Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707
DOI 10.1007/s00466-012-0683-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Contact-friction modeling within elastic beam assemblies:
an application to knot tightening
Damien Durville
Received: 26 September 2011 / Accepted: 19 January 2012 / Published online: 2 February 2012
© Springer-Verlag 2012
Abstract In this paper we propose a finite element approach
which simulates the mechanical behaviour of beam assem-
blies that are subject to large deformations and that develop
contact-friction interactions. We focus on detecting and mod-
eling contact-friction interactions within the assembly of
beams. Contact between beams—or between parts of the
same beam in the case of self-contact, is detected from
intermediate geometries defined within proximity zones
associating close parts of beam axes. The discretization of
contact-friction interactions is performed on these interme-
diate geometries by means of contact elements, constituted
of pairs of material particles which are predicted to enter into
contact. A 3D finite strain beam model is used to represent the
behaviour of each beam. This model describes the kinematics
of each beam cross-section using nine degrees of freedom,
and is therefore able to represent plane deformations of these
cross-sections. Algorithms are proposed to solve the global
nonlinear problem using an implicit scheme, under quasi-
static assumptions. Simulation results of the tightening and
releasing of knots made on monofilament and multifilament
yarns are shown as an application. Straight fibers are first
twisted together to make a yarn, before suitable conditions
are applied to their ends to form and tighten the knot. Tight-
ening forces are finally released to obtain an equilibrium con-
figuration of the knot without external forces.
Keywords Contact between beams · Proximity zones ·
Intermediate geometries · Finite strain beam model ·
Finite element method
D. Durville (B)
LMSSMat—Ecole Centrale Paris/CNRS UMR 8579,
Grande Voie des Vignes, 92290 Châtenay-Malabry, France
e-mail: damien.durville@ecp.fr
1 Introduction
The problem of determining the mechanical equilibrium of
assemblies of elastic beams subject to large transformations
and developing contact-friction interactions is encountered
in many applications. These range from the prediction of
mechanical properties of textile or light fibrous entangled
materials, to the realistic rendering of the motion of hairs
and ropes in computer graphic animations. In addition to
appropriate models to represent the mechanical behaviour
of individual beams, solving such problems requires above
all efficient procedures to determine contact-friction interac-
tions between elementary fibres, suitable models to account
for these interactions, and efficient numerical algorithms to
solve the involved nonlinearities.
In the extensive literature dedicated to the modeling of
frictional contact between deformable bodies, few papers
are concerned with the case of beam to beam contact.
The location of contact between interacting beams is one
of the central issues addressed by these papers. To meet
this problem, a series of articles locate contacts at the
locations of minimum distances between beams axes. The
problem was initially treated by Wriggers and Zavarise
[23] for beams with circular cross-sections and for fric-
tionless contact, and was then extended to frictional con-
tact [24]. According to this approach, the contact between
two beams is assumed to be point-wise, and the posi-
tions of two points in contact, characterized by a min-
imum distance criterion, can be linearized with respect
to the variations of the solution. This approach has been
improved by Litewka and Wriggers [16,17], in particu-
lar to consider contact between beams with rectangular
cross-sections, in order to determine locations of contacts
on the edges of the prismatic beams. On the same basis
of a point-wise contact defined by a minimum distance
123
688
criterion, Konyukhov and Schweizrhof [13,14] developed
a local coordinate system based on the closest point pro-
jection, allowing measures defining contact kinematics to
be covariantly expressed, both in normal and tangential
directions. Since they characterize contact by a minimum
distance criterion, these approaches are especially suited
for cases where the contact may be assumed as point-
wise, that is to say when the angle formed by the beams’
axes at the location of contact is large enough. This
minimum distance criterion offers the advantage of con-
sidering both structures symmetrically, in contrast to mas-
ter/slave type strategies. However, in situations where the
contact zone between two beams is expected to be con-
tinuous all along a zone of a non-zero length, for instance
because both beams are locally almost parallel, or because
both beams are bent on each other, the notion of minimum
distance becomes less relevant to characterize and locate
contact.
In cases where the contact between beams is expected to
be continuous along a certain length, a solution to overcome
the inconsistency of the minimum distance criterion is to
check contact at locations predefined on the finite element
mesh of one beam –for instance at integration points–, and
to seek a contact candidate on the opposite beam follow-
ing a master/slave strategy, as proposed by Chamekh et al.
[5] in the context of self-contact within a single beam. To
improve the detection of contact in cases where one beam
is bent on the other, Litewka [15] added two contact points
at a given distance on both sides on the point of minimal
distance.
Behind these different ways of determining contact
between beams, the underlying issue may be viewed as how
to associate pairs of entities (points or particles) on the beams
which may be regarded as candidates for contact. The use
of a minimum distance criterion is one way of consider-
ing both interacting parts of beams symmetrically, but can
only provide a unique point-wise contact per contact zone.
Another approach to the problem is to use a master/slave
method, which amounts to considering one of the structures
with respect to the other, and which leads to a non sym-
metrical treatment, especially in terms of the contact search
direction, usually determined as the normal vector to one of
both structures.
As our objective is to consider various contact configu-
rations between beams, we choose to consider contact not
as a phenomenon involving one structure with respect to the
other, but as a phenomenon involving symmetrically both
structures with respect to an intermediate entity. To do this,
we first determine within the whole assembly of fibres a
set of zones of proximity, where two parts of beams are
close to each other. Then, for each proximity zone, a one-
dimensional intermediate geometry is defined as the aver-
age of the two parts of beam axes constituting the proximity
123
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707
zone. This intermediate geometry is the entity with respect
to which the contact between the two parts of beams is
considered. It allows us to formulate the question of the pair-
ing of contact candidates as which pair of material parti-
cles on the surface of both beams can be predicted to enter
into contact at a given location of the intermediate geome-
try.
This way of considering contact between beams from local
intermediate geometries has proven to be suitable for a wide
range of situations. It has been employed to simulate the
mechanical behaviour of entangled fibrous materials [9], as
well as the behaviour of textile materials at the scale of consti-
tuting fibres [10,11], or to predict and optimize the mechan-
ical behaviour of superconducting cables [1,21].
The goal of the present paper is to implement the pro-
posed approach of modeling the contact interactions between
fibres within the domain of the simulation of the tighten-
ing of knots which are made of monofilament and multi-
filament yarns. Because it involves self-contact issues and
severe contact conditions in terms of magnitude of con-
tact forces and density of contacts, this application domain
presents much interest from a simulation point of view.
The tightening of knots is furthermore explored either by
physicists (e.g. [18,19]), trying to understand local phe-
nomena occurring in polymer chains, and particularly in
DNA, or in the domain of computer graphics to improve
the rendering of hairs or ropes (e.g. [2–4,20]). Accompany-
ing the research in these two areas, significant developments
have been achieved in the field of continuum mechanics to
model self-contact and instabilities of elastic rods. Equa-
tions governing these phenomena have been presented (e.g.
[8,12,22]), but obstacles arise concerning the solving of non-
linearities involved in the problem, particularly due to the fact
that contact zones are a priori unknown. However, making
the assumption of a very small fibre diameter, and applying
matched asymptotic analysis, Clauvelin et al. [7] were able
to build a global solution for the configuration of a trefoil
knot.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2. the problem
of the equilibrium of an assembly of elastic beams is for-
mulated using a virtual work principle, by separating contri-
butions of the internal works within each beam from those
of contact-friction interactions. In Sect. 3, a kinematically
enriched finite strain beam model used in the approach is
presented. Section 4 is dedicated to the determination pro-
cess of contact elements through the construction of proxim-
ity zones and intermediate geometries. Mechanical models
used to determine interactions forces in normal and tangen-
tial directions are exposed is Sect. 5. Section 6 briefly dis-
cusses algorithmic issues related to the solving of the global
nonlinear problem. The last section is devoted to simulation
results of the tightening of monofilament and multifilament
knots.
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707 689

2 Principle of virtual work for the equilibrium I (u I , v I ), is

of internal forces for the beam I , denoted Wint
of an elastic beam assembly expressed for any kinematically admissible virtual displace-
ment field vI as follows:
We consider the problem of modeling the mechanical behav-   
dE
ior of an assembly of beams undergoing large displacements,
I
Wint (u I , v I ) = Tr s(u I ) (u I ) · vI dω, (3)
du
and developing contact-friction interactions between them. Ω0I
Consider a set of N beams. Each beam I is assumed to be
represented in the reference configuration (see Fig. 1), by a where s stands for the second Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor,
cylindrical set of material particles, denoted ΩξI and defined and E for the Green–Lagrange strain-tensor. Denoting f −I
as follows: and f +I the external forces applied to end cross-sections of
 2
 beam I , the virtual work of external loads for any kinemati-
ΩξI = ξ ∈ R3 |0 ≤ ξ3 ≤ L I , ξ12 + ξ22 ≤ R I , (1) cally admissible virtual displacement field vI is expressed as
follows:
where L I and R I are the length and the radius of the beam.      
−I
The lateral and end surfaces of the cylinder, denoted respec- Wext (v ) =
I I
f , v dΣ +
I
f +I , v I dΣ. (4)
tively ΓξI , Σξ−I and Σξ+I , are defined by
Σξ−I Σξ+I
 2

ΓξI = ξ ∈ R3 |0 ≤ ξ3 ≤ L I , ξ12 + ξ22 = R I , We define the contact surface between two beams I and J ,
 
2 denoted ΓcI J , as the set of points where two material particles
Σξ−I = ξ ∈ R3 |ξ3 = 0, ξ12 + ξ22 ≤ R I , (2)
  from both beams share the same position:
Σξ+I = ξ ∈ R3 |ξ3 = L I , ξ12 + ξ22 ≤ R I .
2 
ΓcI J = xc ∈ R3 |∃(ξξ I , ξ J ) ∈ ΓξI × ΓξJ ,
The position of any material particle ξ I from beam I is 
xc = x I (ξξ I ) = x J (ξξ J ) . (5)
given at any time t by its placement, denoted x I (ξξ I , t). In the
following, the reference to the time variable is omitted and In case of self-contact between parts of the same beam I , the
x I (ξξ I ) and x0I (ξξ I ) refer respectively to the current and ini- contact surface is defined as follows:
tial positions of the particle. Accordingly, Ω I and Ω0I refer  I I I I
respectively to the current and initial configurations of the ΓcI I = xc ∈ R3 |∃(ξξ 1 , ξ 2 ) ∈ ΓξI × ΓξI , ξ 1 = ξ 2 ,
beam I . We assume each beam may be subject to prescribed I I

forces applied to its end surfaces, and to contact-friction inter- xc = x I (ξξ 1 ) = x I (ξξ 2 ) . (6)
actions with an other beam J , exerted on a part of its lateral
surface denoted ΓcI J . If we denote RcI fJ (xc ) the contact-friction interaction force
Denoting u I the displacement field defined on the beam I , developed at a point of the contact zone, according to the
and employing a total Lagrangian formalism, the virtual work action-reaction principle, two opposite forces are exerted on
both particles contacting at this location. The virtual work
for contact-friction interactions between beams I and J can
therefore be written as follows:
  
WcIfJ (u, v) = RcI fJ (xc ), v I (ξξ I (xc ))−v J (ξξ J (xc )) dγc ,
ΓcI J
(7)

where ξ I (xc ) stands for the particle on the surface of beam

I located at point xc .
Gathering the expressions of the different parts of virtual
works, the global problem of the equilibrium of the beams
assembly is set in the following way:
Find u kinematically admissible such that, ∀v kinematically
admissible
⎛ ⎞
⎝Wint
I
(u, v) + WcIfJ (u, v)⎠ = I
Wext (v).
I =1,N J =I,N I =1,N
Fig. 1 Equilibrium of beams in contact and self-contact interactions (8)

123
690 Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707

3 3D finite strain beam model t will be omitted, and quantities referring to the initial con-
figuration will be distinguished by a subscript “0”. Following
3.1 Kinematical model the convention of summation over repeated subscripts, and
assuming Greek subscripts have the range (1, 2), we write
An appropriate beam model is needed to represent the behav- the position vector and the displacement of any particle as
iour of elementary beams. In order to avoid the complex han-
dling of finite rotations involved in most beam models, we x(ξξ ) = r(ξ3 ) + ξα gα (ξ3 );
use a kinematical beam model which expresses the position u(ξξ ) = q(ξ3 ) + ξα hα (ξ3 ). (11)
vector of any particle of the beam as a first Taylor expansion
with respect to its transverse coordinates. Let ξ be a material Three kinematical vectors, and therefore nine degrees of
particle of a beam, defined in its reference configuration by freedom, are necessary to describe the kinematics of each
its transverse coordinates (ξ1 , ξ2 ), and its curvilinear abscissa cross-section of the beam. Due to the variations hα of section
ξ3 in an orthonormal frame (O, e1 , e2 , e3 ) (Fig. 2). The kine- directors, cross-sections are assumed to deform, but remain
matical model is based on the assumption that the position plane. A Taylor expansion of the position of any particle
vector x(ξ , t) of any particle ξ at any time t can be written (Eq. 9) to higher order would provide richer kinematics and
as: allow more complex deformations of cross-sections to be
described.
x(ξξ , t) = r(ξ3 , t) + ξ1 g1 (ξ3 , t) + ξ2 g2 (ξ3 , t), (9) One of the main interests of this kinematical model is to
avoid the use of finite rotation. As no assumptions are made
where r(ξ3 , t) is the position of the center of the cross-sec-
on the section directors, their variations are expressed natu-
tion, and g1 (ξ3 , t) and g2 (ξ3 , t) are two section directors. To
rally.
the difference to Antman’s model, section directors g1 and
g2 will be considered here as totally unconstrained, both in
terms of their norms or of the angle they form. 3.2 Green–Lagrange strain tensor
According to this model for the position of any particle,
the displacement of any particle can be written as follows: The Green–Lagrange strain tensor can be written as
     
u(ξξ , t) = x(ξξ , t) − x(ξξ , 0) 1 du du T du T du
E= + + , (12)
= r(ξ3 , t) − r(ξ3 , 0) + ξ1 (g1 (ξ3 , t) − g1 (ξ3 , 0)) 2 dx0 dx0 dx0 dx0
+ ξ2 (g2 (ξ3 , t) − g2 (ξ3 , 0)) (10)
with
= q(ξ3 , t) + ξ1 h1 (ξ3 , t) + ξ2 h2 (ξ3 , t),
 −1
du du dx0
where q(ξ3 , t) is the translation of the center of the cross- = . (13)
dx0 dξξ dξξ
section, and h1 (ξ3 , t) and h2 (ξ3 , t) are the variations of the
cross-section directors. In the following the reference to time In the case where the considered beams are initially straight,
the reference and initial configurations can be taken identi-
cal, so that the initial deformation gradient dx 0
dξξ is equal to
the identity matrix and the gradient of the displacement with
respect to the initial position writes as:
du du
= , (14)
dx0 dξξ
and can be expressed using Eq. 11 as:
du ∂u
= ⊗ ei
dx0 ∂ξi
= hα ⊗ eα + (ξα hα + q ) ⊗ e3 , (15)

where (•) stands for the derivative with respect to the axial
coordinate ξ3 . Using this expression together with Eq. 12
leads to express the Green–Lagrange tensor as a polynomial
expansion in the following form:

Fig. 2 Kinematical beam model E(ξξ ) = E0 (ξ3 ) + ξα Eα (ξ3 ) + ξα ξβ Eαβ (ξ3 ), (16)

123
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707
where the tensors of different orders can be expressed as:
   
E0 = e α + hα , e β + hβ − e α , e β e α ⊗ e β
 
+ eα + hα , e3 + q (eα ⊗ e3 + e3 ⊗ eα )
  
+ e3 + q , e3 + q − 1 e3 ⊗ e3 ; (17)
 
Eα = eβ + hβ , hα (eα ⊗ e3 + e3 ⊗ eα )
 
+2 hα , e3 + q e3 ⊗ e3 ;
 
Eαβ = hα , hβ e3 ⊗ e3 .
These tensors of three different orders correspond to a
decomposition of global strain tensor into parts which are
respectively constant, linear or quadratic through the section.
Strain components in directions eα ⊗eβ , which express defor-
mations of the cross-sections, are only present in the tensor
E0 constant through the section, meaning that according to
this model, cross-section can deform, but remain plane.
3.3 Second Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor
In the same way as for the strain tensor, we express the second
Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor s as a polynomial expansion
with respect to transverse coordinates:
s(ξξ ) = s0 (ξ3 ) + ξα sα (ξ3 ) + ξα ξβ sαβ (ξ3 ), (18)
and aim to express each term of the expansion as function of
the corresponding term of the strain tensor expansion (Eq. 16)
using a Hooke’s law in the form:
s = 2μE + λ Tr(E)I, (19)
with Lamé coefficients λ and μ defined as function of the
Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio as:
Eν
λ= ,
(1 + ν)(1 − 2ν)
E to enter into contact, the goal we assign to the determination
μ= . (20)
2(1 + ν)
However, as seen before, only the strain tensor constant
through the section E0 can take into account components
of strains in all directions, and can represent the Poisson’s
effect. For this reason, the Poisson’s ratio ν, which estab-
lishes a relation between strains in all directions through the
coefficient λ, factor of the trace of the strain tensor in Eq. 19,
is taken as non zero only for the constitutive relations between
terms of strains and stresses constant through the section, and
taken as zero for other terms. We therefore use the following
relation for terms constant through the section:
s0 = 2μE0 + λ Tr(E0 )I, (21)
691
with λ and μ as defined in Eq. 20, but use for higher order
terms the following relations:
sα = 2μ∗ Eα ,
sαβ = 2μ∗ Eαβ , (22)
with
E
μ∗ = . (23)
2
With the expressions of the strain and stress tensors, it is
possible to express the internal virtual work Wint I for beam
I in Eq. 3 as a polynomial in transverse coordinates (ξ1 , ξ2 )
whose coefficients depend only the axial coordinate ξ3 . This
internal virtual work is approximated using a finite element
discretization by means of three-node quadratic elements.
Compared to usual beam models based on the assump-
tion of rigid cross-sections, the present model has an addi-
tional cost due to the increase from six to nine of the number
of degrees of freedom to describe the kinematics of cross-
sections. It presents however the advantage to avoid the com-
plex handling of finite rotations, and to consider deformations
in all directions, accounting in particular for the Poisson’s
effect.
4 Geometrical determination of contact between beams
4.1 Issues related to the determination of contact
and presentation of the approach
When dealing with large displacement contact, the first task
to perform is contact determination, which consists in defin-
ing which parts of the global structure develop contact inter-
actions. In terms of finite elements, this usually amounts to
defining pairs of entities (integration points, nodes or ele-
ments) which are used to express local contact conditions.
There are different ways to associate these entities.
In regions where two parts of beams are sufficiently close
of contact is to define a gap function measuring the distance
between the two parts of beams along a possible contact zone,
in order to check if contact occurs. For a given arrangement
of beams, the first step is to delimit zones of proximity, con-
stituted by parts of beams close enough to each other. A key
idea of this approach is then to construct, for each zone of
proximity, an intermediate geometry, defined as the average
between the two close parts of lines of centroids, and to define
contact with respect to this intermediate geometry. For each
point of the intermediate geometry, pairs of material parti-
cles likely to enter into contact are then defined according to
geometrical criteria. Finally, by associating a normal contact
direction to each pair of material particles, the gap function
can be defined for each point of the intermediate geometry as
123
692 Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707

Fig. 3 Determination of proximity zones between two beams

Fig. 4 Determination of proximity zones in case of self-contact

the distance between the pair of material particles, measured

proximity zone in case of self-contact within the beam I is
according to the normal contact direction.
therefore defined as follows:
   
Z I I,i = aiI , biI , ciI , diI such that
4.2 Determination of proximity zones
   
∀(s1I , s2I ) ∈ aiI , biI × ciI , diI , (25)
Before defining coupling due to contact at the finite element  I 
 I
level, we propose first to determine, at a higher level, which s1I − Is2 ≥ Iδsepar and
parts of beams are likely to interact together, by defining r (s ) − r (s I ) ≤ δ pr ox .
1 2
zones of proximity. A zone of proximity is defined by a pair As it must be carried out several times within each loading
of two parts of beams whose distance from each other is step, the process of determination of proximity zones should
under a given threshold. The construction of these proxim- not be too time-consuming. For this reason, proximity zones
ity zones meets two objectives. The first is to allow the cir- are roughly determined, by evaluating the distance criterion
cumscription of the search of contact to very limited areas between portions of beams using a specific discretization. For
of the whole structure. The second is to enable to approximate each pair of beams (I, J ), we determine on the first beam I
the geometry of the contact interface simply by averaging the a set of N discrete test points from which the distance to
geometries of the two close parts of beams. the other beam will be checked, considering beam axes are
We define a proximity zone between two beams I and J defined through the finite element interpolation chosen to
(see Fig. 3) as a pair of two intervals of curvilinear abscissa, approximate displacement fields. These discrete test points
such that the distance between any pair of points belonging to are identified by their curvilinear abscissa along the beam
these intervals is lower than a given proximity criterion δ pr ox . axis, snI , defined for 0 ≤ n ≤ N by:
As several proximity zones can be encountered for a given
pair of beams I and J , we denote Z I J,i the i-th proximity snI = (n − 1)h dist
IJ
, (26)
zone for this pair, defined by: I J is a discretization length for the checking of dis-
where h dist
    tance between beams. In order not to miss a contact detection
Z I J,i = aiI , biI , aiJ , biJ such that at a crossing between two beams, this discretization length
    should be defined as a function of the proximity criterion
∀(s I , s J ) ∈ aiI , biI × aiJ , biJ , (24)
δ pr ox and the radii of both beams R I and R J in the follow-
 
 I I  ing way:
r (s ) − r J (s J ) ≤ δ pr ox .
IJ
h dist ≤ 2δ pr ox + R I + R J . (27)
In case of self-contact (see Fig. 4), proximity zones should
For each test point on the first beam, we associate the clos-
be considered between separate portions of the same beam.
est point on the opposite beam J , whose curvilinear abscissa
In that case, proximity zones can be defined in a similar way J
s pr ox,n is characterized by:
as before, just adding a separation criterion δsepar so as to
 
consider as close to each other only pairs of points whose  I I J J 
J
s pr ox,n = arg min r (s n ) − r (s )  . (28)
curvilinear abscissa are far enough from each other. The i-th 0≤s J ≤l J

123
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707 693

Using the finite element approximation as geometrical between both parts of beam axes constituting the proximity
description of lines of centroids, depending on the order of zone. The position of any point on this geometry, character-
interpolation chosen for the finite elements, the closest point ized by its relative abscissa ζ ∈ [0, 1], and denoted xint (ζ ),
can be determined either by an orthogonal projection on a is defined (see Fig. 5) by:
finite element, or as a finite element node. 1 I  
In case of self-contact, the curvilinear abscissa of the clos- xint (ζ ) = r (1 − ζ )aiI + ζ biI
I 2  
est point s pr ox,n is determined on the same beam I , with the
additional condition that the difference between this abscissa +r J (1 − ζ )ciJ + ζ diJ . (33)
and that of the test point (snI − s pr
I
ox,n ) should be greater than The tangent vector tint (ζ ) to the intermediate geometry at
a given separation criterion δsepar :
  this point is calculated by differentiating the position vector:
 I I 
ox,n = arg min r (sn ) − r I (s I ) . 1 I  
I
s pr (29) 
0≤s I ≤l I tint (ζ ) = (bi − aiI )r I (1 − ζ )aiI + ζ biI
snI −s I ≥δsepar
2  

+ (diJ − ciJ )r J (1 − ζ )ciJ + ζ diJ . (34)
The condition snI − s prI
ox,n > δsepar , which differs from that
expressed in Eq. 25, referring to the absolute value of the dif-
ference, is necessary in order not to consider two proximity 4.4 Pairs of material particles candidate to contact
zones which would almost overlap, the first one determined
from one of the two matching portions of the beam, and the The role of the intermediate geometry is to define pairing
second one determined from the other portion. of particles candidate to contact by answering the follow-
To build proximity zones, we define an elementary inter- ing question: which pair of particles on the surfaces of both
val length l p . Each time the distance between a test point interacting beams are likely to enter into contact at a given
and its closest point satisfies the proximity  criterion, two point on the intermediate geometry ? Posed in this way, the
lp l
matching intervals of length l p , z n = sn − 2 , snI + 2p and
I I
problem of determination of candidates to contact is formu-
  lated symmetrically with respect to both interacting parts of
lp lp
z nJ = s pr
J
ox,n − 2 , s pr ox,n + 2 , are delimited. Each series
J
beams. For any point of an intermediate geometry identified
of contiguous and overlapping elementary matching intervals by its relative curvilinear abscissa ζ , we denote Pc (ζ ) the
defines a proximity zone. The interval [N1 , N2 ] of successive pair of material particles ξ cI and ξ cJ on the surfaces of beams
discrete test points making up a proximity zone is character- I and J which are likely to enter into contact at this location:
ized by:  
⎧   Pc (ζ ) = ξ cI (ζ ), ξ cJ (ζ ) , such that ξ cI (ζ )andξξ cJ (ζ )
⎨ ∀N1 ≤ n ≤ N2 ,  r I (snI ) − r J (sn,

pr ox  ≤ δ pr ox
)
J
  (30) are predicted to enter into contact atxint (ζ ).
⎩ ∀N1 ≤ n < N2 , s J  (35)
n+1, pr ox − sn, pr ox  ≤ l p
J

The way of predicting which particles will enter into con-

The proximity zone Z I J,i associated with this set of test tact at a given location is heuristic, and uses the following
points is defined by two intervals of curvilinear abscissa procedure. First, we determine a pair of beam cross-sections
    candidate to contact using a plane orthogonal to the interme-
Z I J,i = aiI , biI , ciJ , diJ , (31)
diate geometry. Then, the locations of particles candidate to
with:
lp I lp
aiI = s NI 1 − ; bi = s NI 2 + ;
2 2
lp J lp
ci = s N1 , pr ox − ; di = s N2 , pr ox + .
J J J
(32)
2 2

4.3 Intermediate geometries

The purpose of proximity zones is to define intermediate

geometries, intended to approximate the unknown actual
geometries of contact in regions where contact is likely to
occur. Intermediate geometries are simply defined as the
average of the two parts of beam axes delimited by a proxim-
ity zone. The intermediate geometry L I J,i , associated with
the proximity zone Z I J,i , is simply defined as the average Fig. 5 Construction of the intermediate geometry LiI J

123
694 Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707

contact on the border of these cross-section are identified by

means of a geometrical construction.

4.4.1 Determination of cross-sections candidate to contact

Cross-sections candidate to contact are defined assuming

their centers are located at the intersections of both beam
axes with the orthogonal plane to the intermediate geometry
at curvilinear abscissa ζ (see Fig. 6), defined by its normal
tint (ζ ) (Eq. 34) and passing through point xint (ζ ) (Eq. 33).
The curvilinear abscissa ξc,3 I (ζ ) of the intersection of the

plane with the axis of beam I is defined by the relation:

 
r I (ξc,3
I
(ζ )) − xint (ζ ), tint (ζ ) = 0. (36)

4.4.2 Determination of particles on the borders

of cross-sections

Having fixed the curvilinear abscissa of particles candidate Fig. 7 Determination of particles on the borders of cross-sections
to contact by solving previous Eq. 36 for both beams, their
transverse co-ordinates still need to be determined. In order  I   I 
to locate the particle candidate to contact on the border of g1I ξc,3 (ζ ) × g2I ξc,3 (ζ )
ν cI (ζ ) =     I  , (38)
each cross-section of the pair, we use the projection on each  I I 
g1 ξc,3 (ζ ) × g2I ξc,3 (ζ ) 
cross-section of the direction between the centers of previ-
ously determined cross-sections (see Fig. 7). Let dcI J (ζ ) be I J of the vector d I J on the cross-section can
the projection dc/I c
the unit direction vector between the centers of both cross- be calculated as
sections:
      IJ
dc/I (ζ ) = dcI J (ζ ) − (dcI J (ζ ), ν cI (ζ ))νν cI (ζ ). (39)
r J s J ξc,3
J (ζ ) − r I s I ξc,3
I (ζ )
dcI J (ζ ) =        . (37) Locating the contact particle at the intersection between this
 J J J I (ζ ) 
r s ξc,3 (ζ ) − r I s I ξc,3  direction and the border of the cross-section amounts to deter-
mining its transverse co-ordinates (ξc,1 I , ξ I ) as solutions of
c,2
The geometry of the cross-section at abscissa ξc,3 I of beam
the following system of equations
I is determined by the position of its center, r I (ξc,3 I ), and

its two section directors g1 (ξc,3 ) and g2 (ξc,3 ). Using the unit
I I I I I g I (ξ I ) + ξ I g I (ξ I ) = αd I J (ζ ); α > 0
ξc,1 1 c,3 c,2 2 c,3 c/I
I 2 + ξ I 2 = R I 2.
(40)
normal to this cross-section, denoted ν cI (ζ ), and defined by: ξc,1 c,2

The transverse co-ordinates on the second particle (ξc,1

J ,ξJ )
c,2
on beam J are defined by the same system of equations, sim-
ply replacing the condition α > 0 by α < 0 to take into
account the different orientation.

4.4.3 Determination of a normal contact direction

Non-interpenetration conditions between contacting bodies

Fig. 6 Determination of cross-sections candidate to contact
are usually linearized so that they can be handled numerically.
This leads to the expression of a gap function which measures
the distance between particles candidate to contact in a par-
ticular direction, referred to as the normal contact direction.
Preventing interpenetration by forcing the gap function to
remain positive amounts to prescribing that both particles
stay on either side of a plane which is orthogonal to this nor-
mal contact direction. The orientation of this plane, which

123
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707 695

determines the directions in which particles are allowed to These two directions are combined to express the normal
move is very important to really prevent contacting beams contact direction in the following way:
from passing through each other.  IJ 
tc (ζ ) × dcI J (ζ ) × tcI J (ζ )
The optimal normal contact direction should depend on nc (ζ ) =  I J
IJ  . (44)
the angle formed by the beams. When this angle is large  t (ζ ) × d I J (ζ ) × t I J (ζ )
c c c
enough, the cross-product between the unit tangents to both
beam axes at the location of contact provides a suitable direc- 4.4.4 Expression of the gap function
tion to prevent interpenetration. Denoting tcI (ζ ) the unit tan-
gent vector to the axis of beam I at the location of the particle The normal contact direction being determined the gap func-
(see Fig. 8), defined by: tion for each point of the intermediate geometry can now be
defined as the distance between the two particles measured
 I 
r I ξc,3 (ζ ) in this direction:
tcI (ζ ) =   , (41)  
 I I 
r ξc,3 (ζ )  gap(ζ ) = x J (ξξ cJ (ζ )) − x I (ξξ cJ (ζ )), ncI J (ζ ) . (45)

the normal contact direction can be calculated in this case as: Linearized kinematical contact conditions can be formulated
by constraining the gap function at any point of the interme-
t I (ζ ) × tcJ (ζ ) diate geometry to remain positive.
ncI J (ζ ) =  cI . (42)
t (ζ ) × t J (ζ )
c c
4.5 Discretization of contact-friction interactions along
However, when beams are almost parallel, the cross product intermediate geometries
between tangents to beam axes is no longer relevant. In this
situation, the normal contact direction is calculated through a 4.5.1 Discretization of intermediate geometries by means
double cross-product involving both of the following direc- of contact elements
tions. The first one is the direction between the centers of
cross-sections, dcI J , expressed in Eq. 37. The second direc- The previous developments provide the method to express a
tion, denoted t I J is taken as the average between the unit gap function for any point of an intermediate geometry. How-
tangent vectors to both beam axes and calculated as: ever, using a finite element approach which approximates
geometries by means of polynomial shape functions, it is not
t I (ζ ) + tcJ (ζ )
tcI J (ζ ) =  cI . (43) possible to constrain this gap function to remain positive at
t (ζ ) + t J (ζ )
c c any point. We choose therefore to check and enforce contact
conditions only at some discrete points of the intermediate
geometry, where contact elements are defined.
For each proximity zone Z I J,i we define first a discreti-
zation length for contact h cI J,i , and calculate the number of
contact elements NcI J,i to generate on this zone consider-
ing the shorter of the two intervals of curvilinear abscissa
constituting this zone:
  
inf biI − aiI , diJ − ciJ
Nc =
I J,i
, (46)
h cI J,i
• standing for the ceiling function (lowest integer greater
than the value). We then define a set of NcI J,i relative curvi-
linear abscissa, {ζk } , k = 1, NcI J,i , calculated as:
k−1
ζk = , k = 1, NcI J,i . (47)
NcI J,i −1
For each of these relative abscissa ζk (see Fig. 9), we define
a contact element E c (ζk ) as the pair of particles candidate to
contact at the corresponding point xint (ζk ) of the intermedi-
ate geometry (Eq. 35):

Fig. 8 Determination of normal contact direction E c (ζk ) = Pc (ζk ). (48)

123
696
Fig. 9 Discretization of contact along an intermediate geometry
The discretization length for contact h cI J,i should depend
on the order of interpolation chosen for the beam elements.
Using quadratic finite elements, we suggest h cI J,i be esti-
mated as half of the smaller of the finite element lengths on
both beams.
4.5.2 Discretized approximation of the virtual work
of contact-friction interactions
The virtual work of contact-friction interactions between
beams I and J , which has been formulated continuously
in Eq. 7, can now be approximated, using the discretization
of intermediate geometries by means of contact elements, by
the sum of virtual work of contact-friction interactions over
all contact elements generated within the proximity zones
between both beams. The virtual work of contact-friction
interactions wc f (ζk ) for the contact element E c (ζk ), can be
calculated as
    
wc f (ζk ) = RcI fJ (ζk ), v J ξ cJ (ζk ) − v I ξ cI (ζk ) . (49)
Denoting NzI J the number of proximity zones between beams
I and J , the discretized approximation of the virtual work
of contact-friction interactions for this pair of beams can be
written as follows:
⎛ ⎞
WcIf,h
J
(u, v) = ⎝ wc f (ζk )⎠ .
i=1,N zI J k=1,NcI J,i
4.6 Remarks on non-linear and non-continuous aspects
of contact elements
The determination of contact elements depends on the cur-
rent geometry of beams, and therefore should be updated as
the solution evolves within each loading increment, with the
successive approximations of the solution using an iterative
123
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707
algorithm. However, since the positions of material particles
candidate to contact (coordinates ξi in the reference con-
figuration) are obtained through two successive geometrical
constructs, their characterization by a differentiable closed-
form expression does not seem obvious to derive. The lack of
such an expression prevents from linearizing these positions
and from making them vary with the solution.
Another implication of the dependence of contact ele-
ments on the displacement solution is that contact elements
are non-continuous in time. This raises difficulties if history
variables must be considered at contact elements, as this is
the case for the reversible relative displacement involved in
the employed friction model (see Sect. 5.2.1).
5 Mechanical models for contact and friction
interactions
The aim of this section is to express the contact-friction
interaction force RcI fJ (ζk ) developed for each contact ele-
ment E c (ζk ) as a function of the displacement solution field.
This interaction force is first split into normal and tangential
components:
RcI fJ (ζk ) = R NI J (ζk )ncI J (ζk ) + R TI J (ζk ), (51)
thus separating effects due to contact (R NI J ) from those due
to friction (R TI J ).
5.1 Normal contact interactions
The mechanical model for normal contact is intended to sat-
isfy linearized contact conditions, expressed for each contact
element E c (ζk ) as:
gap(ζk ) ≥ 0. (52)
Using a standard penalty method expressing the normal
reaction R NI J as proportional to the gap function with a
fixed penalty coefficient may lead to serious convergence
problems, in particular when dealing with large numbers of
contact elements. To overcome these problems, two improve-
ments to the standard penalty method are outlined below: a
quadratic regularization of the penalty and a local adjustment
(50) of the penalty coefficient.
5.1.1 Regularization of the penalty
With a standard penalty expressing the normal reaction as
proportional to the gap function, with a penalty factor kc ,
terms of the global tangent stiffness matrix due to contact are
either proportional to kc if there is contact, or zero if there
is no contact. During the iterations of the solution algorithm,
each time the status of a contact element changes, terms of
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707
its contribution to the tangent stiffness matrix are drastically
modified. These changes in the tangent stiffness matrix can
be particularly detrimental to convergence. The purpose of
the quadratic regularization of the penalty is to smooth the
transition between contacting and non-contacting status, by
allowing the contact stiffness to gradually evolve as the pen-
etration increases. To meet this objective, we express the
normal reaction R NI J as a quadratic function of the gap for
penetrations lower than a regularization threshold pr eg , and
enforce a continuity with a linear function for larger penetra-
tions (Fig. 10) in the following way:
⎧
⎪ appears as a good choice. pmax should remain small com-
⎨ if gap > 0, R N = 0
IJ
if − pr eg ≤ gap ≤ 0, R NI J = 2 pkrceg gap2 , (53)
⎩ if gap < − p , R I J = −k gap + pr eg  ,
⎪ percents of this radius.
r eg N c 2
where kc is the penalty coefficient.
For the quadratic regularization to have a beneficial effect
on convergence, a number of contact elements from each
proximity zone should be concerned by this regularization,
and therefore should have a penetration lower than the reg-
ularization threshold. In order to globally control the pen-
etration for each proximity zone, a local adjustment of the
penalty coefficient is used.
5.1.2 Local adjustment of the penalty coefficient
A local adjustment of the penalty coefficient for contact has
already been proposed in [6]. In this paper, the penalty coef-
ficient is adjusted locally at each contact point, so that the
penetration remains between a minimum and a maximum
value. Our aim here is to control the maximum penetration
encountered within each proximity zone; we thus expect a
number of contact elements of each proximity zone to be
concerned by the regularization of the penalty.
Fig. 10 Quadratic regularization of the penalty
697
This adjustment is carried out iteratively during the algo-
rithm, fixing a maximum allowed penetration pmax . For each
proximity zone Z I J,i , denoting kcm the penalty coefficient
used for the m-th iteration of the adjustment, and gapm max the
maximum penetration recorded on the zone for this iteration,
we determine the new penalty coefficient kcm+1 for this zone
as:
pmax m
kcm+1 = kc . (54)
gapm
max
Parameters pmax and pr eg should not be chosen indepen-
dently, and a ratio of 5 to 20 between these two quantities
pared to the radius of fibers, for example of about one or few
5.2 Tangential frictional interactions
5.2.1 Friction model with a regularized Coulomb’s law
To model friction phenomena that govern interactions in
tangential directions, we use a regularized Coulomb’s law
characterized by a friction coefficient μ, and a maximum
reversible tangential displacement, denoted gr ev,max . Denot-
ing [u] (ζk ) the relative displacement between both particles
of a contact element E c (ζk ), expressed as:
    
[u] (ζk ) = u I ξ cI (ζk ) − u J ξ cJ (ζk ) , (55)
the tangential relative displacement g T (ζk ) for this contact
element is calculated as:
 
g T (ζk ) = I − ncI J (ζk ) ⊗ ncI J (ζk ) [u] (ζk ). (56)
The regularized friction model (Fig. 11) expresses the tan-
gential interaction force R TI J (ζk ) as a function of this tangen-
tial relative displacement g T (ζk ) and of the normal contact
reaction R NI J (ζk ) in the following way:
   (ζk )
if g T (ζk ) ≤ gr ev,max , R TI J (ζk ) = μ  R NI J (ζk ) ggr Tev,max ,
 
else R I J (ζk ) = μ  R I J (ζk ) gT (ζk ) .
T N g T (ζk )
(57)
Fig. 11 Regularized friction model
123
698 Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707

This kind of formulation for the friction model splits the reversible part of the tangential relative displacement gn,r
T
ev

tangential relative displacement g T into a reversible part grTev , as a history variable that should be transferred from one step
and a pure sliding part gsl
T: to the next. This transfer raises an issue since contact ele-
ments have no continuity in time.
g T (ζk ) = grTev (ζk ) + gsl
T (ζk ). (58)
Following an elasto-plastic analogy, the reversible part of 5.2.3 Transfer of the reversible tangential relative
the relative displacement should be considered as a history displacement history variable
variable and transferred from one loading step to the next,
leading to formulate the model incrementally. Since the contact elements we use have no continuity in time,
the transfer of the history variable gn,r
T
ev
from one step to the
5.2.2 Incremental formulation of the friction model next raises some difficulties. As pairs of particles constituting
contact elements change from one determination of contact to
Formulating the friction model in an incremental way the next, a contact element determined at the current step can-
requires a consideration of increments of displacement not be directly associated to a contact element determined at
 n + 1.We express the increment
between loading steps n and the previous step. To overcome this difficulty, informations
of relative displacement  un+1 for the contact element related to the reversible tangential displacement grTev for a
E c (ζk ) as: contact element are attached to both beams at the location
   n+1
  n+1
  of its constituting particles. For the next determination of
 un+1 (ζk ) =  u I u J
ξ cI (ζk ) − ξ cJ (ζk ) , contact, each time a contact element is created, and for each
(59) of its constituting particles, a transferred reversible displace-
ment is calculated by interpolating between the reversible
with displacements stored at the nearest particles located, in the
n+1
  n+1
  n
 
u I ξ cI (ζk ) = u I ξ cI (ζk ) −u I ξ cI (ζk ) , (60) previous step, on both sides of the given particle. The trans-
ferred reversible displacement for the contact element is then
and the increment of the tangential relative displacement taken as the average between the vectors determined at both
 gn+1
T (ζk ) as: particles.
  
 gn+1
T (ζ k ) = I−n IJ
c (ζ k ) ⊗ n IJ
c (ζ k )  u n+1
(ζk ). (61) 5.2.4 Finite element implementation
Having determined the reversible part of the tangential rel-
Normal and tangential interactions at contact elements have
ative displacement at the previous step gn,rT
ev
, we first cal-
been expressed as functions of the displacements of the pairs
culate a trial reversible relative displacement gn+1,r
tr ev
for of contact particles constituting these elements. With the
T
step n + 1 as: kinematical model employed, the displacement u I ξ I of
tr n+1,r ev
(ζk ) = gn,r ev
(ζk ) +  gn+1 a particle ξ I on beam I can be written as (see Eq. 11):
gT T T (ζk ), (62)
 
and compare the norm of this vector with the maximum u I ξ I = q I (ξ3I ) + ξαI hαI (ξ3I ), (65)
reversible tangential displacement gr ev,max , to determine the
reversible part of the tangential relative displacement for the where q I and hαI are respectively the translation of the center
step n + 1 in the following way: of the cross-section and the variations of both cross-section
⎧   directors defined on the axis of beam I . These three kine-
⎪  n+1,r ev 
⎨ if tr g T (ζk ) ≤ gr ev,max , gn+1,r
T
ev
(ζk ) = tr gn+1,r
T
ev
(ζk ) matical vector fields are approximated using a finite element
⎪ n+1,r ev
tr gn+1,r ev (ζ
(ζk ) = gr ev,max tr n+1,r
) interpolation. If the particle ξ I is located on a particular finite
.
T k 
⎩ else g T ev

g T (ζ ) k  element e, with a relative curvilinear s e on this element, the
(63) interpolated kinematical vectors can be expressed as follows:
I,e
The tangential interaction for step n + 1 is simply calculated qhI (ξ3I ) = w N (s e )Q N ,
as a function of the reversible part of the tangential relative N =1,Ne
I,e
displacement as: I
hα,h (ξ3I ) = w N (s e )Hα,N , (66)
 
  N =1,Ne
μ R NI J,n+1 (ζk )
RTI J,n+1
(ζk ) = gn+1,r
T
ev
(ζk ). (64) where w N is the shape functions associated to the N -th node
gr ev,max of the element, and Q NI,e I,e
and Hα,N are the kinematical vectors
The use of an incremental formulation required by the defined at this node. Finally, the interpolated displacement
regularization of the Coulomb’s friction law introduces the of the particle is written as:

123
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707 699
 
I,e I,e
uhI ξ I = w N (s e )Q N + ξαI w N (s e )Hα,N . and we can finally express the linearization of the tangential
N =1,Ne N =1,Ne reaction in the case of non-sliding as:
(67)  
 
μ R NI J,n+1   
I J,n+1
Using quadratic three-node elements, and with the three kine- δR T = I − ncI J ⊗ ncI J
gr ev,max
matical vectors of the beam model, 27 degrees of freedom  
are involved to express the displacement of each particle. × δu J (ξξ cJ ) − δu I (ξξ cJ ) . (74)
 
 ev 
5.2.5 Linearization of normal and tangential interactions In the case of sliding, when tr gn+1,r
T  > gr ev,max , we
have:
Solving the global non-linear problem using a Newton-type
tr gn+1,r ev
algorithm requires a linearization of the virtual work prin- gn+1,r ev
= g  T , (75)
r ev,max 
ciple with respect to the displacement solution. Normal and T n+1,r ev 
 gT
tr |
tangential interactions have to be linearized to get the contri-
butions of contact and friction to the tangent stiffness matrix. hence:
To linearize normal and tangential interactions, the nor- ⎛
mal contact direction is assumed to be fixed. Linearizing the δ(tr gn+1,r ev
)
δgn+1,r ev
= g ⎝  T 
gap function as: T r ev,max tr n+1,r ev 
 gT 
  ⎞
 
δ gap(ζ ) = δu J (ξξ cJ (ζ )) − δu I (ξξ cJ (ζ )), ncI J (ζ ) , (68) tr gn+1,r ev , δ(tr gn+1,r ev )
T T tr n+1,r ev ⎟
−   gT ⎠.
the linearization of the normal contact interaction can be cal- tr n+1,r ev 3
 gT 
culated from Eq. 53 as follows, depending on the value of
the gap: (76)
⎧
⎪ if gap > 0, δ R NI J = 0, Using Eq. 62, we can express
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ if − pr eg ≤ gap ≤ 0,   δ(tr gn+1,r ev
) = δ(gn,r ev
+  gn+1
T ),
δ R NI J = pkrceg gap δu J (ξξ cJ ) − δu I (ξξ cJ ), ncI J , (69) T T
⎪
⎪ gn+1
= δ
⎪
⎪ if gap < − p , T , (77)
⎪
⎩
r eg  
δ R NI J = −kc δu J (ξξ cJ ) − δu I (ξξ cJ ), ncI J .
so that Eq. 76 can be rewritten as:
Using the incremental formulation, and assuming the nor- gr ev,max 
mal reaction used to define the sliding threshold is constant, δgn+1,r ev
=   δ
gn+1
T tr n+1,r ev  T
the tangential reaction is assumed to be proportional to the  gT 
⎞
reversible tangential relative displacement gn+1,r
T
ev
(Eq. 64),
tr gn+1,r ev
⊗ tr gn+1,r ev
so that we can express: ⎟
− T

T
2 gn+1
δ T ⎠
  tr n+1,r ev 
   gT 
μ R NI J,n+1  ⎛ ⎞
I J,n+1
δR T = δgn+1,r
T
ev
. (70) tr gn+1,r ev
gr ev,max gr ev,max ⎜ ⊗ tr gn+1,r ev
⎟
=   I− T T
tr n+1,r ev  ⎝  
tr n+1,r ev 2
⎠
According to Eq. 63, two different linearizations of gn+1,r ev  gT   gT 
T
can be derived, depending on whether the contact element is gn+1
× δ T . (78)
sliding or not. In the case of non-sliding, we have:
Using Eq. 73, the linearization of the tangential reaction in
gn+1,r
T
ev
= gn,r
T
ev
+  gn+1
T , (71) the case of sliding can be written as:
and thus:   ⎛ ⎞
 
μ  R NI J,n+1  tr gn+1,r ev ⊗ tr gn+1,r ev
δR TI J,n+1 =   ⎜I − T T ⎟
δgn+1,r tr n+1,r ev  ⎝  2 ⎠
ev
gn+1
= δ T . (72)  
T
 gT  n+1,r ev
tr g T 
Using Eq. 59 and 61, we can express:   
× I − ncI J ⊗ ncI J δu J (ξξ cJ ) − δu I (ξξ cJ ) .
  
gn+1
δ T = I−nc ⊗ nc
IJ IJ
δu J (ξξ cJ ) − δu I (ξξ cJ ) , (73) (79)

123
700
6 Global solution algorithm
The different non-linearities involved in the global problem
need specific solution procedures. As it has been discussed
above, it seems difficult to express the dependence of the
determination of contact elements and of normal contact
directions on the displacement solution through a closed-
form formulation, and therefore to linearize these quantities.
For each loading increment two nested loops are dedicated
to fixed point algorithms on the determination of contact ele-
ments and on the determination of normal contact directions.
These quantities being fixed, a Newton-Raphson algorithm
is used to solve other non-linearities. Penalty coefficients for
each proximity zones are adjusted at each iteration on the
determination of normal contact directions. The global algo-
rithm is as follows:
Loop 1 Loading increments
Loop 2 Determination of contact elements
Loop 3 Determination of normal contact directions
Newton-Raphson algorithm Other non-linearities:
contact status, sliding, finite strains
Adjustment of penalty coefficients
for proximity zones
End of loop 3
End of loop 2
End of loop 1.
A few dozen Newton-Raphson iterations in total are gener-
ally needed to solve the problem for each loading step.
7 Application to the simulation of the tightening
and releasing of elastic knots
7.1 Introduction
The application to the simulation of simple overhand knots
made from monofilaments or from multifilamentary yarns
has been chosen to illustrate the approach outlined in this
paper. A monofilament and multifilament twisted yarns made
up of 3 to 75 filaments are used to make the knots. The knots
are formed, tightened, and then released until an equilibrium
configuration without external forces is obtained, maintained
only by internal friction forces.
7.2 Monofilament knot
To form the monofilament knot, an elastic rod of 0.2 mm
in diameter and 20 mm in length is considered. The rod is
assumed to be made of an elastic material whose material
characteristics together with other data related to this case
are summarized in Table 1. For this particular case, and only
123
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707
Table 1 Characteristics of the monofilament knot case
Characteristics Sub category
Geometry No. of filaments 1
Radius (mm) 0.1
Length (mm) 20.
Mechanical properties Young’s modulus (MPa) 4000
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Bending stiff. reduct. 0.3
FE discretization No. of FE 300
No. of dofs 5409
Contact No. of proximity zones 1
No. of contact elements 58
for this first case, in order to increase the flexibility of the
rod and to facilitate the tightening of the knot, the second
moment of area, involved in the computation of the bending
stiffness is multiplied by a reduction factor of 0.3.
7.2.1 Forming and tightening of the knot
Starting from a straight configuration, and prescribing con-
venient displacements and rotations at it ends, an initially
straight rod is gradually deformed to form a knot. At it seems
particularly difficult to form and close the knot only by driv-
ing motions at both ends of the rod, two lateral beams are
temporarily used to maintain the loop while closing it. The
global process of forming and tightening the knot is as fol-
lows. A heart-shaped loop (Fig. 12a) is first formed by pre-
scribing translations and rotations at rod ends. Two lateral
beams are then moved to clamp the loop (Fig. 12b, c) before
this loop is closed by applying suitable displacements at both
ends of the rod (Fig. 12d, e). The clamping beams are then
removed (Fig. 12f), and rod ends are finally pulled to tighten
the knot (Fig. 12g, h).
Figure 13 gives a detailed view of the final configuration
of the tightened knot, showing the intermediate geometry and
representing normal reactions. Normal and tangential reac-
tions along the intermediate geometry for the tightened knot
are plotted on Fig. 14.
7.2.2 Loosening of the knot
Once the knot has been tightened by pulling rod ends, its loos-
ening is simulated by fixing one of the ends while applying
to the other end a gradually vanishing tensile force. An equi-
librium configuration where residual stresses due to bending
are only counterbalanced by internal friction interactions is
then obtained. This configuration, which can be characterized
by the angle formed by both free tails, and by the approxi-
mated radius of the loop, depends on the friction coefficient,
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707 701

Fig. 12 Intermediate stages in the forming and tightening of the overhand monofilament knot

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 15 Final configuration of the monofilament knot after relaxation
of the tightening force for three different friction coefficients. a μ = 0.3,
b μ = 0.25, c μ = 0.2

Fig. 13 Tightened monofilament knot: intermediate geometry (dark

red line) and normal contact reactions at contact elements

0.5
Norm. react
Tang. react. Fig. 16 Normal reactions in the braid region of the monofilament knot
0.4 after release of the tightening force
Reaction force (N)

0.3

as illustrated in Fig. 15 showing the relaxed configurations

0.2
for three different friction coefficients of 0.3, 0.25 and 0.2. A
detailed view of what is called the braid region of knot, for a
0.1 friction coefficient of 0.3 is shown in Fig. 16. The two sym-
metrical openings which can be observed between the three
0 successive crossings in the braid region have been reported
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
in [7], with experimental comparison. Normal and tangen-
Curvilinear abscissa (mm)
tial reactions along the intermediate geometry, for the relaxed
Fig. 14 Normal reactions and tangential reactions at contact elements configuration, and for a friction coefficient of 0.3 are plotted
along the intermediate geometry of the tightened knot in Fig. 17.

123
702 Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707

0.015

Norm. react
Tang. react.
Reaction force (N)

0.01

0.005

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Curvilinear abscissa (mm) Fig. 18 Intermediate stages in the twisting, forming and tightening of
the overhand 3 × 1 multifilament knot
Fig. 17 Normal reactions and tangential reactions at contact elements
along the intermediate geometry of the monofilament knot after release
of the tightening force

Table 2 Characteristics of the 3 × 1 multifilament knot case

Characteristics Sub category

Geometry No. of filaments 3

Radius (mm) 0.0564
Length (mm) 6
Mechanical properties Young’s modulus (MPa) 4000 Fig. 19 3 × 1 multifilament knot: intermediate geometries in the tight-
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 ened configuration (blue lines). (Color figure online)
FE discretization No. of FE 300
No. of dofs 5,427
Contact No. of proximity zones 14
No. of contact elements 610

7.3 3 × 1 multifilament knot
Increasing the complexity of the structure under study, a 3×1
multifilament is now considered. The main characteristics of
this yarn are described in Table 2. To keep approximately
the same cross-sectional area of fibres, the fibre radius is
decreased as the number of filaments increases. Since the
bending stiffness of multifilament yarns is naturally lower
than that of the monofilament, it is no longer necessary to
decrease the second moment of area of fibres.
7.3.1 Twisting of the yarn
(a) (b)
Fig. 20 Final configurations of the 3 × 1 multifilament knot after
relaxation of the tightening force for two different friction coefficients.
a μ = 0.3. b μ = 0.2
7.3.2 Forming and tightening of the knot
The knot is formed and tightened in the same way as the
monofilament, using also two clamping beams to maintain
the loop while closing it (Fig. 18). 610 loading steps were
necessary for whole simulation, and 14 proximity zones and
610 contact elements were generated in the last tightened
configuration (Figs. 18, 19).

When dealing with multifilament yarns, the initial geometry
resulting from the twisting of the yarn is not known a priori,
and thus needs to be computed. For this purpose, the twisting
of fibers is first simulated by prescribing suitable twistings
at their ends to obtain the twisted yarn (Fig. 18a, b).
7.3.3 Loosening of the knot
The tightening tensile force is gradually decreased to get the
equilibrium configurations without external forces, for two
friction coefficients of 0.3 and 0.2 (Fig. 20). The intermediate

123
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707 703

Fig. 21 Normal reactions along intermediate geometries for the 3 × 1

multifilament knot after relaxation of the tightening force for a friction
Fig. 22 3 × 9 multifilament: configurations before and after twisting
coefficient of 0.3

Table 3 Characteristics of the 3 × 9 multifilament knot case

Characteristics Sub category

Geometry No. of filaments 27

Radius (mm) 0.0188
Length (mm) 6
Mechanical properties Young’s modulus (MPa) 4000
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
FE discretization No. of FE 2,700
No. of dofs 48,843
Contact No. of proximity zones 434 Fig. 23 3 × 9 multifilament: sections of the configurations before and
after twisting
No. of contact elements 12,758

geometries and normal reactions along them can be seen in

Fig. 21, at the end of the loosening.

7.4 3 × 9 multifilament knot

The 3 × 9 multifilament yarn is made of 3 rovings, each com-

posed of nine fibers. Characteristics of this yarn are summa-
rized in Table 3.

7.4.1 Twisting of the yarn

Rigid bodies placed at ends of elementary rovings are used
to impose given twistings to them, and specific averaged
kinematical conditions are considered in order to bind ends
of fibers to these rigid bodies. By this way, given twistings
can be prescribed to the global assembly, while allowing
the elementary fibers to rearrange themselves. 140 loadings
steps are used to simulate the twisting of the yarn (Figs. 22,
23).
Fig. 24 Intermediate stages in the forming and tightening of 3 × 9
multifilament knot
7.4.2 Forming and tightening of the knot
Successive stages of the forming and tightening of the knot,
carried out in 230 loading steps, can be seen in Fig. 24.
A zoom of the tightened knot is shown in Fig. 25, while
corresponding intermediate geometries in this region can

123
704
Fig. 25 Detailed view of the tightened configuration for the 3 × 9
multifilament knot
Fig. 26 View of intermediate geometries for the 3 × 9 multifilament
knot
be seen in Fig. 26. Sections of the tigthened knot in two
orthogonal planes are shown in Fig. 27, illustrating the
high density of contacts reached at the end of the tighten-
ing.
7.4.3 Loosening of the knot
The same way as presented for previous cases, the tensile
tightening force is gradually decreased to obtain the relaxed
configurations for three different friction coefficients of 0.3,
0.2 and 0.1, shown in Fig. 28.
7.5 3 × 25 multifilament knot
Further increasing the number of fibers per roving, we con-
sider the case of a 3x25 multifilament whose characteristics
are described in Table 4.
123
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707
Fig. 27 Sections of the tightened configuration for the 3 × 9 multifil-
ament knot in two orthogonal planes
7.6 Twisting of the yarn
The simulation of the twisting of the yarn is achieved using
140 loading steps, and views of the initial and the twisted
configurations are shown in Figs. 29 and 30.
7.6.1 Forming and tightening of the knot
Once the yarn has been twisted, the forming and tightening
of the knot is simulated in 300 loading steps (Figs. 31, 32).
The number of fibers in the yarn significantly increases the
number of intermediate geometries to be considered, which
amounts to about 3,000 (Fig. 33), and the number of con-
tact elements, which reaches a value of about 40,000 at the
end of the tightening. This increase of the number of con-
tact elements does not deteriorate of the convergence of the
global solution algorithm, even if a high density of contact
is reached (see Fig. 34). The automatic adjustment of the
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707 705

(a)

Fig. 29 3 × 25 multifilament: configurations before and after twisting

(b)

(c)
Fig. 28 Final configurations of the 3×9 multifilament knot after relax-
ation of the tightening force for three different friction coefficients.
a μ = 0.3, b μ = 0.2, c μ = 0.1 Fig. 30 3×25 multifilament: sections of the configurations before and
after twisting

Table 4 Characteristics of the 3 × 25 multifilament knot case

Characteristics Sub category 8 Conclusion

Geometry No. of filaments 75 A method to model contact-friction interactions within beam

Radius (mm) 0.0112 assemblies by means of finite element simulation has been
Length (mm) 6 presented in this paper. With a novel approach to detect
Mechanical properties Young’s modulus (MPa) 4000
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
FE discretization No. of FE 7,500
No. of dofs 135,675
Contact No. of proximity zones 3,002
No. of contact elements 40,559

penalty coefficient for each proximity zone is essential to

keep the quality of convergence of the global algorithm.

7.6.2 Loosening of the knot

The tightening tensile force is gradually decreased and the

relaxed configuration for the 3 × 25 multifilament knot, with Fig. 31 Intermediate stages in the forming and tightening of 3 × 25
a friction coefficient of 0.3 is obtained (Fig. 35). multifilament knot

123
706 Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707

Fig. 32 Detailed view of the tightened configuration for the 3 × 25

multifilament knot

Fig. 34 Sections of the tightened configuration for the 3 × 25 multi-

Fig. 33 View of intermediate geometries for the 3 × 25 multifilament filament knot in two orthogonal planes
knot

and discretize contact-friction interactions from intermediate

geometries, various contact configurations between beams,
including cases of self-contact, can be considered. Using a
quadratic regularization of the penalty together with an adap-
tive adjustment of the penalty coefficient allows a good con-
vergence of contact algorithms to be maintained, even in
presence of large numbers of contact elements. The appli- Fig. 35 Final configuration of the 3×25 multifilament knot after relax-
cation of the method to the simulation of knot tightening ation of the tightening force for a friction coefficient of 0.3
illustrates its capabilities to model the mechanical behaviour
of fibrous materials.
References
Acknowledgements Computational facilities provided by Ecole Cent-
rale Paris Mesocentre HPC center and support of the staff are gratefully 1. Bajas H, Durville D, Ciazynski D, Devred A (2010) Numerical
acknowledged. simulation of the mechanical behavior of iter cable-in-conduit con-
ductors. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond 20(3):1467–1470

123
Comput Mech (2012) 49:687–707
2. Bergou M, Wardetzky M, Robinson S, Audoly B, Grinspun F
(2008) Discrete elastic rods. ACM Trans Graph (TOG) 27(3)
3. Bertails F, Audoly B, Cani MP, Querleux B, Leroy F, Lévêque
JL (2006) Super-helices for predicting the dynamics of natural hair.
ACM Trans Graph 25:1180–1187
4. Bertails-Descoubes F, Cadoux F, Daviet G, Acary V (2011) A non-
smooth newton solver for capturing exact coulomb friction in fiber
assemblies. ACM Trans Graph 30:6:1–6:14
5. Chamekh M, Mani-Aouadi S, Moaker M (2009) Modeling and
numerical treatment of elastic rods with frictionless self-contact.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198(47–48):3751–3764
6. Chamoret D, Saillard P, Rassineux A, Bergheau JM (2004) New
smoothing procedures in contact mechanics. J Comput Appl Math
168(1–2):107–116
7. Clauvelin N, Audoly B, Neukirch S (2009) Matched asymptotic
expansions for twisted elastic knots: a self-contact problem with
non-trivial contact topology. J Mech Phys Solids 57(9):1623–1656
8. Coleman B, Swigon D (2000) Theory of supercoiled elastic rings
with self-contact and its application to dna plasmids. J Elast
60:173–221
9. Durville D (2005) Numerical simulation of entangled materials
mechanical properties. J Mater Sci 40:5941–5948
10. Durville D (2010) Simulation of the mechanical behaviour of
woven fabrics at the scale of fibers. Int J Mater Form 3:1241–1251
11. Durville D (2011) Contact modelling in entangled fibrous mate-
rials. In: Zavarise G, Wriggers P. (eds) Trends in computational
contact mechanics. Lecture notes in applied and computational
mechanics. Springer, Berlin pp 1–22
12. Goyal S, Perkins NC, Lee CL (2008) Non-linear dynamic inter-
twining of rods with self-contact. Int J Non-Linear Mech 43(1):
65–73
13. Konyukhov A, Schweizerhof K (2010) Geometrically exact covar-
iant approach for contact between curves. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 199(37–40):2510–2531
707
14. Konyukhov A, Schweizerhof K (2011) On a geometrically exact
theory for contact interactions. In: Zavarise G, Wriggers P
(eds) Trends in computational contact mechanics. Lecture notes
in applied and computational mechanics. Springer, Berlin, pp
41–56
15. Litewka P (2011) Multiple-point beam-to-beam contact finite ele-
ment. In: CMM-2011 computer methods in mechanics. Warsaw,
Poland
16. Litewka P, Wriggers P (2002) Contact between 3d beams with rect-
angular cross-sections. Int J Numer Methods Eng 53(9):2019–
2041
17. Litewka P, Wriggers P (2002) Frictional contact between 3d
beams. Comput Mech 28:26–39
18. Pieranski P, Kasas S, Dietler G, Dubochet J, Stasiak
A (2001) Localization of breakage points in knotted strings. New
J Phys 3(1):10
19. Przybyl S, Pieranski P (2009) Tightening of the elastic overhand
knot. Phys Rev E 79:031801
20. Spillmann J, Teschner M (2008) An adaptive contact model for the
robust simulation of knots. Comput Graph Forum 27(2):497–506
21. Torre A, Bajas H, Ciazynski D, Durville D, Weiss K
(2011) Mechanical-electrical modeling of stretching experiment
on 45 N b3 Sn strands ciccs. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond
21(3):2042–2045
22. van der Heijden GHM, Neukirch S, Goss VGA, Thompson
JMT (2003) Instability and self-contact phenomena in the writh-
ing of clamped rods. Int J Mech Sci 45(1):161–196
23. Wrigger P, Zavarise G (1997) On contact between three-dimen-
sional beams undergoing large deflections. Commun Numer Meth-
ods Eng 13(6):429–438
24. Zavarise G, Wriggers P (2000) Contact with friction between
beams in 3-d space. Int J Numer Methods Eng 49(8):977–1006
123