Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 34
Computational Contact
Mechanics

Computational Contact Mechanics

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

1-Introduction

foundation

Roller bearing

impact

1

Computational Contact
Mechanics

contact problems:

important issues:

between rigid and deformable bodies;

• between deformable bodies; (tolerance control, tool wear)

self-contact in a deformable body .

Non-penetration (constrained problem)

Friction

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Sheet metal forming

Sheet metal bending

Sheet metal deep drawing

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Contact of tyres with a road surface, from Michelin.

4

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Contact between deformable bodies

5

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Self-contact Compression of a metalic tube

6
Computational Contact
Mechanics
7

Self-contact Compression of a metalic tube

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1.1 –Contact in a mass spring system

Let us consider a contact problem consisting of a point mass m under gravitational load which is supported by a spring with stiffness k.

The energy for this system can be written as

=

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:

( ) =ℎ − ≥0

which excludes penetration as an inequality constraint.

For

point mass and rigid support.

= ℎ − > 0 one

has a gap between

For

= 0 the gap is closed.

9

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

≤0

This means that either we have a compression state ( < 0 ) or an inactive reaction force ( = 0 ).

Summarizing:

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

which

mechanics.

are

known

( ) ≥0, ≤ 0

and =0

as

Hertz–Signorini–Moreau

conditions

in

contact

Such conditions coincide with Kuhn–Tucker 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

+ ℎ=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.

Computational Contact
Mechanics

The simplest model, widely used in engineering, is Coulomb’s 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 there

displacement between the mass and the rigid support.

a relative

will

be

These assumptions lead to the following set of equations which describe the frictional behaviour.

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1. Coulomb’s law provides an inequality involving the normal (vertical) and tangential reaction forces

, =

+ ≤0

In this inequality the constitutive parameter µ is called friction coefficient.

It actually can depend upon several other quantities, which will be discussed later.

Note that the absolute value of the tangential reaction is taken, since the tangential force F T can be positive or negative.

Inequality can now be used to distinguish between stick and slip.

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

=

Computational Contact
Mechanics

3. Slip occurs when

= −

In that case we have a relative tangential displacement between the mass and the rigid support:

and

equation.

≠0

follows

directly

from

the

above

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

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Again the inequalities formulated above can be written in a form of the Kuhn–Tucker.

Here we formulate

≥0
≤0
=0

where the absolute value of the tangential displacement enters since the tangential force F T can act in positive or negative direction.

( , =

+ ≤0)

Computational Contact
Mechanics

The above analysis leads to load displacement diagram for the tangential loading versus the tangential displacement in case of friction.

As in the frictionless case the frictional load displacement curve depicts non-smooth behaviour.

This leads to mathematical difficulties, due to the non-differentiability at the corners, when treating frictional contact problems.

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Example of a simple constrained minimization problem (simple revision)

y
1

Determine the stationary point (critical) of the quadratic function

f

R

2

R :

(

f x,y

)

with the condition that:

(i) Direct method:

= 2x

2

+

y

2

8x

2x y = 0

y = 2x

f

*

(

x

)

= 6x

2

+ +

6x +1

df

*

dx

=

12x

6

*

df dx = ⇒

0

x

=

0.5

y

=

1.0

20

Computational Contact
Mechanics

(ii) Method of Lagrange multipliers:

∂ f

∂ f

L

x

L

y

∂ λ

f

L

=

=

=

f

L

0

0

0

(

x,y,λ

)

(

= 2x

2

+ y



2

x

y

λ

8x + y + 1 + λ 2x y

)

(

=

=

=



4x

8

− +

2 λ = 0

 2y 1 + − λ = 0 2x − y = 0

0.5

1.0

3.0

)

Computational Contact
Mechanics

(iii) Penalty function method:

f

p

(

x,y = 2x + y 8x + y +1 + α 2x y

2

)

(

2

2

)

1

(

∂ f

p

∂   x

∂ f



p

y

0

= ⇔  4x

=

0



2y

8

− +

+ 1

 

 

⇔ 

 

 

 



x

y

α

α

 8 + 3 α = 4 + 6 α 3 α − 1 = 2 + 3 α
 2 α ( 2x − y ) = 0 α ( 2x − y ) = 0

) 2

Computational Contact
Mechanics

lim

α

→∞

λ

α

=

 

   lim x

α →∞

 

α →∞

  lim y

 

α lim

=

α

→∞

α lim

=

α

→∞

lim

α

→∞

α

(

2x

α

y

α

)

8

+ 3 α

4

3

+ 6 α

α

1

2

+

3 α

=

=

=

lim

α

→∞

α

0.5

1.0

2

 

    4

8 + 3

α

−

+

6

α  

3

α

1

=

 

2

+

3

α

3.0

Computational Contact
Mechanics
 α 1 2 6 10 25 50 100 1000 x α 1.1 0.875 0.65 0.5938 0.539 0.5197 0.5099 0.501 y α 0.4 0.625 0.85 0.9062 0.961 0.9803 0.9901 0.999 2x α − y α 1.8 1.125 0.45 0.2812 0.1169 0.0592 0.0298 0.003 λ α 1.8 2.25 2.7 2.8125 2.9221 2.9605 2.9801 2.998

24

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1.2 Lagrange multiplier method

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 + (ℎ − )

Computational Contact
Mechanics

or

The search for the critical points leads to two equations :

"

ℎ−

!
!
!
!

=

=

0

0

 = 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: = ℎ

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 ,

= ℎ − = .

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.

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1.3 Penalty method

Another well

applied in finite element analysis of contact problems is the penalty approach.

known method which is often

Here for an active constraint one adds a penalty term to the energy as follows:

=

#

+ # \$(ℎ − ) , \$ > 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.

Computational Contact
Mechanics

The search for the critical points leads to the equation :

or

! ! =0

− \$ ℎ − = 0

giving the solution:

= + \$ +\$

The value of the constraint equation is then:

=ℎ− = − +\$

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 ()

→ ℎ.

29

Computational Contact
Mechanics

Hence, in the penalty method we can distinguish two limiting cases:

1.

\$ → ∞ ⇒ → 0 () → ℎ, which means that one approaches the correct 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

+

= \$ ( ) = ,-+ ( ℎ − )

\$ → ∞ ⇒

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1.4 Perturbed Lagrangian method

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

,

=

#

+

ℎ −

# . /

+ , \$ > 0

The search for the critical points leads to two equations :

or

0

ℎ− \$

 ! 0 ! = ! 0 ! =
 = 0 = 0

31

Computational Contact
Mechanics

=

ℎ+

\$

1+

\$

ℎ −

=

1+

\$

\$ → ∞ ⇒ →ℎ

\$ → ∞ ⇒

ℎ −

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

a) ℎ = 1 ; = 10

; = 10; = 125

b) ℎ = 1 ; = 20 ; = 10; = 125

32

Computational Contact
Mechanics

1.5 Augmented Lagrangian method (iterative solution)

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 +

ℎ − +

1 2 \$(ℎ − )

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

− \$ ℎ − = 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.

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-# = + \$ℎ + 3
+\$
3-# =
3 +∆ 3

The definition of increment of the Lagrange multiplier penalty “formula” :

as

\$ ℎ−
∆ 3 =\$ ℎ− 3

is obtained from

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

34