16 October 2018
Based on your second post, note that when you're using shared topology, it assumes that there is no interlayer which is why the response is similar to scenario C instead of B. Similarly, when you replace shared topology with a bonded contact, the "interlayer stiffness" is nothing but the contact stiffness calculated based on the properties of the underlying solid elements (glass in your case). So, the response is again similar to scenario C.
If you wish to simulate the scenario B, then you'll need to account for the softer interlayer. This can be done in two ways:
- use a thin solid sandwiched between the two glass layers to represent that interlayer, you'll need to join them using a bonded contact.
- use a penalty based bonded contact(Augmented Lagrange is preferred) and define the normal stiffness manually using command snippet( use -ve value for FKN so the solver reads it as the absolute value rather than a multiplying factor). The stiffness that you define here should be same as the stiffness of the interlayer in reality.
Finally, regarding your original question on by the bonded or no separation contact may not be holding the parts together, check these options:
use Contact Tool to see if there is any gap between the two parts, to begin with. If there is a gap, then manually define a larger pinball radius (larger than the gap).
make sure that the mesh is not too coarse.
if these are curved surfaces, then turn off the trim contact.