A Method For Solving Contact Problems

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 42, 473—498 (1998)
A METHOD FOR SOLVING CONTACT PROBLEMS
G. ZAVARISE1,*, P. WRIGGERS2 AND B. A. SCHREFLER1

1Dipartimento di Costruzioni e ¹rasporti, ºniversita degli Studi di Padova, »ia Marzolo 9, 35131 Padova, Italy
2Institut fu( r Mechanik — ¹echnische Hochschule, Hochschulstr. 1, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
ABSTRACT
In this paper a further method is presented to solve problems involving contact mechanics. The basic idea is
related to a special modification of the unconstrained functional to include inequality constraints. The
modification is constructed in such a way that minimal point of the unconstrained potential can be exactly
shifted to the constraint limit. Moreover, the functional remains smooth and the admissible range of the
solution is not restricted. The solution search process with iterative techniques takes advantage from these
features. In fact, due to a better control of gap status changes, a more stable solution path with respect to
other methods is usually obtained.
The characteristics of the method are evidenced and compared to other classical techniques, like penalty
and barrier methods. The finite element discretization of the proposed method is included and some
numerical applications are shown. ( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: finite element; penalty; barrier; cross-constraints; constrained minimisation
1. INTRODUCTION
The numerical treatment of contact constraints is based on two main strategies within finite
element techniques, i.e. penalty method and Lagrangian multiplier method.1 Both methods have
advantages and also shortcomings. Considering the penalty method, it is well known that
a wrong choice of the penalty parameter can lead to ill-conditioning of the global stiffness matrix
or to a non-acceptable violation of the constraint conditions. However, the penalty method can
be easily incorporated in existing finite element software and thus is used quite frequently. The
Lagrangian multiplier method enforces the constraints exactly but it adds the equations asso-
ciated with the constraints to the global equation set. This enlarges the total number of unknowns
and is also associated with continuous change of the total number of equations when a non-linear
contact problem is simulated. Furthermore, diagonal terms of the global system matrix due to the
contact constraints are equal to zero.
It should be remarked that the penalty approach can be viewed as a linearized version of
a formulation which considers a physically based constitutive relation in the contact interface.2
Within such a model micro-mechanical relations lead to a constraint functional3~5 which is
non-linear with regard to the gap function.
* Correspondence to: G. Zavarise, Dipartimento di Costruzioni e Trasporti, Universita degli Studi di Padova, Via
Marzolo 9, 35131 Padova, Italy. E-mail: zavarise@caronte.dic.unipd.it
Contract/grant sponsor: CRE
CCC 0029—5981/98/030473—26$17.50 Received 23 February 1995

( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 16 September 1997
474 G. ZAVARISE, P. WRIGGERS AND B. A. SCHREFLER
Both the penalty and the Lagrangian multiplier methods are characterized by two distinct
states: the gap opening in which the contact constraints are not active and the gap closure with
active constraints. Thus, an algorithmic treatment has always to account for these different states.
It would be advantageous to construct a method which has not to distinguish between the two
states. This has been achieved with the constraint function method6 which has been implemented
via a Lagrangian multipliers approach in.6~8 The function used in that instance depends on the
gap and the Lagrangian multipliers, i.e. w"(g#j)/2!J((g!j)/2)2#e.
In this paper we like to consider a pure displacement approach to contact problems without
introducing additional variables. An appropriate method for that is the barrier method, see e.g.
Reference 1. But it has to be equipped with a safeguard algorithm which forces the solution to be
on the correct side of the inequality constraint due to contact. The idea is now to combine penalty
and barrier methods in such a way that this safeguard algorithm is not needed. Hence, we will
formulate a new functional to enforce the inequality constraint. It will be shown that both
classical techniques, the penalty and the barrier methods, can be recovered as limit cases of the
proposed method. Moreover, the first derivative of penalty and barrier method take limit values
at the constraint limit. Such values, respectively, equal to zero and infinite. This fact implies an
approximated solution, because the exact one can be achieved only by a finite non-zero
modification of the unconstrained potential at the constraint limit.
Other non-standard methods are based on quadratic programming.9
The paper is constructed in such a way that Section 2 states the basic formulation of the contact
problem. Then in Section 3 the new constraint functional is developed. Its algorithmic aspects are
discussed in Section 4. A summary of the contact formulation within the framework of continuum
mechanics is contained in Section 5, which is the basis for the discretization within the finite
element method in Section 6. Finally, in Section 7 we apply the proposed method to some
numerical test examples.
2. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT CONTACT MECHANICS

Contact mechanics problems are a particularization of the more general family of constrained
minimization problems. The basic formulation can be expressed as
minimize f (x)
(1)
with g(x))0
where both f (x) and g(x) are generic functions of one or more variables.
Considering a linear elastic problem from the point of view of continuum mechanics we assume
that a convex potential, H(x), exists which we want to minimize. The minimization of H(x) leads
to the well-known weak form. In case of contact an additional set of non-penetration conditions
is valid along the interfaces of the two bodies
minimize H(x)
(2)
with g (x))0
N
where g (x)'0 yields the local penetration between the contacting surfaces. We adopt negative
N
values of the penetration when the bodies are not in contact.
( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 42, 473—498 (1998)
A METHOD FOR SOLVING CONTACT PROBLEMS 475
The methods generally adopted to solve the problem transform the inequality in an equality
and can be summarized as follows:
minimize H(x)#P(x, F)
with H(x)#P(x, F):H(x) if g (x)(0 (3)

N
and H(x̂)#P(x̂, Fª )"min if g (x̂):0
N
Here P(x, F) represents the contact modification due to the contact constraints of the functional
of the unconstrained mechanical problem. F represents a new set of unknowns, i.e. the contact
pressures, x̂ and Fª represent the set of values for which the constraint conditions are almost
satisfied. Contact pressures F are treated as independent variables only within the framework of
the Lagrangian multipliers method. The other methods compute them as function of the basic set
of unknowns, x, hence Fª disappear from equation (3).
The variation of the minimal condition leads to the weak form
dH(x)#dP(x, F)"0 (4)
In general, the contact contribution, P(x, F), in the contact area, ! , can be written in integral
#
form. Its variation yields
P! p(x, F) d!"P! A Lx LgN dgN#LF dFB d!

Lp Lx Lp
dP(x, F)"d (5)
# #
The non-linear problem (3) is usually solved by numerical discretization and by means of
iterative techniques.
3. THE METHOD OF CROSS-CONSTRAINTS

The most noticeable characteristic of standard methods consists in the fact that they modify
the potential only on one side of the admissible range of values with respect to the con-
strained limit. The shift of the minimum from the unconstrained solution to the constrained
one is usually performed without attempting to get the correct zero slope of the potential at
the constraint limit. The solution point is then always a point that can be reached only as limit
case. To obtain the limit case for penalty and barrier methods infinite stiffness is required.
Moreover, barrier methods do not permit to jump in the non-admissible range, i.e. penetrations
are not allowed during the solution search process. The lack of attempt to modify properly the
potential slope at the constraint limit characterizes the cited methods as intrinsically approxim-
ated ones. The achieved solution can be improved by using augmentations. However, augmenta-
tion is generally an independent feature, which does not modify the characteristics of the cited
methods.
The characteristic of the proposed method is due to a modification of the unconstrained
potential over the complete admissible region by a smooth curve. The modified potential
obtained in this way will possess a minimum close to the constraint limit. This minimum can
either be inside the non-admissible region or outside. In the first case, the solution will show
a small penetration, in the second case, the solution will take place with a small opening. During
the solution process smooth transitions from the status gap-closed to the status gap-open are
allowed. Hence, no discontinuities exist either for the potential or for the first- and second-order
derivatives and the solution point can be reached exactly. It has to be remarked that the proposed
method approximates the correct zero slope of the potential at the constraint limit. Such value
can be exactly achieved (not as a limit case) using an augmentation-like procedure which modifies
the characteristics of the starting function.
The above features, i.e. always active constraint functions and derivatives defined for any
value of the variables implied were already incorporated in the constraint function method
described in Bathe6 and further explained in Reference 8. In Reference 6 Lagrangian multipliers
are used to impose the constraint functions and contactor nodes have additional unknowns, the
contact forces. Converged solutions present always a very small gap (of order e/j, with
e+10~10), while in the method proposed here solutions on both sides of the constraint limit can
be obtained.
The modification of the potential that we want to apply can be obtained by a suitable
particularization of various types of functions. A comparison of the efficiency of the method with
respect to the use of different functions is under development and will be treated in a forthcoming
paper, but some hints can be found in Reference 10. Here we investigate the modification that can
be obtained using a combination of two exponential functions and discuss the best strategy to
determine the constant parameters involved.
It has also to be remarked that, due to the fact that numerical solution of the problem deals
with the first derivative of the potential and with its linearization, it is also possible to obtain the
requested potential modification by a suitable integration of its first or second derivative. It is
hence possible to take into account ill-conditioning problems related to the second derivative of
the potential. It is also possible to start from the first derivative of the potential by using
a load—penetration curve based on microscopical characterization of contact surfaces, see e.g.
References 3—5.
The real-valued constraint functions of the constraint function method,6 which already
mentioned above are used in References 6—8 in conjunction with the Lagrangian multiplier
method, can obviously also be applied as function in the present method. To obtain a pure
displacement formulation as used here, the Lagrangian multipliers have to be eliminated. In
particular, in case of the function proposed in Reference 7, p. 628, the elimination of the
Lagrangian multiplier leads to a function equal to one used in the barrier method. More, in
general, the cross-constraints method can be seen as a penalty implementation of a much richer
set of constraint functions.
Let us briefly recall the characteristics required for such functions:
Exact Approximate
PI (g ) smooth P(g ) smooth

N N
PI (g )"0 if g )0 P(g ):0 if g )0 (6)
N N N N
H#PI "min if g "0 H#P"min if g :0
N N
PI is the ideal modification of the potential of the unconstrained solution and P represents an
admissible modification. The first condition ensures differentiability in the whole range. The
second condition permits in the exact case to obtain an undisturbed solution when the gap is
open. In the approximate case the solution should be almost undisturbed. The third condition
guarantees in the exact case the satisfaction of the constraints. It is evident that such a request can
be satisfied exactly only if the solution of the problem is known, since it implies
P@(g )"FM (7)

N
where FM is the unknown contact pressure. Here we omit to write the necessary integrals, see
equation (5), for a more compact notation. In the approximate formulation the third condition
can be satisfied either with a small penetration or with a small gap, which then leads also to an
approximate solution for FM .
It is an easy task to show that no function exists that can satisfy all the conditions of the exact
formulation, hence it is mandatory to use the approximate one. In fact, a smooth function, PM ,
satisfying the condition PI (0)"0 should also have PI @(0)"0, and then the third condition,
H#PI "min, can never be satisfied for g "0. For example, considering within this framework
N
the penalty formulation we see that the condition on continuity can be considered satisfied, the
condition on the gap opening is satisfied exactly, but the condition on the gap closure is satisfied
in an approximate way.
From the above discussion it is clear that one has to start within the algorithmic treatment with
a trial value, FK of FM . In case that FK is chosen to be zero the penalty method can be recovered. If
a FK is chosen to be in the range 0(FK (FM then the solution is improved compared to the penalty
method. If FK "FM the exact solution is obtained. Finally, if FK 'FM then a solution is obtained
which is associated with a certain gap between the bodies in contact. In this case we obtain
a similar solution as with a barrier method. The limit case FK PR yields the classical barrier
method. If the computed penetration or gap are not acceptable an augmentation scheme can be
applied to obtain a better solution.
We have to add a final request that should be imposed because of numerical reasons: the
maximum stiffness has to be limited during the solution process to avoid ill-conditioning
problems
PA(g ))K if g :0 (8)
N MAX N
The present method permits, however, to determine the exact value of the contact stress
distribution even if the limit, given by equation (8), is satisfied.
The conditions of the approximate formulation of equation (6) for P can be satisfied by
a suitable particularization of the constants of the following function:
P"keagN#bebgN (9)
The aim of this choice is to leave the potential function as unmodified as possible within the range
which corresponds to the status of gap open, and modify locally the potential near the constraint
limit (see Figures 1 and 2). This can be achieved by using different shapes of the basic curve. It is
also possible to leave the value of the potential at the constraint limit unchanged. If we request
that the function represented by equation (9) assumes a value equal to zero when g "0 we have
N
to choose b"!k. Moreover, by using b"aa we can express P as
P"k(eagN!eaagN ) (10)
Figure 1. Qualitative graphs of the functions used to modify the unconstrained potential
Figure 2. Qualitative graph of the modified potential
Due to the fact that the function given by equation (10) is continuous, the solution can be found
on both sides of the constraint equation. It should be remarked that this is not the case when the
barrier method is applied. On the other hand, there is no discontinuity at the constraint limit, as
in the penalty method.
The function (10) depends on three parameters. These parameters will be determined by
imposing the following conditions:
H G
a limitation of tractions when gap is open
k 8 P@"F N FM (11)
a PA limited for numerical reasons
The requested shape of the curve depicted in Figure 1 is obtained by limiting the parameters
within the following range:
k'0, a'0, 0)a(1 (12)
To impose conditions (11), the first and second derivatives of the function should be computed.
The first derivative of P which yields the contact pressure is expressed by
F"ka(eagN!aeaagN ) (13)
The local (tangent) value of the stiffness which should be limited due to numerical reasons is
given by
K"ka2(eagN!a2eaagN ) (14)
Conditions (11b) and (11c) can be imposed for any value of the surface distance, g . A good
N
choice is g "0. In this case condition (11b) represents the exact solution. Hence, the value of
N
FK which will be imposed below is a trial value that can be updated during the solution process.
With equation (13) we obtain
FK "F(g "0)"ka(1!a) (15)

N
The stiffness K has to be limited to avoid ill-conditioning in the numerical solution process.
Here we have to observe that K increases for possible penetration, see equation (14), hence the
maximum penetration that can take place should be estimated. Due to this reason the imposed
value of K at g "0 should be less than the maximum allowable.
N
KK "K(g "0)"ka2(1!a2) (16)
N
The solution of equations (15) and (16) gives
KK
a" (17)
FK (1#a)
FK 2(1#a)
k" (18)
KK (1!a)
The third parameter, a, can be determined by satisfying the condition of the limitation of the
adhesion forces that can take place near the solution. However, it should be noted that such
adhesion effect could occur in certain problems and then it could be modelled by equation (13).
To discuss the choice of a we compute the location, gL of the minimum of the pressure field,
N{
which follows from equation (13)
LF
"0 N ka2(eagN!a2eaagN )"0 N 1!a2eagN (a~1)"0 (19)
Lg
N
With equation (17) we obtain
A B
FK (1#a) 1
g' " ln (20)
N KK (a!1) a2
Thus, the pressure at the minimum point, given by equation (13), is equal to
' ' FK
F (g )" (e1@(a~1)-/(1@a2)!aea@(a~1)-/(1@a2)) (21)
N (1!a)
Here we have used equations'

(17), (18) and (20).
The evolution of '
g and F with respect to a are depicted in Figure 3. Equation (20) shows that
N
the minimum is inside the admissible region (g )0) and assuming Fª "KK "1 the limit cases of
N
(20) are
'
lim (g )"!R, lim (g' )"!4 (22)
N N
a?0 a?1
Figure 3. Normalized position and normalized value of the minimum
Figure 4. Potential modifications with respect to the penetration
We notice that the position of the minimum of (21) tends to be very close to the constraint limit
for a'0)05. The value of the minimum given by equation (21) does not depend on the imposed
stiffness, KK , and it decreases for aP0.
Equations (10), (13) and (14) can be expressed as function of the input parameters FK , KK and a.
To shorten the notation we introduce the following variables:
KK FK 2(1#a)
aL " , kL " (23)
FK (1#a) KK (1!a)
and obtain from (10), (13) and (14)
P"kL (eaL gN!eaL agN ), F"kL aL (eaL gN!aeaL agN ), K"kL aL 2(eaL gN!a2eaL agN ) (24)
Different shapes of the functions P are represented in Figure 4. Figure 5 depicts unwanted large
adhesion forces for a'0)1.
It has to be noticed that the value of the potential modification at g "0 is always zero for any
N
value of a (a"0 excluded), but to keep the potential unmodified at g "0 is not mandatory. On
N
the contrary, the contact force value at g "0 is always equal to FK for any value of a.
N
4. TUNING OF THE ALGORITHM

The considerations in the previous section and experience based on a wide series of tests has
shown the necessity to either use a very small value for a or to set the parameter a equal to zero to
completely eliminate the occurrence of adhesive forces. In the latter case, the quantities which
Figure 5. Global and local view of contact force distribution with respect to the penetration
have to be added to the potential and force fields, and the linearization of the force field
represented by equations (10), (13) and (14) become
P"k(ea'N!1), F"kaeagN, K"ka2eagN (25)
In this case, the expression of the potential does not satisfies condition (6b), because we see that
lim (P)"k (26)

gN?=
The problem can be easily solved considering that F and K of equation (25) can be associated also
with the potential
P"kL eaL gN (27)
which can be obtained directly by imposing b"0 in equation (10) and then using equations (17)
and (18) with a"0. Due to this choice the value of the unconstrained functional is unmodified for
g PR, and it is modified at the solution point.
N
The same rule can be used considering the equivalent expressions of equation (24) with a"0,
hence for this case we can use the following equation set:
P"kL eaL gN, F"FK eaL gN, K"KK eaL gN (28)
These relationships can be applied directly within the numerical treatment of contact problems.
At this stage it is evident that the proposed method is characterized by employment of a sort of
non-linear spring which is always active and does not depend on the gap status.
In numerical computations large penetrations take place for some problems during the
iterations, thus F and K can assume too large values due to the characteristics of the ex-
ponential curve. The problem can be solved by changing the potential P for values of g
N
over a certain limit, gL . Generally, any monotonic curve which is below the original one
N
could be used. This curve should be continuous in P, F and K in gL . Here we apply
N
simply a parabolic curve which has the advantage that K is constant and thus can be con-
trolled easily. If we choose gL "0 as a limit then the method is governed by the following
N
equation set:
G
P"kL eaL gN, F"FK eaL gN, K"KK eaL gN if g )0
N
KK (29)
P"kL #FK g # g2 , F"FK #KK g , K"KK if g '0
N 2 N N N
Typical shapes of these functions with the modifications for positive penetration values are
represented in Figure 6.
We remark that for the choice of a parabolic potential and gL "0 the penalty method can be
N
recovered simply by imposing FK "0 and KK "0 if g (0. In this case the value KK when g *0
N N
corresponds to the penalty parameter.
If the starting value, FK , is lower than FM then a small penetration will take place, but the solution
will be better then the one obtained by the penalty approach. If FK is larger than FM then the
solution leads to an opening of the contact. In this case the solution will be better than the one
obtained with barrier method. Both cases are depicted in Figure 7.
The definition of input data is associated with the same difficulties that are also present in other
methods. A reasonable maximum value for KK should be estimated. The other parameter, FK , which
is required is the starting value for the contact pressure.
If a solution with gL very close to zero is required then augmentation-like cycles, see Reference
N
11, can be performed to update the target force FK and to improve the solution. By this update
procedure FK will be set to the exact one, FM , within the solution process. Then the constraint g "0
N
can be satisfied with respect to the machine precision. Augmentation can also be used as a method
to avoid ill-conditioning problems.
It should be remarked that the standard update of the forces in the augmented Lagrangian
technique within the penalty method is different from the update of the target force FK in the
present method. The proposed update does not act on the external force field, but it modifies the
non-linear contact stiffness by updating the target value of equation (11b)
i`1
a
FK a`1"F (30)
where a#1 indicates the new augmentation cycle and i#1 is the last iteration cycle for which
convergence has been achieved.
Equation (24) shows that this modification affects directly P, F and K by means of equa-
tion (23). The contact stiffness curve is hence modified in such a way that the contact force
computed with a certain penetration will be associated with g "0 after the augmentation, as
N
represented in Figure 8.
Another important remark concerns the fact that acceleration schemes can be applied without
particular regards to a possible gap opening. The method works with a small penetration as well
Figure 6. Representative shape of the adopted functions
as with a small gap hence it is more robust with respect to other methods if acceleration schemes
are applied. In this case equation (30) is associated with
KK a`1"tKK a (31)
at each augmentation. In (31) t'1 defines the increment of the stiffness value at g "0. If
N
acceleration schemes are applied within augmentation12 then it can be advantageous to start with
a low KK .
Figure 7. Penetration associated with the selected curve
Figure 8. Updating of the contact force curve due to augmentation
5. CONTINUUM FORMULATION
We consider the problem of a contact betwen two bodies )1 and )2. The boundary, !c, of each
body )c is subdivided in three different zones. !c denotes the part where forces are applied, ! c is
F D
the part with prescribed displacements and !c denotes the contact surfaces.
C
!1"!1 X!1 X!1 , !2"!2 X!2 X!2 (32)
F D C F D C
If the two bodies do not interact the solution of the mechanical problem is obtained by the
minimization of the functional expressing the total potential energy. Let us define the current
coordinates x()c) as xc. Then the total potential energy yields
%(x1, x2)"%1(x1)#%2(x2) N min (33)
The standard approach for contact problems distinguishes the two states: contact open—
contact closed. Usually, a modification of the functional governing the unconstrained problem is
applied only within one of the two states. For example, both penalty and Lagrangian multiplier
methods modify the unconstrained potential only when contact takes place, the barrier method
instead modifies the potential when the contact is open. The present formulation is insensitive to
the gap status. The original problem governed by equation (2) is transformed to
%(x1, x2)"%1(x1)#%2(x2)#
P! P(gN (x1, x2)) d! N min
#
(34)
where P is defined by equation (10).

The general form of the contribution due to the contact can be particularized using equa-
tion (29)
P
G H
L
(kL eag ) d! N if g )0
N
%(x1, x2)"%1(x1)#%2(x2)# ! # N min (35)
P! AkL #FK gN# 2 g2NB d!

KK
if g '0
N
#
where in this case FK and KK are referred to a unit surface. The variation of equation (35) which
denotes the weak form of the equilibrium yields
P
G H
L
FK eag dg d! N if g )0
N N
d%(x1, x2)"d%1(x1)#d%2(x2)# ! # "0 (36)
P! (FK #KK gN )dgN d!

#
if g '0
N
So far we have not defined the gap function, g in a proper way. However, this can be found for
N
the continuum case in the literature, see e.g. References 13 and 14.
6. NUMERICAL FORMULATION
A discretization of the unconstrained continuum problem can be carried out by using standard
methods, see Reference 15, hence we focus only on the discretization of contact constraints.
For the discretization of contact constraints there exist many different approaches. The early
ones enforce these constraints on a nodal basis, see e.g. Reference 16. Further, developments have
lead to contact elements, see e.g. Reference 17, which incorporate the contact pressure. For
problems undergoing large deformations the so-called node-to-segment element has been applied
successfully, see e.g. References 18 and 19, but also other segment elements, see Reference 20, have
been developed. Here we will employ a version of the node-to-segment element, see Reference 4,
which leads to the following discretization:
Nc AiFK eaL giN dgi

P G
if g )0
d P(g (x1, x2)) d!" + N N (37)
N Ai(FK #KK gi )dgi if g '0
!# i/1 N N N
where N denotes the number of nodes in the contact area.
c
Equation (37) shows that the gap function, gi and the element area, Ai have to be defined.
N
Due to the fact that the scope of the paper is to show the characteristics of the proposed
method, we do not discuss sophisticated contact discretizations. Thus, we have implemented in
the actual formulation a simple node-to-node contact element for geometrically linear problems,
see e.g. Reference 21, and a node-to-segment contact element4 which permits large sliding
between the surfaces. The numerical formulation for the node-to-node contact element can be
recovered by a particularization of the node-to-segment approach, hence we discuss only the last
one.
The chosen geometry distinguishes between a master and a slave surface. Each node of the
slave surface is checked with respect to the segment containing its projection. It permits a nodal
wise definition of the gap function also called approach
g "!(x !x ) · n (38)
N S 1
Figure 9. Geometry of the contact element
where n is the unit vector orthogonal to the segment 12; vectors x and x identify the position of
S 1
nodes S and 1, see Figure 9. Within this formulation the contact area Ai is defined according to
Reference 4.
Linearization of equation (37) is carried out to obtain the tangent matrix which has to be used
in a full-Newton scheme
Nc dgi FK eaL giN *Ai#dgi AiKK eaL giN *gi #AiFK eaL giN *dgi
*d
P!#
P(g (x1, x2)) d!" +
N
i/1
N
G N N
dgi (FK #KK gi )*Ai#dgi AiKK *gi #Ai(FK #KK gi )*dgi
N N N N
N
N N
(39)
The linearized equation set can be expressed in a concise way by introducing the following
notations:
G G
¹ "FK eaL giN ¹ "FK #KK gi
A A N
¹ "AiKK eaL giN if g )0 ¹ "AiKK if g '0 (40)
gN N gN N
¹ "AiFK eaL giN ¹ "Ai(FK #KK gi )
dgN dgN N
With these quantities the expressions for a single element will be the following:
*d
P! P(gN (x1, x2)) d!"dgiN¹A *Ai#dgiN¹g *giN#Ai¹dg *dgiN
#
N N
(41)
In case of the geometrically linear node-to-node contact element the first and the last term
vanishes.
Matrix notation is needed for the finite element implementation. The general structure of the
discrete equations in matrix form can be found for the discretization discussed above in
References 4 and 19. Thus, we state here only the final results and the changes due to the proposed
method. Let us introduce the displacement vector u which points from the reference configuration
X to the current configuration x"X#u. Then the matrix equation can be stated as
G (u)"G1(u)#G2(u)#R "0 (42)

# #
where Gc is the residual of the continuum part and R denotes the contact residual.
#
With the definition of the matrix
n
N " !(1!m)n (43)
S
!mn
we obtain the contact residual as
N#
R"+ ¹ N (44)
# dgN S
S/1
The tangent matrix can be derived from equation (41) by formulating the matrix expressions for
dg , *A and *dg , as discussed in Reference 4. This leads to the tangent matrix for the contact
N N
contribution of each node
C D
!1 g
K" N TT# N N NT#T NT ¹ #N NT ¹ #N TT ¹ (45)
# l 0 S l 0 0 S 0 dgN S S gN S G A
where N , T and T are defined as

0 S G
t 0 t !t
AS SB
T " !(1!m)t , N " !n , T " !t (46)
S 0 G AS
!mt n t
SB
In case of the geometrically linear node-to-node element equations (44) and (45) reduce to
N#
R " + ¹ N1 , K "N1 N1 T ¹ (47)
# dgN S # S S gN
S/1
where
C D
n
N1 " (48)
S !n
The scheme of the numerical algorithm with the possibility of augmentation is summarized in
Box 1.
Box 1. Scheme of the algorithm within one load step
Set initial values

LOOP over pseudo-augmentations: a"1, . . . , convergence
LOOP over iterations: i"1, . . . , convergence
solve
2 i`1 NC i`1 i`1
G " + Gc(u a`1 )# + ¹ a`1 N a`1"0
# dgN S
c/1 S/1
check for convergence: EG E)TOL N convergence
C
END LOOP
LOOP over contact elements: S"1, N
#
update force solution curve:
i`1 i`1
Fa`1(0)"Fa(g a ) N FK a`1"FK ae!ˆ !gaN
N
update max tangent stiffness:
KK a`1"tKK a
check constraint condition:
Ega`1!ga E)TOL N convergence
N N
END LOOP
END LOOP
7. EXAMPLES
The examples show the efficiency of the procedure and the most relevant characteristics. The
results are compared with the ones obtained by using standard penalty or augmented Lagrangian
methods.
An often used test which clearly shows the characteristics of the formulation is the contact
of an elastic block with a rigid foundation. The geometry of the block is reported in Figure 10.
We use material parameters as in Reference 22: Young’s modulus E"1000, Poisson’s ratio
l"0)3. A uniform displacement equal to 0)32 is imposed at the top of the block and the
solution is improved using also augmentations. For this test a"0 has been chosen to avoid
tractions. A linearization of the exponential function, when the gap is closed, has also been
used, see e.g. Figure 6, and the maximum value of the contact tangent stiffness is KK "1 ) e#5.
The problem has been solved by applying different values for the initial contact pressure. As
discussed in Section 3, the penalty method is recovered when this parameter is selected equal to
zero.
The correct solution of the contact pressure for the imposed displacement at the top is
P "175)8243. The following values have been used as initial pressures: PK "0, PK "100, PK "170,
%9
PK "180, PK "1000, PK "10 000. The penetration associated with the converged solution for the
above values of the initial pressure is represented in Figure 11. It is evident that if the initial
pressure is lower than P the solution will produce a small penetration. Such penetration will
%9
diminish when the initial pressure is close to P . The limit case P"0, which correspond to the
%9
penalty method will produce the highest penetration. On the opposite, if the initial pressure is
higher than P the solution will exhibit a certain opening. The opening can become large if a very
%9
high initial pressure is selected.
Since for positive penetrations the constraint function (29) is linearized the method converges
within one load step in one iteration, see Figure 11. Such behaviour takes place when the initial
pressure, PK , is lower than P . This is, of course, not the case for a more general non-linear
%9
problem.
Figure 10. Geometry and discretization of the block
Figure 11. Penetration at convergence without augmentations
If augmentations are applied the improvement of the solution is monitored by the residual of
the constraints which check the variation of the approach between two augmentations
R"J(ga`1!ga ) (49)
N N
For all tested cases the minimization of the residual of constraints to R"1 ) e!18 requires 7 or
8 augmentations, as reported in Figure 12. It should be remarked that if more augmentations are
performed the penetration oscillates around zero, but due to the continuity of the adopted
contact force relationship the solution does not diverge. For this problem the global effort
required for the solution depends strongly on the estimation of the initial contact pressure, PK .
Results reported in Figure 13 show that the best efficiency is obtained when the initial contact
pressure is underestimated. This behaviour is due to the fact that the contact function (29) is linear
when the solution is approached starting from positive penetration values.
The next example shows the stability of the proposed method when compared to the penalty
formulation. It is well known that within a Newton procedure the intermediate solutions
can oscillate around the correct one. This fact can be very cumbersome in the presence of
contact elements, because a completely different answer is produced when changing the gap
status. Thus, a solution may oscillate continuously between two not converged states having
a different number of gap closed. This behaviour occurs when an elastic ring is pressed
between two rigid plates. The following data have been used: outer radius R "8, inner radius
%
R "6, Young’s modulus E"1000, Poisson’s ratio l"0)3. The penalty solution has been
*
obtained using a contact stiffness K"1 ) e#5. To have a close analogy to the penalty
method the cross-constraints method has been applied using the same reference stiffness with-
out initial pressure: KK "1 ) e#5, PK "0, Moreover a linearization of equation (29) for positive
Figure 12. Minimization of residual of constraints
Figure 13. Global effort for the improvement of the solution
penetration has been used. The finite element model is depicted in Figure 14. A unit downward
displacement has been applied to the upper plate at the first step. This displacement field
activates three contact elements per plate. Due to the chosen data the convergence behaviour
within the first step yields exactly the same results using both methods. The residual norm
Figure 14. Geometry of the ring test
Figure 15. Contact forces after the first augmentation—penalty method
after six iterations is equal to EG E" 0)9e!10, the penetration in the contact elements are
#
g "0)19e!3 and g "g "0)13e!3. If an augmentation is applied the first iteration produces
1 2 3
an opening of contact elements 2 and 3, due to the penetration g "g "!0)45e!6. This
2 3
causes a jump in the contact force to zero in case of the penalty method. In the following
iterations an oscillation is generated and convergence is not obtained anymore. This behaviour is
depicted in Figure 15, where the contact force is shown with respect to the iterations following the
first augmentation.
If we compare these results with the ones obtained by the cross-constraints method we observe
the key difference in the second iteration, where the cross-constraints method still gives a contact
force even if a small opening of the contact takes place. Such stabilization of the contact force
Figure 16. Contact forces after the first augmentation—cross-constraints method
Figure 17. Geometry of the sealing test
field, which values are reported in Figure 16, permits to achieve convergence with only three
iterations. Thus, the new algorithm is stable and permits to force the augmentations till the
penetration reaches the machine limit.
From a general point of view the cross-constraints method is more stable since it uses a smooth
function to represent the constraints.
Figure 18. Deformed configuration for *"0)5, *"2)0 and *"5)5
The intrinsic stability of the method is proved also by a third example, where the flattening of
a double curved sealing is investigated. The original shape is given by two circular arcs with outer
radius R "10 and inner radius R "9. The geometry and discretization of the problem is shown
% %
in Figure 17. The initial distance of the two rigid plates is d "7. The same material and contact
0
data as in the previous test have been used.
A downward displacement equal to 0)5 is imposed at the upper plate at each step, till a total
displacement of 5)5 is reached. The complete closure of the sealing is then obtained by applying
five more steps with size 0)1. Intermediate configurations at the imposed displacements 0)5, 2)0
and 5)5 are reported in Figure 18. The evolution of the deformation of the sealing causes a shift of
the upper and lower contact points toward the middle. Then with increasing displacement a new
Figure 19. Vertical stresses for *"5)5, *"5)9 and *"6)0
Table I. Rate of convergence of the sealing test
Iterations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
d"0)5 0)43e#4 0)18e#4 0)34e#3 0)29e#3 0)33e#2 0)22e#0 0)55e!6 0)40e!10

d"1)0 0)68e#4 0)11e#4 0)87e#2 0)27e#2 0)14e#1 0)99e!5 0)10e!9
d"1)5 0)68e#4 0)10e#4 0)11e#3 0)71e#1 0)89e!1 0)22e!6 0)20e!9
d"2)0 0)68e#4 0)10e#4 0)11e#3 0)77e#0 0)60e!5 0)29e!9
d"2)5 0)68e#4 0)93e#3 0)28e#2 0)52e#1 0)91e!4 0)17e!8
d"3)0 0)13e#5 0)15e#4 0)21e#3 0)21e#2 0)60e!1 0)65e!7 0)46e!9
d"3)5 0)13e#5 0)15e#4 0)21e#3 0)37e#2 0)29e#1 0)25e!4 0)54e!9
d"4)0 0)13e#5 0)13e#4 0)89e#2 0)24e#1 0)20e!4 0)53e!9
d"4)5 0)13e#5 0)14e#4 0)91e#2 0)78e#0 0)60e!5 0)65e!9
d"5)0 0)17e#5 0)33e#4 0)11e#4 0)13e#3 0)75e#0 0)11e!3 0)81e!9
d"5)5 0)25e#5 0)81e#4 0)53e#3 0)24e#3 0)69e#2 0)13e#2 0)31e!1 0)58e!8
d"5)6 0)66e#4 0)24e#3 0)82e#0 0)11e!4 0)92e!9
d"5)7 0)66e#4 0)24e#3 0)84e#1 0)12e!1 0)16e!8
d"5)8 0)66e#4 0)38e#3 0)36e#2 0)16e#0 0)24e!6 0)99e!9
d"5)9 0)66e#4 0)50e#3 0)53e#2 0)54e#1 0)65e!3 0)81e!9
d"6)0 0)69e#4 0)14e#4 0)71e#2 0)12e#0 0)20e!5 0)93e!9
contact point occurs at the upper right corner of the sealing. Due to this the lower contact zone
duplicates and the new zones move in opposite directions doing further loading. This trend is
clearly shown in Figure 19, where the vertical stress state is reported for three different configura-
tions. Table I shows the good convergence behaviour of the cross-constraints method, with
quadratic convergence near the solution point.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The cross-constraints method has been presented to deal with constraint inequalities in contact
mechanics. This method has the following advantages:
(1) it permits a smooth treatment of the contact constraints near the limit, since it yields
solutions for gap closure as well as for gap opening;
(2) it can be combined with an augmentation scheme to avoid ill-conditioning and to improve
enforcement of the contact constraints.
As has been shown in the numerical test examples the iteration scheme is more stable than the
penalty method. Furthermore, standard methods like the barrier and the penalty method can be
recovered as limit cases.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Support for this work was partially provided by CRE—under VIGONI Program, this support is
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. D. G. Luenberger, ¸inear and Nonlinear Programming, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1984.
2. J. A. Greenwood and J. B. P. Williamson, ‘The contact of nominally flat surfaces’, Proc. Roy. Soc. ¸ondon, 295-A,
300—319 (1966).
3. G. Zavarise, ‘Problemi Termomeccanici di Contatto—Aspetti Fisici e Computazionali’, Ph.D. ¹hesis, Ist. di Scienza
e Tecnica delle Costruzioni, Univ. of Padua, Italy, 1991.
4. G. Zavarise, P. Wriggers, E. Stein and B. A. Schrefler, ‘Real contact mechanisms and finite element formulation—a
coupled thermomechanical approach’, Int J. Numer. Meth. Engng., 35, 767—785 (1992).
5. G. Zavarise and B. A. Schrefler, ‘Numerical analysis of microscopically elastic contact problems’, Proc. 2nd CMIS,
Contact Mechanics Int. Symp., M. Raous, M. Jean and J. J. Moreau (eds.), Carry-Le-Rouet, France, Plenum, Publ.,
Oxford, 1995.
6. A. L. Eterovic and K. J. Bathe, ‘On the treatment of inequality constraints arising from contact conditions in finite
element analysis’, Comput. Struct. 40(2), 203—209 (1991).
7. K. J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1995.
8. K. J. Bathe and P. A. Bouzinov, ‘On the constraint function method for contact problems’, Comput. Struct., to appear.
9. A. R. Johnson and C. J. Quigley, ‘Frictionless geometrically non-linear contact using quadratic programming’, Int. J.
Numer. Meth. Engng., 28, 127—144 (1989).
10. G. Zavarise and P. Wriggers, ‘Elasto-plastic contact problems solved by the cross-constraints method’, in IV Int.
Conf. on Computational Plasticity, Barcelona, D. R. J. Owen, E. On8 ate and E. Hinton (eds.), Pineridge Press,
Swansea, 1995, pp. 2261—2270.
11. D. P. Bertsekas, Constrained Optimization and ¸agrange Multiplier Methods, Computer Science and Applied
Mathematics, Academic Press, New York, 1982.
12. P. Wriggers and G. Zavarise, ‘Application of augmented lagrangian techniques for non-linear constitutive laws in
contact interface’, Commun. Appl. Numer. Meth. Engng., 9, 815—824 (1993).
13. P. Wriggers and C. Miehe, ‘Contact constraints within coupled thermomechanical analysis—a finite element model’,
Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng., 113, 301—319 (1994).
14. T. A. Laursen and J. C. Simo, ‘A continuum-based finite element formulation for the implicit solution of multibody,
large deformation frictional contact problems’, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng., 36, 3451—3485 (1993).
15. O. C. Zienkiewicz and R. L. Taylor, ¹he Finite Element Method, 4th edn., McGraw-Hill, London, 1989.
16. A. Francavilla, O. C. Zienkiewicz, ‘A note on numerical computation of elastic contact problems’, Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Engng., 9, 913—924 (1975).
17. J. C. Simo, P. Wriggers and R. L. Taylor, ‘A perturbed Lagrangian formulation for the finite element solution of
contact problems’, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng., 51, 163—180 (1985).
18. J. O. Hallquist, G. L. Goudreau and D. J. Benson, ‘Sliding interfaces with contact impact in large-scale Lagrangian
computations’, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng., 50, 107—137 (1985).
19. P. Wriggers and J. C. Simo, ‘A note on tangent stiffness for fully nonlinear contact problems’, Commun. Appl. Numer.
Meth., 1, 199—203 (1985).
20. P. Papadopoulos and R. L. Taylor, ‘A mixed formulation for the finite element solution of contact problems’, Comput.
Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng., 94, 373—389 (1992).
21. P. Wriggers and G. Zavarise, ‘Thermomechanical contact—a rigorous but simple numerical approach’, Comput.
Struct., 46(1), 47—53 (1993).
22. J. T. Oden and E. B. Pires, ‘Algorithms and numerical results for finite element approximations of contact problems
with non-classical friction laws’, Comput. Struct., 19(1), 137—147 (1984).

A Method For Solving Contact Problems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Method For Solving Contact Problems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

A Method For Solving Contact Problems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 42, 473—498 (1998)

A METHOD FOR SOLVING CONTACT PROBLEMS

G. ZAVARISE1,*, P. WRIGGERS2 AND B. A. SCHREFLER1

KEY WORDS: finite element; penalty; barrier; cross-constraints; constrained minimisation

Contract/grant sponsor: CRE

CCC 0029—5981/98/030473—26$17.50 Received 23 February 1995

2. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT CONTACT MECHANICS

with H(x)#P(x, F):H(x) if g (x)(0 (3)

dH(x)#dP(x, F)"0 (4)

P! p(x, F) d!"P! A Lx LgN dgN#LF dFB d!

3. THE METHOD OF CROSS-CONSTRAINTS

PI (g ) smooth P(g ) smooth

P@(g )"FM (7)

Figure 2. Qualitative graph of the modified potential

k'0, a'0, 0)a(1 (12)

FK "F(g "0)"ka(1!a) (15)

which follows from equation (13)

Here we have used equations'

Figure 3. Normalized position and normalized value of the minimum

Figure 4. Potential modifications with respect to the penetration

and obtain from (10), (13) and (14)

4. TUNING OF THE ALGORITHM

P"k(ea'N!1), F"kaeagN, K"ka2eagN (25)

lim (P)"k (26)

P"kL eaL gN (27)

P"kL eaL gN, F"FK eaL gN, K"KK eaL gN (28)

Figure 6. Representative shape of the adopted functions

Figure 7. Penetration associated with the selected curve

Figure 8. Updating of the contact force curve due to augmentation

where P is defined by equation (10).

P! AkL #FK gN# 2 g2NB d!

P! (FK #KK gN )dgN d!

Nc AiFK eaL giN dgi

Figure 9. Geometry of the contact element

G (u)"G1(u)#G2(u)#R "0 (42)

we obtain the contact residual as

contribution of each node

where N , T and T are defined as

Box 1. Scheme of the algorithm within one load step

Set initial values

Figure 10. Geometry and discretization of the block

Figure 11. Penetration at convergence without augmentations

Figure 12. Minimization of residual of constraints

Figure 13. Global effort for the improvement of the solution

Figure 14. Geometry of the ring test

Figure 15. Contact forces after the first augmentation—penalty method

Figure 16. Contact forces after the first augmentation—cross-constraints method

Figure 17. Geometry of the sealing test

Figure 18. Deformed configuration for *"0)5, *"2)0 and *"5)5

Figure 19. Vertical stresses for *"5)5, *"5)9 and *"6)0

Table I. Rate of convergence of the sealing test

d"0)5 0)43e#4 0)18e#4 0)34e#3 0)29e#3 0)33e#2 0)22e#0 0)55e!6 0)40e!10

You might also like

Figure 18. Deformed configuration for "0)5, "2)0 and *"5)5

Figure 19. Vertical stresses for "5)5, "5)9 and *"6)0