is fixed to the base (green) by adhesives (Actually it is much more complicated than that, but for simplicity please assume this).
The arrow shows the force applied on rubber surface to pull it outside of base.
The assembly file I uploaded is a simplified version of our product that I created quickly.
Ignore the assembly constraints, the purpose was only to show you how the interface between the parts is.
You can open the rubber part and then open Simulate, it will show the constraints applied by me.
As you will understand immediately, it is a very crude approximation of the situation and I want to refine it further.
In our actual product the contact interface is much more complicated, hence the contact analysis is not feasible. That is why I want to run an equivalent analysis only on the rubber part.
If you look at the first pass results, you'll see that the outer most tip of the flange displaces more that its radius
This is because the constraint set is incomplete; there is no constraint on the contact area of the rubber i.e. the rubber cannot go in the direction of its centre (same as centre axis of base part) as base part is already present there and it is considered undeformable. So the rubber should be allowed to displace away from the centre but not towards the centre. How do I apply constraints to achieve this?
For your part level analysis, part of the reason why your analysis took so long to run is that you're having numerical stability issues
This should be normal for the p method right?
Since the equations are solved in itterations until appreciable continuity is achieved, this behaviour is as expected IMHO.
Now, if you want to try to approximate a contact surface between the inner curved surface of the rubber part, then you could create a cylindrical coordinate system and constrain the surface in the radial direction (but remember, the surface will not be able to move in the + or - R direction)
Yes you got it exactly right over here. I want to constrain the surface to not move in -R direction but free to move in +R direction. But as you say it is not possible in Simulate. So any other alternatives for my boundary conditions?
I dont know why your graph is like that. Maybe because of difference in units?
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
At this position do you really expect to have a 10 N load vertically down (which, for the deformed shape, would be something like a friction load)
The rubber part is very flexible. The load is actually applied by fingers, so the fingers can adjust accordingly to pull the rubber part out of the base.