8

Downloaded 11/19/13 to 190.144.171.70. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.
php
Chapter 8
Alternate Variational Principles for Signorini's Problem
8.1. Introduction. We shall now introduce several alternate variational principles for Signorini's problem in elasticity, following the development of the primal variational principle described in Chapter 6. These include dual principles, in which a complementary energy formulation is used, mixed principles of the Reissner type, and what we refer to as a reciprocal variational principle in which the problem is formulated in terms of a surface (boundary) integral on the contact surface F. Again, these principles are given as existence theorems for several distinct variational inequalities corresponding to different but equivalent formulations of Signorini's problem. Each provides a basis for quite different interpretations of solutions and for different finite element approximations. 8.2. A dual variational formulation. We shall consider a dual variational principle which generalizes the well-known principle of complementary energy for problems in linear elasticity so as to include contact constraints. Similar dual principles for the Signorini problem were studied by, e.g., Valent [1]. As in 6.2, let us assume that the domain SI be of class W'' so that the unit vector n normai to the boundary F of the domain fl is a Lipschitz function. Suppose that I' consists of mutually disjoint open manifolds, F, D , I' F , and N such that
(8.1)
r c nr =o, ronrF=o, r nr c =o, _ _ _ U= I' c ur ur ur N .

D F D F
The boundary r c includes the true contact surface of the body fl which is fixed along r D . Surface tractions t will be applied on 1' F , and r N is a free surface (i.e., I' N can be regarded as part of r F whereon t=0).
FzIr
202
CHAPTER 8
Downloaded 11/19/13 to 190.144.171.70. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php
We now introduce the space V* and its subset K* defined by

V * = (T E YI Tij j =f in L 2 (1Z), ir(T) = t in (H 1 " 2 (I' F ))', and
(8.2) ?f7 (T) =0 in (H
1 2 ( ['
))'}
and
(8.3) K* = {T E V* I lr n (T) < 0 in (H 1 ' 2 (rc))'} Here the given data {f, t} are assumed to belong to L 2 (11) x (H 1 " 2 (I' F ))', and the space .T is defined by (5.66):
(8.4) 5= {Tij E L Z ((l)
I Tij = Tji , Tij,j E
L Z ( S )}
Operators ir, ir-, and 7r are the trace operators for stress given in Theorems 5.10 and 5.11, and their existence is assured by the condition TE J. Recall that if TE C (fl), then
(ir(T))i = T,jnj,
ir (T) = r ii n i nj ,
(IrT (T)) i = Tijnj
Tnni,
Tn = Tijninj
The total ordering relation "Ir(T)<O in (H I " 2 (1' c ))" in the admissible set K* means that (in(T), v)r, ^0 Vv 0 in H 1 ' 2 (rc) Next, we consider the inverse of the constitutive law Q;j = Eijk,ek,. When conditions (5.5) hold, the fourth-order tensor E = [E ;jk,] is invertible a.e. on ft and we denote its inverse by C = [C;jk,]. Then strain is related to stress by
(8.5)
Eij = Cijk,okl,
1 i, j, k, 1: N
and the functions Cijk , satisfy the conditions:

(8.6)
(i) C;jk ,(x) E L(f1); there exists a constant m, such that

I<i,j,k,IsN
max
IICijk,IIo,-o^ m1.
(ii)
Cijk,(x) = Cklij(x) = Cjikl(x), a.e. in 0, 1 1, j, k, 1: N.
(iii) There exists a constant M, > 0 such that a.e. in 0,

Cijk,(x) TijTkl ^ M1 TijTij
for every
TE
RNxN
with
Tij = Tji.
Next, let u denote the solution of the Signorini problem (6.27) and denote
uij = E ijkluk,l,
ALTERNATE VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLES
203
i.e., o j is the actual stress field corresponding to u. Then, for any 'TE K* fl C' (t ), we have
CijkjQk!('rjo ) dx= J
(T;jQ;j) dx
_J u i.j( T;j Q;j) dx
ui(T;jirj)njds f u(T;j.juu.j)dx a
= u i (T;j nj Q;j nj ) ds.
Since the displacement field u is the solution of our problem, u1 r0 = 0, and since
un(T.
o ) = g(Tn ten)+(un g)(Tn cr)^g(Tn Qn),
we can obtain the form

(8.7)
j j) dx> Cijk,okl(ro-
g(TQ) ds
Jr
where T = Tij nj n i , etc. We refer to (8.7) as the dual variational principle for the Signorini problem (2.38). We will now describe a more precise formulation of (8.7). Let g E H 112 (F ), and let
(8.8) a*(r, T) =
Cijk:Qk,T;j dx.
Then (8.7) can be rewritten in the form (8.9) 0 K*: a*(o., Tv)?(ir(To), g) r , VTE K*,
where (4', 4')rc = Jr ,/i dx for E L 2 (F) and 4' E H 112 (r ). Clearly, (8.9) can also be described in terms of the constrained minimization problem, (8.10) where
(8.11) F*()=ia*(T,T)(ir (),g)-,.
vEK*: F*(v)F*(T) VTEK*,
Indeed, the functional F* is G-differentiable on .9 and

(8.12)
(DF* (o ), T) = a * (Q, T) (ir (T), g)r c
for every Q, T E J. The equivalence of (8.9) and (8.10) follows from Theorems 3.4 and 3.7(i).
204
CHAPTER 8
Conditions on the data f and t in (8.2) sufficient to guarantee the existence of solutions are given in the next result. LEMMA 8.1. For each (f, t) E L 2 (fl) x H - " 2 (F) such that (8.13)
J fr1 dx+(t, y(r)) r =0
n
for every rE R 2 , R 2 being the space of rigid motions (recall (6.13)), there exists a r E l such that
(8.14)
,rijj =f in L 2 ((),
Tr('r) = t in H - ' /2 (r).
Proof. By Korn's inequalities of Theorem 5.14, there exists exactly one uEH'(SZ)/R 2 such that
(8.15) Jr(i($) dx= fv ; dx+(t, y(v)) r n n
for every vE H'(fl)/R 2 . Here ii and v are cosets modulo R 2 with respect to representative elements u and v, respectively, and e() = 2(u 1; + u;; ). Set -rij _ e ;; (u) E L 2 (11). Taking v = 4), 4) E 2(fl) in (8.15), we conclude that
-T+i.i = .f
in the sense of distributions on f1. Since f E L2 (fl), r the generalized Green's formula (5.73),

L 2 (f1), i.e., z a J. By
(IT('r), Y(v))r = (t, Y(v))r,
that is, ir('r) = t in H - ' /2 (r). K LEMMA 8.2. Let f1 E (6 '. If mes (I' D ) > 0, then K* is nonempty for any (f, t) E L 2 (fZ) x (H" 2 (F F ))'. Alternatively, let [1E 16'' and suppose that mes (F 0 ) = 0. Then K* is nonempty, if (f, t) E L2 (f1) x (H 1 / 2 (F F ))' satisfies
(8.16)
J fr dx+(t, y(r)) r <_0

;
n
for every r E R 2 such that y (r) <_ 0 on I' c .
Proof For the case that mes (I' D ) > 0, a functional t D E (H 1 / 2 (I' D ))' can always be chosen so that
(tD,
Y(r))r =
f , r dx+(t,
;
Y(r))r
for every ra R 2 . Then h = t D +t satisfies (8.13). Thus, K* is nonempty by Lemma 8.1. For the case that mes (I' D ) = 0, we cannot use the above construction. From (8.16) and the fact that flE ^`' there exists (t c ) E (H" 2 (F C ))' such that
205
(t)<-0 in
(H112(I'C))'
and
R
((tc),, y (r%,r= J fr dx + (t, y(r))r.
Taking h=t+t c shows that such an h satisfies the condition (8.13). Then Lemma 8.1 implies the nonemptiness of K*. K We easily verify that K* is closed and convex. By the above lemma, the set K* is nonempty if either mes (I' D ) >0 or if mes (F D ) = 0, (8.16) holds, and fl E ". Strict convexity and G-differentiability of F* on K* also follow from (8.6). Thus, we have THEOREM 8.1. Let 11 E ^ . If mes (1' o ) = 0, let (f, t)L 2 (fl) x H -1/2 (FF)
satisfy
J n fr;dx+(t, y(r))r _-0

for every rE R2 such that y(r)<_O in H" 2 (rC ). Further, suppose that (8.6) hoids. Then there exists a unique solution v E K* to the variational inequality (8.9) and v is also the unique minimizer of F* in K*. Proof In view of the results already established, it suffices to show that the functional F* defined by (8.11) is coercive on K*. From (8.11) and (8.6), for any TE K*,
(8.17)
Since, for 'r E K*,
F*(T) ? iM, IITII q CIITII i 119111,2.r,.
(8.18)
IITIIT IIfII0+IITIIY,
N}
+oo if and only if lITII - +co where Y ={r E L 2 (f1) I r = Tfi 1 <_ i, j IITII is a Hilbert space, see (5.66). Then
F*(Tr)++oo as JJrIJ,-4CC. That is, F* is coercive on K*. K
8.3. A resolution of dual variational formulations. We have shown that there exists a solution 0 E K * to the dual formulation (8.9) of Signorini's problem (2.38). The constraint =J in L 2 (11) is used in the definition of the admissible set K* of this formulation. In this section, we relax this constraint by using penalty methods of the type discussed
T;
(8.19)
in 3.5.
Let
(8.20)
Kp* = {'r , - I or(T) = tin (H'' 2 (F F ))',1r r (T) = 0

in(HTZ(I' ))',irn(T)^0in(H'/2(rC))'},
206
CHAPTER 8
and let (8.21) P(T)=2Jn (TuJ+f )(Tikk+f)dX
for T E J It is easily verified that the functional T -* P(T) is convex and G-differentiable on Y. Indeed, (8.22) (DP(Q), T) = (mei;.; +j, Tikk)
and
(8.23)
(DP(v) DP(T), O T) = (Qiii Tiji 0 ikk Tikk) >_ 0,

,
where (, ) is the L2 (fl) inner product. Moreover, since P(T)=O if and only if TEM, (8.24) the functional P defined by (8.21) is a penalty functional for the set K*. Following the general theory of penalty methods ( 3.5) a penalty formulation of the constrained problem (8.10) can be defined by the minimization problem (8.25) where
(8.26)
*, vE EK: F (T E ) < F (T) VT E K p
F? (T) = F*(T)+
1 P(T),
or, equivalently, we seek

r,E KP: a * (QE,T Oe) (OEiJ.J+Jij Tikk Oeikk)
(8.27)
?(7rn(TQe),g)rc VTEKp. THEOREM 8.2. Under the conditions stated in Theorem 8.1, there exists a uniquesolution o. E K p * to the dual penalty problem (8.25), or equivalently (8.27). Moreover, IIQe II is uniformly bounded in E if 0<<1. Proof The existence of a solution v E E K p * follows from arguments similar to those in Theorem 8.1. We need only prove the uniform boundedness of
IIQEIIff
Putting T=0 in (8.27) yields

a * (oe, re)+
(u.i j , tTEiJ,J) C ( 1Tn( 7 e), g)CC 1 (f, QEiJ,j)
Then, for E < 1,

min (M1,1)IIaeIIr+1=E
E i=1
IIoEi;,;' 2
N
ÎIoeII iISII1i2,IC+ 1 E IIfIIOIIÊtl,JIla'
207
Applying Young's inequality, we have
min (M,,1)II(EII2r--CIIu'.IIffIIgli1iz,r,+ 2 4(1 + e) IIfI I0

C Ia.II911g111/2,rc+IIflI,
fore<1. K Because of the uniform boundedness of {11 v E II -} in e, we can extract a convergent subsequence from {v E }, the weak limit of which is a solution of the original constrained problem (8.9) or (8.10): THEOREM 8.3. Under the same conditions as in Theorem 8.1, the sequence { r } converges to r E K* which satisfies the variational inequality
o.EK*: a*(Q,Tv)?(zr(2O),$) r d?EK*, (8.28) as e->0. Proof From the variational inequality (8.27), we have for 'TE K*,
a IQe,T
QE)+ 1 $)r,
Then
a*(Qe, ?
because --r,;, ;
=f.
(8.29)
QE) ^ (1Tn(T QE ), $)rc.
Let r be the limit of a weakly convergent subsequence of {Q E }, also denoted {o}. Since the functional T-* a*(T, T) is weakly lower semicontinuous, passing to the limit as e 0 in (8.29) yields a * (o, T Q) ? (Ir.(T Q), g)r,. * belongs to K*. For every TE K*, (8.27) We next show that the limit o e K p implies
,
a * ( 0 ,T
QE)+ 1 ( 0'.ijk+f, f ( Telk,k)^(rn(T -0 e),$)r c ,
i.e.,
IIoe,;,,+f Iio^ E{a*(o , ?)+(ii-n(o z), $)r,}. Taking lim inf E , 0 in the inequality, we obtain
0<IIr,+f,II -lim fIIo ,;+fll<-0

from which we conclude that 0 K*. Because of uniqueness of the solution to the variational inequality (8.28), the limit of all convergent subsequences of {o e } is unique. This implies the original {Q E } must converge to the limit 0E K*. K 8.4. A mixed variational formulation. We next consider a "mixed variational formulation in which both displacements and stresses are treated as unknown.
208
CHAPTER 8
Suppose that (u, Q) is the classical solution of the Signorini problem (2.31):
=f, mij = E;jk;Uk ,, in (1,
(8.30)
ui = 0 on I' o ,
Q ;j nj = t ; on r F ,
aTi =0 , on(u g)-0, o sO, U n g0 onI' .
Let C;jk , be the inverse of E;jk , in the sense that (8.31) g j = E;jk;Ek; if and only if e ;j = C;jk,Qk,
for symmetrie matrices r = {o] and e = [s ;j ], and let C;jk , and E;jk , satisfy (8.6) and (5.5). Then for every (v, T) E C 1 (fl) x L 2 (f1) such that v = 0 on F, vn < g on 1' c , and r j = Tj; , we have
(8.32)
J n o s (v u) dx = fnQ (v
j ;j ;j
ij
u ;,j ) dx
>_ f (v; u; ) dx+

J n
r t; (v ; u ; ) ds
F
and
(8.33)
(C
lrkl Ey (u))-rjdx=0.
Let (, ) be the L 2 (fl)-inner product defined by (8.34)

and let
a*(Q T) =
(v, e) =
Q;j e j dx Va, e E LZ (fl),
(8.35) f(v)=
JR
Cijklffk,T;j dx,
Jn
f vi dx +
J rFt v ds,
i ;
('
for
(8.36) f E L 2 (fl) and t E L2 (F F ).
We now recall the admissible set K of (6.1) for Signorini's problem discussed in 6.2, and the space 9' for stresses on the body: (8.37) K={vEV y(v)g<_0onI' c inH2 (^)}
and
(8.38) .'={'r1T;jL2(fl) and -r.,=Tji},
209
where (8.39) V = {v e Hl(ft) | yD(v) = 0 in H 1/2 (r D )}.
Under the assumption that (8.40) F c c interior of I ,
the constraint set K can be represented by K = {veV|rL(v)-g^0in//1/2(rc)}. Using the above notation, (8.32) and (8.33) can be rewritten in the form (or,uJe^xK (8.41) such that VveK.
a*(r,T)-(e(n),<r) = 0 V T e^, (e(v-u),a)>/(v-u)
Alternatively, if we define (8.42)

L(T, V) = ia*(T, T)
- (e(v), T) + / ( V ) ,
(8.32) and (8.33) can be defined as a saddle point problem, (8.43) (<r, u ) e ^ x K : L(a, v)< L(tr, u) < L(T, U) V(T, V) e &>x K.
We also observe that (j-L(a,u))(v) = lim-{L(o-,u + e v)-L(a,u)} = -(e(v),a)+/(v) ^lklUIM| 1 + ||f||olH|0+c||t||0.rF||Y||I, i.e., ((d/du)L(a, u))(v) can be identified with the duality pairing on (H'(fll))'x H'(O),
(8.44)
(Jt L(a> ), v ) = (A L(a> U)^ (V) = _(E(V)( a ) +/ ( V ).
Likewise, if (8.6) holds,

(T) (=>)
= lim - {L(a + ET, u) - L(a, u)} = aV,T)-(e(u),T) sm,||a||y||T|| 9 .+ ||n||1||T||y.
210
CHAPTER 8
Then ((a/30)L(r, u))(T) can be identified with the duality pairing on ^' x Y
according to
(8.45) \av L(Q, u),T = a*(Q, T) (E(u), T). /
The first inequality in (8.43) implies (8.32) and the second inequality implies (8.33). In fact, from the first inequality in (8.43), we obtain L(Q,u+0(wu))+L(v,u)?0 by taking v = (1 0)u + 0w, 0E [0, 1 ]. Dividing by 0>0, taking the limit 0 -*0, and using (8.44), we obtain
(e(wu),v)? f(wu)
.
for every WEK, which is precisely (8.32), i.e., (8.41) 2 . Similarly, from the second inequality in (8.43), L(v9T)L(0)>0, 0[0,1]
where we have replaced T by o OT E' in (8.43). Dividing by 0>0 and taking the limit 0-' 0 gives
a * (Q,T) (E(u),T)=0 BITE9'
which we recognize as (8.33) or (8.41),. Thus, (8.41) characterizes saddle points of the functional L of (8.42) under the assumptions stated above. From (8.6),
(8.46)
(8.47)
and for a > 0, (8.48)
a*(Q, T) < m,IIQII,IITIIE1,
a * (T, T) ^ mi IITII ,. On the other hand, we have
(E(v), T)<_ IIVIIiIITII,

(E(v),T)
sup
TE.&
>aIIvIli VVEV.
IITII9'
Indeed, for a given V E V the choice of

(8.49) TE9': T =e(v)
;;
yields, for any v E V,

IITIIE1 Applying Korn's inequality (6.17) for the case that mes I' D > 0, we have TE&
IITIIE1 = 1IE(V)IIo^ ^ nIIvIIi
211
Thus, sup
(e(v), T)
^m
?E.^ IITIIy
IIvII, Vv E V.
Taking a = m yields (8.48). If mes I' D = 0, then Korn's inequality (6.17) is not directly applicable. Having established these results, the following theorem for the existence of a saddle point (o, u) E S x K follows immediately from Theorem 3.14. THEOREM 8.4. Let fl E <C" and let (5.5), (8.6), and (8.36) hold. Suppose that mes F D > 0. Then there exists a unique solution (a, u) E S' x K to the saddle point problem (8.43). Moreover, (Q, u) E 9 x K is also a solution of the variational problem (8.41). We remark that the interpretation of the solution (a, u) of (8.41) as a weak solution of the Signorini problem (2.31) parallels that discussed in detail in
6.3.
8.5. Finite element approximations of the duel problem. Let V h , K h , and S,, be finite element approximations of V, K, and S", respectively, such that K,, is a closed convex subset of V h . Suppose that there exists a positive number a h >0 satisfying
(8.50) sup (F(Vh)I,
T h)
VVhEVh.
Further, let us suppose for simplicity that the domain f1 of the problem is exactly covered by finite elements. Then, with these conventions in force, we introduce the following finite element approximation of (8.41): Find (v h ,u h )ESh XK h :
(8.51)
a * (oh,Th)
/ /
(E(Uh),Th) =0 VThESh,
( E(Vh
Uk), (Th) ^f( Vh Uh) VVh E Kh.
The corresponding saddle point problem is of the form
(8.52)
where
(ah,uh)EShXKh:
L(Qh, Vh) ^ L(Qh, Uh) L(Th, Uh) V(Th, Vh) E Sh x Kh,
L(Th,
Vh)
*(
Th) (E (Vh ), Th) +f(Vh)
LEMMA
8.3. Let (Q, u) and (Q h , u,,) be solutions to problems (8.41) and
(8.51), respectively. Then the following estimate holds for every T h E .9' fl Sh,
212
CHAPTER 8
V h E K h , and V E K:
a * (Q (8.53)
- (Th, O _Oh) ^ a * (0 - 0h, QTh) +(E(U-Uh), Th - o)

+((U-Vh),er-Oh)+((Vh-Uh+V-u),o)
f(v h U h +vu).
Proof From (8.41) 1 and (8.51) 1i we have

(8.54) a*(vQh, Th) = ((U
Uh), Th) VTh E Sh fl
Applying (8.54), (8.55) a*(vv h ,Qv h )=a*(av h ,vT h )+(E(UU h ),T h Q h ) Since (8.41) 2 and (8.51) 2 yield
(E(Vh Uh),Q Oh) 5 (E(Vh Uh+V U),o) f(Vh Uh+V U),
we can obtain (8.53) from (8.55). Indeed,

a*(vv h ,(7Q h )=a* (Q
-
ah,Q
Th)+(E(U
Uh) ,T h
Q)
+(E(U
Vh), 0
-
oh)+((Vh
-
uh), o
ah)
<_ a*(vO h , U
Th)+(E(U
-
Uh) , Th
-
Q)
-
+((uV h ), O
-f(Vh-Uh+V
Oh)+(E(Vh
Uh+V
U), Q)
O
U).
Applying arguments similar to those used in the proof in 4.5 we can construct the following estimates. THEOREM 8 .5. Let (v, u) and (O h , U h ) be solutions of (8.41) and (8.51), respectively and let o- j n^ E L2 (F), i = 1, .. , N. Suppose that Sh c.9' and that (8.50) holds. Then there exist positive constants C 1 and C2 , independent of (Q, u) and (O h , U h ), such that
C1IIQ OhIIs^( 1 + 1)(Ila ThV. +Du vhIIl)

(8.56)
1 1/2
+{1
and
(8.57) C2IIUUhlll^(1+ for every T h E Sh , v h E K h , and V E K.
rc
On (Vhn
ds 11
Uhn+Vn
U.
(IIU VhII1 + IIQ -0 hII&),
213
Proof 1) We first note the characterization of the solution (r, u) of (8.41). Because of f E L 2 (fl), Green's formula (5.73) implies
Qij.J
=Ji in fl,
O l^ = ti On F,F,
(8.58)
QT1=0 onFc,
u(u
^r c
g) ds =0 ,
o-<0 withug<_0onF c .
Then
(E(Vh
Uh+V U), Q)
f(Vh
Uh+V U)
(8.59) n(Vhn
rc
Uh+U
U)ds.
2) Applying (8.50),
ahIJVhUh1115
sup (e(Vh
Th ESh
-
U),'rh)+a* ( Q ah,Th)
1h SP
<_ IIu V,li1+m,IIQ ahij'.

-
It follows from the triangle inequality that

IIUUhIll^(l+ah) IIU V hlll + h IIQ QhII9'.
(8.60)
3) On the other hand, from (8.53) and (8.59), we have MiIIQ QhllY -- m1IIQ ohII9II Q Thil-' + II UU h!!1II O ThII,f
+[JUVhJ[1tIQQh((J
(8.61)
J rC
^n (vhn Uhn + U U ) ds.
After substituting (8.60) into the inequality (8.61) and applying Young's inequality, we obtain the estimate (8.56). Here we have used the fact that a + b < Vi+/ for a>0, b>0. Then (8.57) is easily concluded from
(8.60). K
Let us now introduce interpolation properties of finite element approximations, following 4.1. Let
Vh = {Vh E C (^) I I V1Vhin, E
Sh = {Th E Y 1 ThIne E
(8.62)
-0kffle), Vh = 0, On IFDJ,
(8.63)
and
Kh = {V h E Vh 1(vh 9)(Y-C) 0},
(8.64)
214
CHAPTER 8
where -9k(e) is the space of all polynomials, the order of the complete part df which is equal to k defined on fl e c fl, e = 1, , E, and E is the set of all nodal points on the boundary F. It is clear that S h c 9 Making use of the interpolation properties listed in 4.1, we see that interpolants v' E V h and T 1 E Sh of VE H k+ '(SI) and TE H k (11), respectively, can be found such that
I'IIrChk+l-rIIVI^k+1, r<_k+l, (8.65)
IIT T II&^ Ch IITIIk,

' "
for sufficiently regular families of elements and refinements of the mesh. THEOREM 8.6. Let k? 1, and let fl E C''' Let (Q, u) and (a h , U h ) be solutions of (8.41) and (8.51), respectively, and let the interpolation properties (8.65) hold for V h and Sh . Further, suppose that K h is defined by (8.64) and that
(8.66) ah=aohs, 8E68, a o >0
where a h is the positive number appearing in the stability condition (8.50) and h is the mesh parameter. If o E H k (11) and u E H k+ '(fl), then numbers C; , i = 1, , 4, exist, independent of h, such that
(8.67) ^k r QhII& C 1 (1+h -& )h k +C2 h k +C3 1 On(Vn 1/2
l r^
(.
uhn) dS j
VVEK
and
(8.68) IIuuhIIl s C 4 (1+h -6 )h k,
for Ci = Cl(IIUIIk+1, Ilalik), C2 = C2(IlUllk+1/2,rc, IIQlik-1/2,rc), C3>0 , 0.
and C4 >
Proof It suffices to note that n E L (I') since f1 E V ''. Estimates (8.67) and (8.68) then follow from (8.56), (8.57), (8.65), and (8.66). K We have obtained error estimates for the finite element approximation (8.5 1) in terms of parameters k and 8. We now consider particular choices of finite elements for V h and Sh , and obtain 8 for each case. Examples. Let f1 c 18 2 be divided into triangular elements, and let k = 1; that is, the components of V h are linear polynomials and T h is a constant function on each finite element SZ e . Then
(E(Vh), Th) = (eij(Vh), Thij)
E C
i,j e=1
L L Eij(Vhln,)Thijin.
mes (S1 e ).
Taking
Thijlle = Eij(vhI1 1 )
-
215
for a given Vh E V h , we can obtain

(E(Vh), Th) = {1 ^ eij(VhIa)eij(vhl
ij e=1
-
1/2
) mes (fl
1 1/2
Thij1n,Thij n, mes (fI e
)
L
^

ij e=1
= IIEIVh)IIOIITh11VThus, from Korn's inequality (6.17),
sup
rESh
((Vh), Th)
II?hll.'
^ IIE(Vh)Ilo^ C11n11l-
This means that ah = C, i.e. S = 0 in (8.50). On the other hand K h c K since k = 1. Then taking v = u h in (8.67) yields
o-(v
^F C
uh)ds = O.
Therefore
(8.69)
Iig'ahII9+IIuuhII1 Ch
for C = C(11u11 2 , lb u l ), if u E H 2 (fl), Q E H'(f1), and 11 E 16'. l . Similar arguments can be applied for the choice of k = 2 with triangular elements. That is, if v h is approximated by a conforming piecewise quadratic polynomial, and if Th is interpolated by a nonconforming piecewise linear polynomial, then
(E(Vh), Th) = I[e(Vh), Th]
for an appropriate 3-point numerical integration rule I( ) on triangles (see Zienkiewicz [1, p. 201]). Taking -r hij = e j (V h ) at the integration points reveals the existence of a h = C > 0 such that
rhESh
a sup (E(yh), Th) _ > h iw h ibl

IIThllcy
Thus, S = 0 and (8.67) yield the estimate
(8.70)
IIQvhII3+IIuuhIIi^ Ch2
for a sufficiently smooth domain f1 and solutions u and u. 8.6. A reciprocal variational formulation. In this section, we consider a special variational formulation which differs considerably from those discussed
216
CHAPTER 8
thus far. We refer to it as a reciprocalformulation as it involves the inverse of the elasticity operator appearing in standard variational statements of equilibrium problems in linear elasticity. This particular formulation is characterized by a variational inequality involving integrais on only the candidate contact boundary I' c in which the truc contact area is contained. To fix ideas, it is convenient to first investigate certain aspects of the unconstrained problem, i.e., the principle of minimum potential energy for a body without the complications of contact conditions. For this purpose, we assume that (5.5) holds, mes (I' D )> 0, and (1 E <9 '. Then Korn's inequalities of Lemma 6.1, the results of 6.2, and Theorem 3.4 guarantee the existence of a unique solution u E V of the problem F(u) s F(v) Vv E V,
(8.71) F(v) = ia(v, v)
f(v),
where a ( , -) is the usual symmetric continuous coercive bilinear form on V x V, a(u, v) =
(8.72)
a(u,v)^MIIuii1IIvik,a(v,v)>_mIIviii,
V = {v e H'(fl): Y D (v) = 0 in H" 2 (F D )}.
Jn E
ik,u,,,v,, j
dx,
and V is our usual subspace of H'(11), (8.73) Again, f is a given continuous linear functional on V, e.g., (8.74)
for
f(v) =
fv - dx +
fr
t - yf(v) ds
p
(8.75)
(8.76)
fEL2ffl) and tEL 2 (I' F ).

UEV: a(u,v)=f(v) VVEV.
In this case, (8.71) is equivalent to the variational equality, If ( , ) denotes duality pairing on V' x V, the bilinear form a(-, ) can be used to define a linear operator A : V -^ V' by setting
(8.77) (A(u), v) = a(u, v), u, v E V.
Formally, in V o c V, A is the elasticity operator

(8.78) A(u), = (E,ijkiuk,1).j
which is the gradient of the strain energy functional a(v, v). In view of (8.72), the operator A is linear, continuous, and V-elliptic; indeed (8.79) (A(u), v)<_ MIIull,IIvII 1 and (A(u), u)? mIIull
217
for every u, u E V. It follows that A is bijective and that A has an inverse G = A ' : V' -> V. Indeed, if f and g are arbitrary elements of V', then
-
(8.80)
(g, G(f)) = (A( G(g)), G(f) M11G(g)IIiIIG(f)IIi, (f, G(f)) =(A(G(f)), G(f))>_ mIIG(f)IIi.
Thus, if II ' II i is the norm defined on the dual space V', =sup <MIIG(g)IIi, mIIG(f)II1 v IIG(f)I11 Therefore, the inverse operator G is continuous and V'-elliptic: IISIIi =sup vEv
(g,y) (g, G(f))
IIfll*.
(8.81)
(g, G(f))^(M/m 2 )IIgIIiÌlfl119 (f, G(f))>_ (m/M 2 )hlflli 2 .
Returning to (8.76) and (8.77), we observe that since (8.76) can be written in the abstract form (8.82) A(u)=f in V' the solution u of (8.76) can be expressed as
(8.83)
u = G(f) in V.
In order to be more specific about typical generalized forces f E V', we recall Sobolev's imbedding theorem (1.27) and the trace theorems in 5.2. Let a functional f E V' be defined by,
f(v)=
(8.84)
J fv dx+ J t y(v )ds,

; ; ;
where Y, = interior of F r D , and yf is the trace map. Then if v E V, i.e., v E H' (fl) and if N=2, Sobolev's imbedding theorem and the trace theorems imply that
vEL 9 (fi), 1g<oo, yo(v)EL9(n), 1g.
Thus, whenever (8.85) fEL(f ), p>1, tEL (E), p?1, the functional f defined by (8.84) is continuous on V, i.e., the assumption (8.75) can be replaced by (8.85). Note that if N=2, then H'(f1) C (fl) by (1.27). This means that if aj is a given point in the domain f], then the form
.(v) =fjvi(aj), f,
(8.86)
E 68,
1 < i,j <2
is no longer meaningful as a functional on H'(fl). For example, a point load inside the domain cannot be considered in our variational arguments on H'(fl) for N=2.
218
CHAPTER 8
Let us now return to the Signorini problem. In the present study, the kinematical restriction on possible deformations is given by
uag<_0 onF c
instead of
ug<_0 onr c .
If g(0) = 0, i.e., if the gap function takes on a zero value at the origin, the new constraint physically represents the situation in which the rigid support (more precisely, a rigid body or punch) is indented into the body and its initial depth of penetration is specified as a. If the shape of the rigid punch is arbitrary, the contact surface and pressure are unknown a priori, even though the depth a of indentation of the rigid punch is given. Thus, Signorini's problems include a class of rigid punch problems if the constraint is defined within some given constant a. Now the stress condition for the Signorini problem is given by
Q=
0 ifuag<0
v<_0 ifuag=0
on F
where v is the normal stress on the boundary F. Combining the kinematical and stress contact conditions, we have (8.87)
ua g<_0
onf'c.
o<-0 In the primal variational formulation, we have emphasized the prima! structure of the contact condition (8.87), that is, (8.87) is equivalently written (8.88)
a(vu)?0 Vvs.t.v a g<_0
on I' c , when Q and u are defined pointwise on the boundary I' c . We now focus on the reciprocal structure of the contact condition (8.87), i.e., (8.89)
(uag)(Tv)?0 VT S.t.T<_O
on f. If the normal displacement u is determined by the normal stress (i.e., pressure) v, say u = ( v), (8.89) assumes the standard form common to variational inequalities. We will now develop a variational formulation embodying such a "reciprocal contact condition using the inverse operator G described above. Suppose that the generalized force JE V' consists of three components: the body force f E LZ (fi), the boundary traction t E (H' 12 (I' F ))', and the contact pressure p E (H 1 2 (I' c ))' which is unknown a priori. From this point onward, we will denote by p the contact pressure which equals v on I' c . Since the
"
219
inverse operator G is linear on V', the resultant displacement u due to the generalized force f can be decomposed as follows:
u=u+G(p)
(8.90)
where, with obvious notation, (8.91) u = G(f)+ G(t) and G(p) = G(pn).
Here, u e H'(l) if f e L 2 (11), te (H" 2 (I' F ))', and p e (H'I 2 (1' c ))'. Then, if f1 E 16'', the normal trace of u, i.e.,
un=Yn(u)=Yn (u+G(p))
Un+Yn
(8.92)
(G(p)),
where
Un - Yn
(8.93)
(U)
belongs to H" 2 (r ), as shown in 5.2. Here we have assumed that (8.94) i'D fl"_ o, i.e., 1' c c = r r D .
Therefore, the pointwise reciprocal relation (8.89) leads to the variational inequality
p K': (9 R Yn(G(p)) ^ )r c ' 0 V g E K'
(8.95)
where
KR={qe(H"2(Fc))'^q<_0}
(8.96)
and
(8.97)
g=a+gu.
Here (, ) rc is the duality pairing on (H 1/2 (f c ))' x H 2 (r c ), and the partial order <" follows from (3.19), in 3.1. We refer to (8.95) as a reciprocgl
variational inequality.
Since G is positive definite on V', the variational inequality (8.95) is equivalent to the following constrained minimization on K R : (8.98) where
FR(q)=i(q, Yn(G^(q)))r^, (q, $)r,.,
pEKR: F'(p)^F'(q) VgEK R
(8.99)
Since G is positive definite on V', the functional F R is strictly convex, Gdifferentiable, and coercive on K R . It is also clear that the set K R is a closed convex and nonempty subset of (H" 2 (r C ))'. Thus, we have
220
CHAPTER 8
THEOREM 8.7. Let mes (F 0 )>0 and let SZ E f''. Suppose that (5.5) holds. Suppose that G is the inverse of the operator A defined by (8.77). Then there exists a unique solution p E K R to the problem (8.95), i.e.,
prK R q P,yn(G(P)) g)r,?0 VqK R or equivalently, to the minimization problem (8.98), i.e.,
: (
pEK R :
F R (p) F R (q),
gEK R
One of the advantages of the formulation is that the problem itself is reduced to one involving functions defined only on the contact surface I'. It is then often possible to approximate the system using considerably fewer unknowns than with the formulations derived previously. Moreover, the inverse operator G does not depend upon the applied force (f, t) and the gap function g between the elastic body and the rigid foundation. This property can be used to advantage in designing economical solution methods for cases in which a large number of loading conditions and initial gap functions need to be considered. Remark 8.6.1. It is necessary to distinguish between the operator A: V- V' defined by (8.77) and the operator .W :V-V' defined by (`d(u), v) =
J' Eijk,rk,(u)e j(v)
dx,
u E V, v E Hp(fl).
Since C (fl) is densely imbedded in the space Ho(f2), the operator . is formally given by d(u), = ( Eijk,Ek,(u)),j = o(u),j (8.100) in the sense of distributions on 0. The operator .i then is called the forma! operator determined by the duality pairing (A(u), v) of (8.77). Let us define the set
(8.101) (8.102)
Do={ vEVI W(v)EL 2 (fl)}.
Then we can consider the functional on V defined by
.0(v) = A(u), v) ( si(u), v)o

(
which defines the difference between A(u) and (u). Here ( , ) o denotes the inner product on L2 (fl,). Roughly speaking, the difference * represents the boundary conditions which are imbedded in the definition of the functional A(u). In Theorem 5.12, we observed that
4(v) = ( ir(T), (v))r,

-
T=[T;j ],
= Eijktuk,1, for the case in which V = H'(fl), e.g., F D = 0. Thus the inverse G of A is not simply the inverse of the differential operator .si() defined by (8.100). More details on arguments such as these can be found in the book of Showalter [1].
Tij

221
8.7. A numerical method for reciprocal formulations. We now consider numerical solutions obtained using the reciprocal variational inequality (8.95) and the projectional SOR method. As shown previously, the Signorini problem can be represented by the following variational inequality involving the Green's operator: (8.103) where (8.104) KR = {q e (H 112 (I' c ))') q <_ 0} PEKR: (qp,Yn(G(P))-8)r,k0 VgEK R
and gA=g)4 (G(f)+ G(t)).

Here p is the contact pressure, f and t are applied body forces and tractions, the subscript "n" denotes quantities associated with the outward normal unit vector n to the boundary F, and the Green's operator G is the inverse of the linear positive definite operator A defined by (8.77). In general, explicit closed forms for Green's operator are not available except for, a few simple cases such as for semi-infinite domains. Thus, it must generally be approximated numerically. Suppose that S1,, = f1 c R 2 . First, the bilinear form (8.77) is discretized by finite element methods and a "discrete operator" [A] is obtained: (8.106) (A(uh),vn)= L Eijk,(nh)k,,(vh)ijdx = {V} T [A]{U}.
(8.105)
Here { V} and { U} are generalized displacement vectors corresponding to components of v,, and U h , respectively, and [A] is the positive definite matrix on the set (8.107)
RD={{V}ER2,P I
v2,-1 = V2 a
= 0, a Ep}.
The total number of nodal points of the finite element model is assumed to be P, and 'D is the set of all nodal points on the boundary r D . Then the approximation of Green's operator [G] is identified with the inverse of [A] on the set R D . Let components of a matrix [C] related to G be given by
(8.108)
= (G2a,-1,2p,-I nli+ G2a-i,2p,ni')n'
+(G2a.213,-in;^f+G2a,. 2s,nAj )nzt
Va i EE c and f3j EI c
where I c is the set of all nodal points on 1' c . Noting that the variational inequality (8.103) is defined only on the boundary F c , the approximation of (8.103) becomes (8.109) {P} R,,: ({Q}{P}) T ([C]{P}{g})^0 V{Q}E Rh
222
CHAPTER 8
where (8.110) Rh={{Q}ERMCIQ;0,i=1,.,Mc} and M is the total number of nodal points on the possible contact surface 1'c The inequality (8.109) can be solved by the projectional SOR method, which assumes the form (i) Choose the initial trial vector {P'} as an approximation of {P} so that P1^0, (ii) Calculate {P' + '} by
M
1i<MC .
(8111)Pt +1/2 =(1w)P+W

i=1
C+iP.i + L C^;P.i S.
j i+1
t+'
Ct^
(8.112)
p; + ' = min {0, P"z},
1<_iMC .
(iii) Continue the procedure (ii) until a sufficiently small tolerance e is reached, where
Mc
i1
(8.113)
8= 1 1P;i _Pil M r (P; 1.

,=t
+i
Since the matrix [ G] is positive definite on R D , the compliance matrix [ C] for the unilateral contact is also positive definite. Then, as shown in Glowinski, Lions and Trmolires [1], the projectional SOR method described in above converges as the number of iterations t -> o0 on the constraint set R,, for any value of the iteration parameter w such that 0< w < 2. It is also clear that the discrete variational inequality (8.109) can also be solved using the penalty method. Indeed, for penalty formulations, the variational inequality (8.109) is approximated by the equation
(8.114)
{PE}e68Mc: [C]{Pe }+ 1 {P}={g},
for an arbitrary s > 0, where {P} is defined by P = max {0, Pe ,} for 1 < i <_ M. The nonlinear equation (8.114) can then be solved by the successive iteration method
(8.115)
{P} e R me: [C]{P}+ 1 {(P) + } = {g},
where {(P) + } is defined by (P,); = 0 if P;' <_ 0 and (P); = P 1 if P,7'>0. Since the equation (8.115) is linear at each iteration step, (8.115) can be resolved by standard linear system solvers. Although {P} = {0} is chosen as the starting vector in the iteration scheme (8.115), the successive iteration scheme usually converges within a few iterations in most applications. In most practical problems, the size of the compliance matrix [ C] for contact is relatively small and both the projectional SOR and the penalty methods prove to be quite efficient and effective for problems of this type.
223
We further note that the full inverse [G] of the matrix [A] is not used in the construction of the [C] matrix described above. That is, the inverse [G] need be obtained only for entries which are associated with the contact conditions. We recall that the jth column of the inverse [ G] of the invertible matrix [A] is the solution of the linear system (8.116) [A]{X}={ij} where {i } is the unit vector such that
;
j-1
NP j
(8.117)
{y}T = {,
o,
1,
}.
Moreover, since the contact pressure occurs only on the contact surface, we need solve (8.116) only forj related to I c . Therefore, once the upper-triangulaf factor [A u ] of the matrix [A] is obtained, the vector {g} and the part of the inverse matrix [ G] which is used to construct the matrix [ C] are easily calculated by using (8.116). Example 8.1 (contact of an almost incompressible hollow cylinder). The reciprocal formulation and the projectional SOR method described in (8.109), (8.111) and (8.112) were used to solve the contact probem of an elastic hollow cylinder on a rigid foundation shown in Fig. 8.1(a). The material of the elastic ring is assumed to be almost incompressible: v = 0.499, and Young's modulus E = 1000. The inner and outer radii are r =4 and R = 8, respectively, and g
Ftc. 8.1(a). Elastic ring on rigid foundation.
224
CHAPTER 8 9-Node Isoparomet ^ ic Element

x
For Pressure 2X2 Gouss Integration
y 1
o Give Uniformly Forced Displacement d=-I.0
FIG. 8.1(b). Finite element model for Example 8.1.
uniform line force is applied along the top of cylinder. Using symmetry, we take only a quarter of the cross section to define a finite element model. Ten 9-node biquadratic isoparametric elements are used as shown in Fig. 8.1(b) and the selective reduced integration method is applied to form the stiffness matrix in order to avoid locking solutions, as in Example 6.5. The stiffness matrix is formed and inverted after applying the boundary condition along the y-axis and the constrained displacement on the top surface. Then the 9 x 9 compliance matrix (8.108) is generated, and the variational inequality (8.109) is solved by the projectional SOR method with w = 1.0. In these numerical experiments, the method converged at the 12th iteration for a tolerance of 10 -4 . The computed deformed configuration and the contact pressure are illustrated in Fig. 8.1(c). The stiffness due to near incompressibility is resolved by the selective reduced integration method using a 2 x 2 Gaussian rule to integrate the term related
225
RE0 PROCAL FORMULATION

Iteration Factor W. 1.0
E =10 -4 Tolerance Converge at 12-th Iterotion Total Reaction P=52.81
30 60 Reacting Pressure
Fio. 8.1(c). Numerical results or Example 8.1.
to the virtual work due to volumetric change. This avoids an over-constrained state in the finite element approximation using the nine-node qi rilateral isoparametric element. Other parts of the virtual work are integrated using a 3 x 3 Gaussian rule. Details of the analysis of such penalized problems for almost incompressible materials can be found in Oden, Kikuchi and Song [1] and Kikuchi and Song [ij. 8.8. A reciprocal formulation of a rigid punch problem. A reciprocal variational principle can also be constructed for more genera( rigid punch problems. Again, an advantage of such formulations from the point of view of approximations is that the problem can be completely defined in terms of the contact pressure exerted on the surface if Green's operator G for the foundation
226
CHAPTER 8
is known. In particular, in the case of an isotropic, hbmogeneous, semi-infinite foundation, the operator G can be obtained easily. For simplicity, only plane problems are considered here, and the possible contact surface F of the foundation SZ is assumed to be flat, as shown in Fig. 8.2. Both identation and rotation of the rigid punch are allowed in the present analysis. Then, as shown in 6.7, the contact conditions on F c are given by u 2 >_ a + 9x 1 g (kinematical restriction), 1722=0 ifu 2 >a+8x 1 gl (stress restriction), 22-0 if 00 12 = 0, (frictionless condition).
(8.118)
Here a and 0 are the depth of indentation and the rotation of the rigid punch, respectively, and g is the gap between F and the surface of the rigid punch. Furthermore, if the rigid punch is not fixed, the total applied force and moment have to be balanced by the total reacting force and moment, i.e., (8.119) J o22 dx, = P and
r^
fr
0 22 x, dx, = T
C
if U22 and 022 x, are integrable on F, where P and T are given applied force and moment around the x 3 - axis on the rigid punch. The force P is naturally assumed to be positive. Let u and er be sufficiently smooth and let q be an arbitrary function such that
(8.120)
qx, dx, = T. q ? 0, f q dx, = P, r, r,
DFNHCH:::
initial yop x2 g(x,)
Nul
U2
UI
LN
Deformoble
Body
x2
FIG. 8.2. A model of a rigid punch problem.
227
Then, if u and v satisfy (8.118) and (8.119), we have r^ Jr

u2+g)(q
U22)dx1=
(u2+g
Oxi)(q
U22)dx1
rc
+a
--0.
(q
(r22) dx1+0
r^
(q
r22)xi dx1
FC
Here we have used the fact that

(u 2 + g a-0x 1 )u22 =0 onr c .
For simplicity in notation, we set P=022 onr c andx=x,. Then, for every q which satisfies (8.120), the following integral inequality is obtained:
(8.121)
J (u +g)(qp) dx ?0. r^
2 1
We next consider a variational formulation to (8.121). To this end, we return to the Green operator G of the foundation discussed in 8.5. Suppose that the foundation Cl is fixed on a portion r D of its boundary r, and that mes (rD)>0. Then the linear operator A: V -* V' defined by (8.77) is invertible and we denote A - ' = G as in 8.4. Then, once the body force fEL 2 (SZ), the surface traction tE(H'/ 2 (r F ))', and the (unknown) contact pressure p e (H" 2 (r c ))', are given, the displacement field u can be expressed in the form (recall (8.90))
u=u+G(p)
(8.122)
where (8.123) u = G(f)+ G(t) and G(p) = G(pn). Suppose that u E H'(f1), its trace y(u) belongs to H' 12 (r), and g E H 112 (r C ). Then if r c c int (r r D ), (8.124)
u2+g = G(p) 2 +u2 +g E H 112 (r c ).
Thus, in analogy to condition (8.121) for smooth u and a, we have the reciprocal variational inequality (8.125) where (8.126) p E K R : (qp, G(P)2+8)r, ^0 Vq K R
KR = {q E (H" 2 (rc))'j (q, 1)r c = P and (q, x) rc = T}
228
CHAPTER 8
and
(8.127)
g = u 2 +g.
Here "1" in the definition of KR represents functions of unit value almost everywhere on r, and (- , ' ) is the duality pairing on (H'/ 2 (F,) )' x H' 1Z (I' C ). Using the symmetry of G, the variational inequality (8.125) can be alternatively formulated as the constrained minimization problem
(8.128) pEKR: F R (P)_ <F R (q) VgEK R
where
(8.129)
FR(q)=(q, G^(q)s)r,. +(q, S)r,
As shown in 8.5, the functional F R is strictly convex, G-differentiable, and coercive on V, if mes (1',,) > 0 and if fl E 16 , . Moreover, closedness and convexity of the set K R in (H" 2 (I' C ))' are clear. Thus, if K R is nonempty for given data P and T, there exists a unique solution p e KR to the minimization problem (8.128), and, then, equivalently to the variational inequality (8.125). Before pursuing this question, we summarize the results established up to this point. THEOREM 8.8. Let f1 E '' and let mes (F D ) > 0, let F c be a flat surface. Suppose that the elasticities E ijk, satisfy (5.5). Then there exists a unique solution p e KR to the variational inequality (8.125) or, equivalently, to the minimization problem (8.128), provided the data (P, T) is given so that the admissible set K R is nonempty. The solution p e KR is identified with the contact pressure and the portion of F such that
{(x,0)EO 2 1p(x) >0}
is the true contact surface if p is continuous on F. We now provide a sufficient condition for nonemptiness of the set K R . To this end, suppose that the rigid punch occupies an interval (d 1 , d2 ) in the x-axis in which the origin is included. That is, the left limit of the punch is located at x = d, < 0, and the right limit of the punch is located at x = d2 > 0. Let e be an arbitrary small positive number, and let Q, and Q2 be some positive number. Define a function q on I' c = (d,, d2 ) by
Q,
(8.130)
q(x) = 0
Q2
in (d,, d, +e), in(d,+e,d 2 e), in (d2 e, d2 ).
Here I' c has been identified with the interval (d,, d 2 ) of the rigid punch, since the rotation 0 of the rigid punch around the origin has been assumed to be
229
infinitesimal. It is clear that q E (H" 2 (F ))' and q > 0. Next we solve the system
(q, 1)- C =Q 1 e+Q 2 e=P,
(9,x)r,=Qle (d,+2)+Q 2 e (d2 -2) =M, for Q, and Q 2 , and we obtain

Q,B= P(d 2 -2)T} (d2 d,e),
Q2 e={ (d 1 +) T}/(d,d2 +e).
Thus, if
Pd,<T<Pd2
(8.131)
then Q 1 e and Q 2 e (i.e., Q, and Q 2 ) are positive numbers. This means that if the data (P, T), P> 0, satisfies the compatibility condition (8.131), a function q can be constructed on I' c as in (8.130) which satisfies constraints in K R, i.e., q E K R . THEOREM 8 .9. If condition (8.131) is satisfied by the data (P, T), P> 0, then the set K R of (8.126) is nonemply. Physically, the compatibility condition (8.131) means that the given moment T should be small enough so that the rigid punch remains in contact with the foundation after undergoing rotation. 8.9. Numerical method for rigid punch problems by reciprocal formulations. We describe here a numerical method of the problem of a rigid punch indented into a semi-infinite homogeneous isotropic linearly elastic foundation using the reciprocal formulation discussed in the previous section. Only plane problems are considered here; the semi-infinite domain fl is identified with the set Rd = {(x, y) E 2I 0< y < d}. According to Fung [1, pp. 247-248], the formula for the deflection of the surface of the semi-infinite foundation subjected to a point load P at the origin
is
(
u2(x)=
P+ In d if x > 0,
P+-In d ifx<O,
irE
(8.132)
(^
where d is the depth from the surface to the point where the vertical displace-
ment is zero. Then, if a pressure p is applied along F., the vertical displacement
230
CHAPTER 8
of the surface becomes

u2 = G(p), G(p)(x) = I g(x; C)p(C) d^ J r^
(8.133)
where ln x d e ifxC>0, (l+v) _ 2 g(x; e) _ irE aE Cx ln d ifCx<O.
(8.134)
Then the variational inequality (8.125) becomes (8.135) where K R ={q (H 112 (rc))' I q k 0 in (H`12(I'c))^, (q, 1)- = P, and (q, X,) r , = T}. pEKR: (qp,G(p)-8)rc^0 VgeK R
(8.136)
Here P and T are the total force and moment applied to the rigid punch. We note that the operator G in (8.135) is defined by (8.133). Let the domain I' c be divided into Mc 1 segments {I'^} t ', and let 1 c be the set of all nodal points of F. Let 0 be the global interpolation function of the ath nodal point defined by
(8.13?) +P(X) _ {1 in (z(xa-t+xa), I(x,+xa+1)),
0 elsewhere.
Mc
Suppose that q E (H" 2 (r ))' is approximated by
(8.138)
q(x)= E q"<Pa(x) a_I
That is, since .(x)E L2 (r c ), the functional q on (H 112 (r c ))' is assumed to be approximated by an L2 (1') function. Moreover, duality pairing (, ) rc on (H` 2 (r c ))'x H 1 ' 2 (F) can then be computed by (8.139)
Then
(q, v)r c =
^r c
qvds Vq E L2 (rc), vEH'" 2 (rc)
M (8.140)
where
Me and x, = x 1 , X R
L (q, v) r _qv(s) ds,

a=t
(8.141)
x=i(xa-i+xe),
XMC.
X =z(Xa+xa+i)

ALTERNATE VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLES 231
Suppose that v E H" 2 (r c ) is also approximated according to

MC
(8.142)
v(x)= L v"da(x)EL 2 (rC), but OH 2 (rC).

a=1
That is, the smooth function v E H 2 (F ) is approximated by the piecewise step function belonging to L 2 (F C ). Then (8.141) becomes (8.143) (q, v)r C = 1 (x
a=1
x)q a v".
On the other hand, from (8.133),

R
MC
Pl rc
G(P)a = ^
g(xa;
S)P 0'9(S) dS
,
L.

(J
xp
g(xa;
C)dC)p
where here and hereafter we sum repeated Greek indices. Putting

Gap =
X XP B
(8.144)
g(xa; e)d^
yields
G(P)a = GaPp l .
(8.145)
Then the variational inequality (8.135) can be approximated by

{pp}E R h : 1 (q"p")(xx)(G" sp"g")?0 forevery{q"}E R h
a=1
where
M^
a=1
R h = {q"} ER Mc1q"?0,a=1,. ..,Me ,

(8.146) M
q"(x x.)=P,
and2 Putting (8.147) yields (8.148)
q"{(x) 2 (xL) 2 }= T}.
Gap = (xa xa)G ap (a: no sum)
{p' }ER: (q" p")(Lapp o- 8a)^0 V{q"}E R h .
Thus the variational inequality (8.135) is approximated by (8.148). By the change of variables (8.149)
q" = (xa x.)q" (a: no sum),
232
CHAPTER 8
(8.146)-(8.148) become
(8.150)
Rh ={{ga}e68 Mclga?O,a=1,...,Mc , M ^ 9' =P,

ll
a=t
and
a=t
^ 9 ax=T^
(8.151)
Gp = G a p/(xa xa)
(a: no sum)
and
(8.152) {pp}ERh:(gapa)(Gaafi _8a)^0 `d{ya}ER h .
The matrix Gap defined by (8.144) can be explicitly obtained by using the formula
f
(8.153)
lnxdx=xlnxx+c and
0
lnxdx=-1.
Indeed,
a<a: Ga,S ClS(iRL+C2\SfBRallnePR/d-1)eOLalln ^pLa/d-1)),
(8.154) a=/3: Gap = CtepRL+ C2(epRa(ln epRa/d 1)+xajL (ln xapL /d a>13: Gaa=CI RL
1)), 1))
C2 (XXOR(ln
xsR/d
1) xpL(ln xcpL/d
where
C,=(1+v)/irE,
xaRL = xa,R xa,L,
C2 =2/irE,
4Ra = e13,R xa,
Xa pR = xa e,.R, etc.
We now introduce an iterative scheme to obtain the solution of the variational inequality (8.152). This algorithm is again a variant of Uzawa's method: (i) Choose an initial guess ({ p; }, a l , 0 1 ) such that p; ? 0, 1 < a <_ N. (ii) Using ({ p' }, a,, 0,), t=1,2, , obtain the (t+ 1)th approximation {P+1} by
(8.155)
M
-1
/3=1
PI+1/2(1)pw (
&p+ j_
GsPR+at+Btx) G
p=a+1
w>0, p + 1 = max ( 0 , P +1,2) (iii) Obtain a, + , and 0, +1 by

M
= at
at+l
Pa
a=1
Pt+t + P ,
P > 0,
po>0.
(8.156)
et+l=et
M
Pot
P+tx+T),
233
(iv) Continue iterations (ii) and (iii) until sufficiently small tolerances e p , e a , and a, are obtained:
EP= 1 In,+1pl
a=1 a1
(8.157)
= l a,I/Iat+11, E8=Iet+i-0,I/Iet+il.
The above iterative scheme converges for sufficiently small iteration factors; w, p a , and p o , as shown in Glowinski, Lions and Trmolires [1, Chap. 1]. Example 8.2 (a Hertz problem by the reciprocal formulation). Suppose that a rigid infinitely long circular cylinder is indented into a semi-infinite homogeneous isotropic linearly elastic foundation. This can be modeled as a plane strain problem. We suppose that the boundary F c is larger than the width of the rigid punch, i.e., the diameter 2R of the cross section of the cylinder, is 16 and the size of F c is 20 in the example. Our model of I' c consists of the twenty uniform segments with Young's modulus E = 1000 and Poisson's ratio v = 0.3. The depth d, see (8.132), is assumed to be d = 15. The iteration factor w in (8.155) is set as w = 1.0. The calculated distribution of the contact pressure is shown in Fig. 8.3 together
Reocting
Pressure
200 Hertz Solutions --- Numerical Solutions
180
160 P=600 0 140 120
0 Point Values
\^ \\ \
P4 \\
100
80' \
P=200
60
40 i
;
II
1
1
20
-2
-1
FIG. 8.3. Hertz problems for a semi-infinite foundation. From N. Kikuchi [4], Journal of Structural Mechanics. Copyright 1979 Marcel Dekker, Inc.
234
CHAPTER 8
with the Hertz solution. A somewhat smaller value of the contact pressure is obtained around the center of the punch. However, very Bood agreement with the Hertz solution is. obtained. Example 8.3 (semi-infinite foundation with irregular punch). Consider the semi-infinite foundation in Example 8.2. Suppose that either of the two rigid punches in Fig. 8.4(a) are indented into the foundation by the application of a force P and a moment T. In these cases, the condition (8.131), i.e., Pd, < T< Pd2 has to be satisfied by the force P and moment T in order that a solution exists. The forces and moments used satisfy this condition. For Model 1, we choose as the iteration factors cv, pa , Po in (8.155) and (8.156): w=1.0, P a =0.3, P e =0.1. Convergence of the projectional SOR method is obtained in 99, 48, and 99 iterations for the cases T =100, T = 500, and T = 750, respectively. Here tolerances sp , e and se are chosen as follows:
ep =10 -3 ,
Ea
=10 -3 , e e =10 -4
Applied Forces and Moments P 1 200 1 200 200 T 100 500 750
1 f
0.05
Model 1
Iiu.ii.n.iiui..niuui
E = 1000 v=0.3 a =15.
F[G. 8.4(a). Discrete model of the semi-tnfinite foundation for Example 8.3.
235
L 4 J.
'oints tact Points Deflection of the Foundation
FIG. 8.4(b). Numerical results for Model 1 in Example 8.3.
Computed deformed shapes of the surface of the foundation are shown in Fig. 8.4(b). Similar calculation methods are used for Model 2. Numerical results are shown in Fig. 8.4(c). If the linearly elastic foundation is identified with a semi-infinite domain in the three-dimensional field R 3 , the Boussinesq solution yields the following relation between the displacement and the contact pressure:
(8.158) u3(x1, x2) =
G(P)(x1, x2) =
fr
8((x1, x2); (, e2))P(e1, e2) dei ddz

C
oints tact Points
Deflection of the Foundation
Ftc. 8.4(c). Numerical results for Model 2 in Example 8.3.
236
CHAPTER 8
where
(8.159)
1 i'
1
g((x1, x2); (el, C2)) = 2ir x^ ei) z +(xz ez) z.
Here isotropy and homogeneity of the foundation are assumed, v is the Poisson ratio, and is the shear modulus. Exactly the same variational form as (8.125) is obtained for this problem for the case of a three-dimensional semi-infinite domain:
(8.160) pEKR: (q p,G(P) g)r,? 0 `dgEK R
where (8.161) KR={qE(H"2(rc))'1gk0,(q,l)rc=P,(q,xi)r,=T., and (q, xz)r, = Ty } for a given applied force P and moments T, and T>, on the punch. Here is the gap function to the foundation. A proper discretization to (8.160) yields a form similar to (8.148) which is again solved by Uzawa's iteration method. In the above discussion, we neglected all other stress components except the normal contact pressure p. However, we have to deal with the case that the tangential stress is prescribed on the surface F c if friction effects are taken into account for rigid punch problems. If the tangential stresses (8.162) v3, = s, and X32 = s z are prescribed on the surface F c , these produce the normal displacement
z
(8.163) where
w3(x1, x2) = E1
1
Jr
g^((x1, xz); (el, x2))S,(C1, 92) del dC2
(8.164) 8^((x1,x2);( i, z))=
41r(A+la) (x l)z+(x2C2)2'
1x1 < < 1i-2,
and A is the first Lam constant. Then the gap function g" in (8.160) must be replaced by g+ w 3 . The form (8.163) is derived from the Cerruti solution found in Love [1, 166]. Some further details on friction problems are discussed in Chapters 11 and 12. The reciprocal method described above is quite useful for solving contact problems if contact surfaces are almost flat and if the solutions of Boussinesq and Cerruti provide good approximations of the displacement and stress fields. Indeed, this approach has been widely used to determine contact areas and pressures; see e.g. Singh and Paul [1], Hartnett [1], Kalker [2], and others. Although the solutions of Boussinesq and Cerruti are obtained for the semiinfinite domain whose surface is flat, they are often applied even for smooth curved contact surfaces with good approximation. Extensions to two-body contact problems are taken up in the next section.

237
8.10. Reciprocal methods for two-body contact problems. To illustrate the application of the reciprocal method to two-body contact problems, we follow Kikuchi [ 10] and consider contact problems shown in Fig. 8.5. Suppose that there are no other tractions on the boundary of the second body f] b except the unknown contact pressure p on F c . Let the equilibrium of the second body fl b be characterized by the principle of virtual work, e.g.
(8.165) where
ub E V b : b(u", v) =(v) +(P, y4(v))rb
Vv E Vb,
b(u, v)
= J0h
Ebkluk,IV,; dx,
(8.166)
f(v) = Jfvi dx,
V b ={vEH'(fl")Iy(v)=0onFD}, the elasticity tensor of ftb, fb is the force body applied in f1 b , and I' b is the boundary of fl b Then, as shown in 8.6, (8.165) can be solved to yield
Eijk, is
(8.167)
u6 =
u+ G(pN),
where N is the unit vector outward normal to the boundary F, G is the inverse of the operator A defined as in (8.82) using the bilinear form b(, ) of (8.166), and u" is the displacement due to the body force f b , (8.168)
u= G(f
).
Using this, the contact condition (6.108) to two-body contact problems can be represented by (u u')n gR <0,
Fio. 8.5. A model of two -body contact problems.
238
CHAPTER 8
that is, (uuG(pN)) ng R <-0 onl'C where n is the unit vector outward and normal to the boundary I'c of the first body fl' and g R is the gap function between two surfaces 1'c and F. Approximating N = n on the contact surface, we have (8.169) where (8.170)
G(p)+ung<_0 onr'c
G(p)=G(pn)n, un=un, and g=g R +u n.
Noting that p <_ 0 on I'bc, i.e., p <_ 0 on rc, (8.169) yields

(8.171)
Jn^ (q
P)(G(p)+un
g) ds>_0
for every q < 0 on rc, if all the terms are smooth enough to have an integrable integrand in (8.171). In general, (8.171) is represented by the duality pairing on (H"2(F ))' x H" 2 (rc): p E N,
(8.172)
(qR G(P)+Yn(u ) S)rIg> 0 VqE N N={qE(H"'(]rc))'I q<-0}.
where
(8.173)
On the other hand, if the equilibrium of the first body fl' is considered under the assumption that the contact pressure p is known, we have the virtual work principle,
(8.174) u E V: a(u, v) =f(v) + (p, Y(v)) Vv V
where
a(u, v) =
(8.175) f(v)= and

(8.176)
J n E
;
,u kj v+j dx,
J n fv dx+ trv ds, J rF

;
('
V={vEH'(W)1y(v)=0onro}.
Here E k , is the elasticity tensor of the first body 11 and I" is the boundary of fl Therefore, two body contact problems are formulated by the system of
inequalities (u , p) E V a x N:
(8.177) a(u,v)(p, )4(v))r=f(v) VvEV ,
(q P, G(P)+Y'Yn(u ) S)r? 0 VqE N.
239
It is noted that the system (8.177) is also obtained as the characterization of a saddle point (u, p) of the Lagrangian (8.178) L(v, q)=ia(v,v) f(v) (q, YL, (v) Indeed the relation
-
8)r z (q, G(q))rg.
(8.179)
L(u', q) <_ L(u, p) <_ L(v, p) V(v, q) E V x N
yields (8.177); see Theorem 3.13. Since a(.,) is a coercive and continuous bilinear form if E k, satisfies condition (5.5) and since G is elliptic on (H'' 2 (F ))' according to (8.80), it can be easily proved that (8.179) has a unique solution (u, p) e V x N whenever mes (I'7) > 0 and mes (I1)> 0. Therefore, the formulation (8.177) is also meaningful for two-body contact problems. One solution method for (8.177) is the successive iteration method: Assuming p E N, we solve (ù , `p) E N by using
a(ù, v) = (` 'p,
(8.180)
YF,n (v))rg+.%(v)
dv E V,
(q `p, G(P)+Yn(ù a ) $)ra^ 0 VqE N,
for t = 1, 2, . Details of the finite element approximations and of the solution method are essentially the same as those discussed in Chapter 6 and in previous sections of this chapter.

8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded 11/19/13 to 190.144.171.70. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.

Alternate Variational Principles for Signorini's Problem

r c nr =o, ronrF=o, r nr c =o, _ _ _ U= I' c ur ur ur N .

We now introduce the space V* and its subset K* defined by

and the functions Cijk , satisfy the conditions:

(i) C;jk ,(x) E L(f1); there exists a constant m, such that

Cijk,(x) = Cklij(x) = Cjikl(x), a.e. in 0, 1 1, j, k, 1: N.

(iii) There exists a constant M, > 0 such that a.e. in 0,

ALTERNATE VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLES

_J u i.j( T;j Q;j) dx

= u i (T;j nj Q;j nj ) ds.

o ) = g(Tn ten)+(un g)(Tn cr)^g(Tn Qn),

we can obtain the form

vEK*: F*(v)F*(T) VTEK*,

Indeed, the functional F* is G-differentiable on .9 and

Tr('r) = t in H - ' /2 (r).

(IT('r), Y(v))r = (t, Y(v))r,

J fr dx+(t, y(r)) r <_0

ALTERNATE VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLES

((tc),, y (r%,r= J fr dx + (t, y(r))r.

J n fr;dx+(t, y(r))r _-0

F*(T) ? iM, IITII q CIITII i 119111,2.r,.

Kp* = {'r , - I or(T) = tin (H'' 2 (F F ))',1r r (T) = 0

and let (8.21) P(T)=2Jn (TuJ+f )(Tikk+f)dX

(DP(v) DP(T), O T) = (Qiii Tiji 0 ikk Tikk) >_ 0,

*, vE EK: F (T E ) < F (T) VT E K p

or, equivalently, we seek

Putting T=0 in (8.27) yields

(u.i j , tTEiJ,J) C ( 1Tn( 7 e), g)CC 1 (f, QEiJ,j)

Then, for E < 1,

^IIoeII iISII1i2,IC+ 1 E IIfIIOII^Etl,JIla'

ALTERNATE VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLES

Applying Young's inequality, we have

min (M,,1)II(EII2r--CIIu'.IIffIIgli1iz,r,+ 2 4(1 + e) IIfI I0

QE) ^ (1Tn(T QE ), $)rc.

QE)+ 1 ( 0'.ijk+f, f ( Telk,k)^(rn(T -0 e),$)r c ,

0<IIr,+f,II -lim fIIo ,;+fll<-0

aTi =0 , on(u g)-0, o sO, U n g0 onI' .

>_ f (v; u; ) dx+

Let (, ) be the L 2 (fl)-inner product defined by (8.34)

Q;j e j dx Va, e E LZ (fl),

ALTERNATE VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLES

where (8.39) V = {v e Hl(ft) | yD(v) = 0 in H 1/2 (r D )}.

Under the assumption that (8.40) F c c interior of I ,

a*(r,T)-(e(n),<r) = 0 V T e^, (e(v-u),a)>/(v-u)

Alternatively, if we define (8.42)

(Jt L(a> ), v ) = (A L(a> U)^ (V) = _(E(V)( a ) +/ ( V ).

Likewise, if (8.6) holds,

= lim - {L(a + ET, u) - L(a, u)} = aV,T)-(e(u),T) sm,||a||y||T|| 9 .+ ||n||1||T||y.

a*(Q, T) < m,IIQII,IITIIE1,

a * (T, T) ^ mi IITII ,. On the other hand, we have

(E(v), T)<_ IIVIIiIITII,

Indeed, for a given V E V the choice of

yields, for any v E V,

IITIIE1 = 1IE(V)IIo^ ^ nIIvIIi

ALTERNATE VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLES

Uk), (Th) ^f( Vh Uh) VVh E Kh.

The corresponding saddle point problem is of the form

vEK: F(v)F(T) VTEK,