{"id":165141,"date":"2023-03-17T08:59:31","date_gmt":"2023-03-17T08:59:31","guid":{"rendered":"\/knowledge\/forums\/topic\/why-are-some-segments-or-entire-surfaces-absent-in-the-binary-interface-force-file-intfor-for-contact_tied\/"},"modified":"2023-07-31T12:30:40","modified_gmt":"2023-07-31T12:30:40","slug":"why-are-some-segments-or-entire-surfaces-absent-in-the-binary-interface-force-file-intfor-for-contact_tied","status":"publish","type":"topic","link":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/knowledge\/forums\/topic\/why-are-some-segments-or-entire-surfaces-absent-in-the-binary-interface-force-file-intfor-for-contact_tied\/","title":{"rendered":"Why are some segments or entire surfaces absent in the binary interface force file intfor for *CONTACT_TIED?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In MPP, unless the tied contact is made “groupable”, slave nodes are paired with master segments during decomposition, and the unnecessary master segment s are deleted from the contact definition. This makes it impossible to write all the original master surface data to the intfor file. The good news is you can make the tied contacts groupable by adding the following 2 lines to the input deck: *CONTROL_MPP_CONTACT_GROUPABLE 2<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-165141","topic","type-topic","status-publish","hentry","topic-tag-ls-dyna","topic-tag-ls-dyna-suite","topic-tag-lsdyna","topic-tag-r12","topic-tag-structural-mechanics"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t