Gap Element

Category: Structural Analysis | Integrated 2026-04-06
CAE visualization for gap element theory - technical simulation diagram
Gap Elements

Gap Element: Theoretical Foundations

What is a Gap Element?

๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

Professor, what is a "gap element"?


๐ŸŽ“

A gap element is an element that has a gap (clearance) between two points and transmits force only when they are in contact. It is used as a simplified model for contact problems.


Physical Image

๐ŸŽ“

A gap element is a "one-dimensional contact element":


  • Gap is open ($\delta < g$) โ†’ Force is zero
  • Gap is closed ($\delta \geq g$) โ†’ Transmits force as a compression spring (stiffness $k$)

Here, $\delta$ is the relative displacement between the two nodes, and $g$ is the initial gap.


๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

It's a simple nonlinearity: "when the gap closes, it becomes a spring."


๐ŸŽ“

Correct. Force-displacement relationship:


$$ F = \begin{cases} 0 & (\delta < g) \\ k(\delta - g) & (\delta \geq g) \end{cases} $$

Applications

๐ŸŽ“
ApplicationExplanation
Bolt hole clearanceLoad transfer when a bolt contacts the hole
Bearing stopperContact beyond a certain displacement
Pipe supportUnidirectional support only (lift-off)
Contact due to thermal expansionGap closes with temperature rise
๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

What do you mean by pipe support being unidirectional only?


๐ŸŽ“

When a pipe deflects downward, it rests on the support; when it deflects upward, it lifts off from the support. It transmits force only in the downward direction and is free in the upward direction. This is a typical application of gap elements.


Element Names by Solver

SolverElement NameNotes
NastranCGAPSpecify direction, gap amount, closure stiffness
Abaqus*GAP / GAPUNI1D gap. ITT element
AnsysCONTA178Node-to-node contact element
๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

Does Abaqus have ITT (Interface) elements separate from GAP elements?


๐ŸŽ“

In Abaqus, the general contact definition (*CONTACT PAIR / *GENERAL CONTACT) is more flexible and recommended than gap elements (*GAP). Gap elements are used only for simplified 1D contact.


Gap Element vs. Contact Definition

ComparisonGap ElementSurface Contact Definition
Degrees of FreedomOne direction onlyEntire surface
Setup EffortLowHigh
Accuracy1D approximationAccurate contact pressure distribution
NonlinearityWeakStrong
FrictionSupported only by Nastran CGAPFully supported
๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

So, use gap elements for simplicity and full contact definition for precision.


๐ŸŽ“

Exactly. Gap elements are used when a simple binary judgment of "contact/no contact" is sufficient. If contact pressure distribution or sliding is important, a general contact definition is necessary.


Summary

๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

Let me organize the theory of gap elements.


๐ŸŽ“

Key points:


  • Transmits force only when the gap is closed โ€” A one-dimensional contact element
  • Force = 0 (open) or $k(\delta - g)$ (closed) โ€” Simple nonlinearity
  • Modeling of pipe supports, stoppers, clearances โ€” Widely used in practice
  • Nastran CGAP is the most widely used โ€” The standard for simplified contact
  • Use full contact definition for precise contact โ€” Gap elements are a simplified model

Coffee Break Trivia

Theoretical Origin of Gap Elements

The first attempt to handle contact problems with FEM was in 1963, extending Hertz's contact theory with the matrix method. The formulation as a gap element was pioneered by Wilson & Parkes in their 1972 paper, establishing the binary contact method that treats the opening/closing between two nodes as an "ON/OFF switch." This method became the prototype for the current ANSYS CONTA171 element.

Computational Methods for Gap Element

Nonlinear Solution Method for Gap Elements

๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

Gap elements are nonlinear, right? Can't they be used in linear analysis?


๐ŸŽ“

The opening/closing of a gap is a state change, so it is inherently nonlinear. However, many solvers process it pseudo-linearly using iterative methods.


๐ŸŽ“

Procedure:

1. Perform linear analysis assuming all gap elements are "open."

2. Check the relative displacement of each gap. Change elements that should close to "closed."

3. Re-analyze with the updated stiffness.

4. Iterate until the state of all gaps stabilizes.


๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

Is it thanks to this iteration that CGAP can be used even in Nastran's SOL 101 (linear static analysis)?


๐ŸŽ“

In Nastran, using CGAP in SOL 106 (nonlinear static analysis) is the formal way, but SOL 101 also has a "linear contact" feature that performs gap opening/closing iterations. It's faster than full nonlinear analysis but cannot handle complex contact.


Closure Stiffness Setting

๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

How do you set the stiffness $k$ when the gap closes?


๐ŸŽ“

Ideally, it would be "infinite" (perfectly rigid contact), but numerically, a finite large stiffness is used via the penalty method.


๐ŸŽ“

Guidelines:

  • $k \approx 10 \sim 100$ ร— the stiffness of the contact surface (equivalent to $EA/L$)
  • Too large โ†’ condition number worsens, convergence becomes difficult
  • Too small โ†’ excessive penetration

๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

Finding the "just right $k$" seems difficult.


๐ŸŽ“

Abaqus's *CONTACT definition automatically calculates the penalty stiffness, but with gap elements, manual setting is required. Start with $k$ = 10 times the structural stiffness and adjust so that penetration is less than 1% of the plate thickness.


Summary

๐Ÿง‘โ€๐ŸŽ“

Let me organize the numerical methods for gap elements.


๐ŸŽ“

Key points:


  • Converge gap opening/closing with iterative methods โ€” Treated as iterations of linear analysis
  • Closure stiffness is 10~100 times the structural stiffness โ€” Neither too large nor too small
  • Simplified contact possible even in Nastran's SOL 101 โ€” But SOL 106 is the formal method
  • Full contact definition recommended for precise contact โ€” Gap elements are a simplified model

Coffee Break Trivia

Penalty Method vs. Lagrange Method

There are two main approaches to the numerical implementation of gap elements: the penalty method and the Lagrange multiplier method. The penalty method can be implemented without changing the dimension of the stiffness matrix and is easier to implement, but the choice of penalty coefficient directly affects accuracy. In 1974, Bathe and Wilson showed that the Lagrange method provides more stable condition numbers, which became a guideline for subsequent high-precision contact solver development.

Related Simulators

Experience the theory firsthand with the interactive simulator for this field

All Simulators

Related fields

Thermal AnalysisManufacturing Process AnalysisV&V ยท Quality Assurance
Rate this article
Thank you for your feedback!
Helpful
More details
Report error
Helpful
0
More details
0
Report error
0
Written by NovaSolver Contributors
Anonymous Engineers & AI โ€” Sitemap
About the Authors