Sie sind auf Seite 1von 34

Computational Contact

Mechanics

Computational Contact Mechanics

Largely based on Computational Contact Mechanics, Peter Wriggers, Springer.

1-Introduction

foundation

impact

Roller bearing

Computational Contact
Mechanics

contact problems:

between rigid and deformable bodies;

between deformable bodies;
(tolerance control, tool wear)
self-contact in a deformable body .

Non-penetration (constrained problem)

important issues:
Friction

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Sheet metal deep drawing

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Contact of tyres with a road surface, from Michelin.

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Contact between deformable bodies

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Self-contact
Compression of a metalic tube

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Self-contact
Compression of a metalic tube

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Let us consider a contact problem consisting of a

point mass m under gravitational load which is
supported by a spring with stiffness k.

1
2

The displacement is obtained by minimizing the total energy:

=0

Computational Contact
Mechanics

If the displacement of the point mass m is

restricted by a rigid plane then the restriction
of the motion of the mass by a rigid support can
be described by:

( ) = 0
which excludes penetration as an inequality
constraint.

For
= > 0 one has a gap between
point mass and rigid support.
For

= 0 the gap is closed.

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Once the point mass contacts the rigid surface, a reaction

force
appears.
In classical contact mechanics, we assume that the reaction
force between rigid surface and point mass is negative,
hence the contact pressure can only be compression.

Such assumption excludes adhesion forces in the contact

interface and leads to the restriction

This means that either we have a compression state (

reaction force (
= 0 ).

< 0 ) or an inactive

Summarizing:

10

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1. The spring stiffness is sufficiently large enough that

the point mass does not touch the rigid surface. In this
case, the following conditions are valid:

( ) > 0 and

= 0.

2. The data of the system are such that the

point mass comes into contact with the rigid
support.
In that case conditions hold:

( ) = 0 and

< 0.

Both cases can be combined in the statement

( ) 0,
which are
mechanics.

known

as

and

HertzSignoriniMoreau

=0
conditions

in

contact

Such conditions coincide with KuhnTucker complementary conditions

in the theory of optimization.

11

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Contact with friction.

Using now the same system, we can compute also the frictional behaviour of the
mass spring system.
For this we assume that the mass is in contact with the rigid support, hence

< 0.

Now additionally a force tangential to the supporting plane is applied,

12

Computational Contact
Mechanics

The equilibrium equations in vertical and tangential

direction follow for the state of contact as

= 0

=0

Friction between the mass and the rigid support is

described by a constitutive equation which has to be
formulated in such a way that it describes the
physical phenomena of the friction process.

13

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Coulombs law.

Within this constitutive equation one differentiates

between a stick and sliding state.

Stick means that there is no relative tangential

movement between the mass and the rigid support.

During
sliding
displacement
support.

there
will
be
a
relative
between the mass and the rigid

These assumptions lead to the following set of

equations which describe the frictional behaviour.

14

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1. Coulombs law provides an inequality involving

the normal (vertical) and tangential reaction forces

In this inequality the constitutive parameter is

called friction coefficient.
It actually can depend upon several
quantities, which will be discussed later.

other

Note that the absolute value of the tangential

reaction is taken, since the tangential force FT can
be positive or negative.
Inequality can now be used to distinguish between
stick and slip.

15

Computational Contact
Mechanics

2. Stick occurs when

<
In that case we have no relative tangential
displacement between the mass and the rigid
support:
= 0.
Furthermore the tangential force
is a
reaction force which can be determined from

16

Computational Contact
Mechanics

In that case we have a relative tangential

displacement between the mass and the rigid
support:

and
follows directly from the above
equation.

The direction of
will be opposite to the
tangential reaction force
.

17

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Again the inequalities formulated above can be

written in a form of the KuhnTucker.

Here we formulate

0

=0
where the absolute value of the tangential
displacement enters since the tangential force FT
can act in positive or negative direction.
(

0 )

18

Computational Contact
Mechanics

displacement diagram for the tangential
in case of friction.

As in the frictionless case the frictional load

displacement curve depicts non-smooth
behaviour.

due to the non-differentiability at the
corners, when treating frictional contact
problems.

19

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Example of a simple constrained minimization problem (simple revision)

Determine the stationary point (critical) of the quadratic function

R R

: f (x,y ) = 2x 2 + y 2 8x + y + 1

with the condition that:

2x y = 0
(i) Direct method:

y = 2x
f * (x ) = 6x 2 6x + 1

df *
= 12x 6
dx
df *
= 0 x = 0.5 y = 1.0
dx

20

Computational Contact
Mechanics

fL (x,y, ) = (2x 2 + y 2 8x + y + 1) + (2x y )

fL

=0

fL

=0

fL

=0

4x 8 + 2 = 0

2y + 1 = 0

2x y = 0

x = 0.5

y = 1.0

= 3.0

21

Computational Contact
Mechanics

2

fp (x,y ) = (2x 2 + y 2 8x + y + 1) + 21 (2x y )

fp

=0

fp

=0

4x 8 + 2 (2x y ) = 0

2y + 1 (2x y ) = 0

8 + 3

x
=

4 + 6

3 1

y
=

2 + 3

22

Computational Contact
Mechanics

8 + 3

=
= 0.5
lim
x
lim

4 + 6

3 1

lim
y
=
lim
= 1.0

2 + 3

8 + 3 3 1

= 3.0
lim = lim (2x y ) = lim 2

4 + 6 2 + 3

23

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1.0

2.0

6.0

10.0

25.0

50.0

100.0

1000.0

1.100

0.875

0.650

0.5938

0.5390

0.5197

0.5099

0.5010

0.400

0.625

0.850

0.9062

0.9610

0.9803

0.9901

0.9990

2x y 1.800

1.125

0.450

0.2812

0.1169

0.0592

0.0298

0.0030

2.250

2.700

2.8125

2.9221

2.9605

2.9801

2.9980

1.800

24

Computational Contact
Mechanics

The solution of a contact problem in which the

motion is constrained by an inequality can be
obtained using the method of Lagrange
multipliers

For this we assume that a constraint is active.

Therefore, the Lagrange multiplier method adds
to the energy of the system a term which
contains the constraint and yields:

1
2

+ ( )

25

Computational Contact
Mechanics

The search for the critical points leads to two equations :

!
!

or

"

!
!

0
0

The first equation represents the equilibrium for the point mass including the
reaction force when it touches the rigid surface, and the second equation states the
fulfillment of the kinematical constraint equation for contact: =

26

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Due to that, the variation is no longer restricted, and one can solve for Lagrange
multiplier which is equivalent with the reaction force
,

However the contact condition still has to be checked. If this condition is not met, and
hence an adhesion force is computed, i.e.
is positive, then the assumption of
contact no longer holds.

This means the inequality constraint is inactive and the correct solution can be
computed as

=
and furthermore, the reaction force or Lagrange multiplier is zero.

27

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1.3 Penalty method

Another well known method which is often
applied in finite element analysis of contact
problems is the penalty approach.

Here for an active constraint one adds a penalty

term to the energy as follows:

+ \$( ) ,
\$ > 0
#

The penalty parameter can be interpreted as a spring stiffness in the contact

interface between point mass and rigid support.

This is due to the fact that the energy of the penalty term has the same
structure as the potential energy of a simple spring.

28

Computational Contact
Mechanics

!
=0
!
or

The value of the constraint equation is then:

\$
+ \$
+\$

=0

+\$

Since
in the case of contact this means that a penetration of the point
mass into the rigid support occurs, which is physically equivalent to a
compression of the spring
Note that the penetration depends upon the penalty parameter.
The constraint equation is only fulfilled in the limit , i.e.

0 () .

29

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1. \$

solution for very large penalty parameters.

Intuitively, this is clear since that means the penalty spring stiffness is very large,
and hence only very small penetration occurs.

2. \$ 0 represents the unconstrained solution, and thus is only valid for

inactive constraints.

In the case of contact, a solution with a very small penalty parameter leads to a
high penetration.

The reaction force for a penalty method is computed from

= \$ ( ) = ,-+ (
+

In the limit

30

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1.4 Perturbed Lagrangian method

This special formulation can be used to combine both penalty and Lagrange
multiplier methods.

# ./
,
+

\$ > 0

The search for the critical points leads to two equations :

!
!

or

!
!

=
0

0
0

31

Computational Contact
Mechanics

=
=

1+\$

1+\$

\$
\$

Assignment: Solve the contact in a mass spring system for the following conditions,
using the different methods, for:
a) = 1 ;

b) = 1 ;

= 10 ; = 10; = 125

= 20 ; = 10; = 125

32

Computational Contact
Mechanics

The augmented Lagrange method may be viewed as a combination of both the

penalty and the Lagrange methods, adding both contributions to the potential:

1
2

1
+ \$( )
2

from which the following equation, obtained from the derivative in order to the
displacement field, may be obtained:

= 0 =

+ \$ +
+\$

The advantage of this method is that the penalty parameter may be smaller
than in the case of the penalty method, thus avoiding ill-conditioning problems.
33

Computational Contact
Mechanics

An iterative procedure is then adopted such as the Lagrange multiplier is kept

constant in each iteration and is only updated at the end of each step as:

3-#

3-#

+ \$ +
+\$

The definition of increment of the Lagrange multiplier

penalty formula :

as

=\$

is obtained from

Assignment: Solve the contact in a mass spring system b) using the augmented
Lagrangian method.

34