CHAP 5

Finite Element Analysis of Contact Problem

Nam-Ho Kim

1
 Introduction
• Contact is boundary nonlinearity
– The graph of contact force versus displacement becomes vertical
– Both displacement and contact force are unknown in the interface
• Objective of contact analysis
1. Whether two or more bodies are in contact
2. Where the location or region of contact is
3. How much contact force or pressure occurs in the interface
4. If there is a relative motion after contact in the interface
• Finite element analysis procedure for contact problem
1. Find whether a material point in the boundary of a body is in
contact with the other body
2. If it is in contact, the corresponding contact force must be
calculated
2
 Introduction
• Equilibrium of elastic system:
– finding a displacement field that minimizes the potential energy
• Contact condition (constrained minimization)
– the potential is minimized while satisfying the contact constraint
• Convert to unconstrained optimization
– Can be solved using either the penalty method or Lagrange
multiplier method
• Slave-master concept for contact implementation
– the nodes on the slave boundary cannot penetrate the surface
elements on the master boundary

3
 Goals
• Learn the computational difficulty in boundary nonlinearity
• Understand the concept of variational inequality and its
relation with the constrained optimization
• Learn how to impose contact constraint and friction
constraints using penalty method
• Understand difference between Lagrange multiplier
method and penalty method
• Learn how to integrate contact constraint with the
structural variational equation
• Learn how to implement the contact constraints in finite
element analysis
• Understand collocational integration

4
5.2

1D CONTACT EXAMPLES

5
 Contact Problem – Boundary Nonlinearity
• Contact problem is categorized as boundary nonlinearity
• Body 1 cannot penetrate Body 2 (impenetrability)

Body 2 Body 1

Contact stress (compressive)

Contact boundary
• Why nonlinear?
– Both contact boundary and contact Contact force
stress are unknown!!!
– Abrupt change in contact force
(difficult in NR iteration)
Penetration
6
 Why are contact problems difficult?
• Unknown boundary Body 1
– Contact boundary is unknown a priori
Body 2
– It is a part of solution
– Candidate boundary is often given
• Abrupt change in force
– Extremely discontinuous force profile
Contact force
– When contact occurs, contact force
cannot be determined from displacement
– Similar to incompressibility (Lagrange
multiplier or penalty method)
Penetration
• Discrete boundary
– In continuum, contact boundary varies smoothly
– In numerical model, contact boundary varies node to node
– Very sensitive to boundary discretization

7
 Contact of a Cantilever Beam with a Rigid Block
• q = 1 kN/m, L = 1 m, EI = 105 N∙m2, initial gap  = 1 mm
• Trial-and-error solution
– First assume that the deflection is smaller than the gap

qx2 qL4
vN (x)  (x2  6L2  4Lx), vN (L)   0.00125m
24EI 8EI
– Since vN(L) > , the assumption is wrong, the beam will be in
contact

8
Cantilever Beam Contact with a Rigid Block cont.
• Trial-and-error solution cont.
– Now contact occurs. Contact in one-point (tip).
– Contact force, l, to prevent penetration

lx2 l
vc (x)  (3L  x), vc (L) 
6EI 3  105
– Determine the contact force from tip displacement = gap

l
vtip  vN (L)  vc (L)  0.00125  5
 0.001  
3  10
l  75N
v(x)  vN (x)  vc (x)

9
Cantilever Beam Contact with a Rigid Block cont.
• Solution using contact constraint
– Treat both contact force and gap as unknown and add constraint
qx2 l x2
v(x)  (x2  6L2  4Lx)  (3L  x)
24EI 6EI
– When l = 0, no contact. Contact occurs when l > 0. l < 0 impossible
– Gap condition: g  vtip    0

10
Cantilever Beam Contact with a Rigid Block cont.
• Solution using contact constraint cont.
– Contact condition
No penetration: g≤0
Positive contact force: l ≥ 0
Consistency condition: lg = 0
– Lagrange multiplier method
 l 
lg  l  0.00025  5 
0
 3  10 
– When l = 0N  g = 0.00025 > 0  violate contact condition
– When l = 75N  g = 0  satisfy contact condition

Lagrange multiplier, l, is the contact force

11
Cantilever Beam Contact with a Rigid Block cont.
• Penalty method
– Small penetration is allowed, and contact force is proportional to it
– Penetration function
1
N   g  g  N = 0 when g ≤ 0
N = g when g > 0
2
– Contact force
l  KN N KN: penalty parameter

– From g  vtip    0
KN 1
g  0.00025  5 2
 g  g
3  10
– Gap depends on penalty parameter

12
Cantilever Beam Contact with a Rigid Block cont.
• Penalty method cont.
– Large penalty allows small penetration

Penalty parameter Penetration (m) Contact force (N)

3×105 1.25×10−4 37.50
3×106 2.27×10−5 68.18
3×107 2.48×10−6 74.26
3×108 2.50×10−7 74.92
3×109 2.50×10−8 75.00

13
 Beam Contact with Friction
• Sequence: q is applied first, followed by the axial load P
• Assume no friction P=100N, =0.5

no-friction PL
utip   1.0mm
EA

• Frictional constraint
Stick condition: t  l  0, utip  0
t: tangential friction force
Slip condition: t  l  0, utip  0
Consistency condition: u
tip (t  l)  0

14
 Beam Contact with Friction cont.
1. Trial-and-error solution
– First assume stick condition
PL tL
utip    0,  t  P  100N
EA EA
Violate t  l  0
– Next, try slip condition t  l  37.5N

PL tL
utip    0.625mm
EA EA
Satisfies utip > 0, therefore, valid

15
 Beam Contact with Friction cont.
2. Solution using frictional constraint (Lagrange multiplier)
– Use consistency condition utip (t  l)  0
– Choose utip as a Lagrange multiplier and t-l as a constraint

 EA 
utip  P  utip  l   0
 L 

– When utip = 0, t = P, and t – l = 62.5 > 0, violate the stick condition

– When
(P  l)L
utip   0.625mm  0
EA
t = l and the slip condition is satisfied, valid solution

16
 Beam Contact with Friction cont.
3. Penalty method
– Penalize when t – l > 0
1
T   t  l  t  l 
2
– Slip displacement and frictional force

utip  KT T KT: penalty parameter for tangential slip

– When t – l < 0 (stick), utip = 0 (no penalization)

– When t – l > 0 (slip), penalize to stay close t = l
– Friction force

EA
t P utip
L
17
 Beam Contact with Friction cont.
• Penalty method cont.
KT L(P  l)
– Tip displacement utip 
L  KT EA
(P  l)L EA
– For large KT, utip  t P utip  l
EA L

Penalty parameter Tip displacement (m) Frictional force (N)

1×10−4 5.68×10−4 43.18
1×10−3 6.19×10−4 38.12
1×10−2 6.24×10−4 37.56
1×10−1 6.25×10−4 37.50
1×100 6.25×10−4 37.50

18
 Observations
• Due to unknown contact boundary, contact point should be
found using either direct search (trial-and-error) or
nonlinear constraint equation

– Both methods requires iterative process to find contact boundary

and contact force

– Contact function replace the abrupt change in contact condition

with a smooth but highly nonlinear function

• Friction force calculation depends on the sequence of load

application (Path-dependent)

• Friction function regularizes the discontinuous friction

behavior to a smooth one

19
5.3

GENERAL FORMULATION OF
CONTACT PROBLEMS

20
 General Contact Formulation
• Contact between a flexible body and a rigid body
• Point x W contacts to xc rigid surface (param x)
xc  xc (x)
• How to find xc(x) xc,x
t
et  
(xc )  ( x  xc (xc ))T et (xc )  0 t xc,x
Unit tangent vector
– Closest projection onto the rigid surface

Gc x
gn e
en t
xc0 Rigid Body
xc
x gt
21
 Contact Formulation cont.
• Gap function
gn  ( x  xc (xc ))T en (xc )

• Impenetrability condition
gn  0, x  Gc
• Tangential slip function
gt  t 0 (xc  xc0 )
boundary that has a
possibility of contact
Parameter at the
previous contact point

Gc x
gn e
en t
xc0 Rigid Body
xc
x gt

22
 Ex) Project to a Parabola
• Projection of x={3, 1} to y = x2
4

• Let xc = {x, x2}T 3 y = x2

xc,x 1 1 
et     2
xc en
xc,x 2 2x gn
1  4x  
1 x
1  2x 
en  et  k   
2 1
0
1  4x  
0 1 2 3 4

• Projection point
3
3  x  2x xc = 1.29
(x)  ( x  xc (x))T et (x)  0
xc = {1.29, 1.66}
1  4x2
• Gap
x2c  6xc  1
gn  ( x  xc )T en   1.83
1  4x2c
23
 Variational Inequality
• Governing equation
     fb  0 xW

u  0 x  Gg
 n  f s x  Gs


• Contact conditions (small deformation)

uT en  gn  0 

n  0  x  Gc
n ( uT en  gn )  0 

• Contact set (convex)


K  w  [H1 (W)]N w G g  0 and wT en  gn  0 on Gc 
satisfies all kinematic constraints (displacement conditions)
24
 Variational Inequality cont.
• Variational equation with ū = w – u (i.e., w is arbitrary)
W ijij (w  u) dW   W ij,j (wi  ui ) dW  G G s
c
ijnj (wi  ui ) dG

ij,j  fi b ( x  W), ijnj  fi s ( x  Gs )

W ijij (w  u) dW  ( w  u)  G c
ijnj (wi  ui ) dG

G G
ijnj (wi  ui ) dG  n (wn  un ) dG Since it is arbitrary, we
c c
don’t know the value, but
 n (wn  gn  un  gn ) dG it is non-negative
G c

 n (wn  gn ) dG  0
G c

W ijij (w  u) dW  ( w  u), w  K

Variational inequality for contact problem

25
 Illustration of Projection
a( u, w  u)  ( w  u), w  K

• If the solution u’ is out of set ,

it is projected to u on
• Beam deflection example
(rigid block with initial gap of 1mm)
• v’(x): beam deflection without rigid block v 
– Contact condition is violated (penetration to the block)
• v(x): projection of v’(x) onto convex set
x 10-3
– by applying the contact force 0

0.4 v(x)
0.8 v'(x)

1.2
Rigid block
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 26
 Variational Inequality cont.
• For large deformation problem


K  w  [H1 (W)]N w G g 
 0 and ( x  xc (xc ))T en  0 on Gc .

• Variational inequality is not easy to solve directly

• We will show that V.I. is equivalent to constrained
optimization of total potential energy
• The constraint will be imposed using either penalty method
or Lagrange multiplier method

27
 Potential Energy and Directional Derivative
• Potential energy
( u)  21 a( u, u)  ( u)

• Directional derivative
d
d
 ( u  v ) 
 0
 dd  21 a( u  v, u  v )  ( u  v ) 
 0
 21 a( u, v )  21 a( v, u)  ( u)
 a( u, v )  ( u)

• Directional derivative of potential energy

D( u), v  a( u, v )  ( v )

• For variational inequality

a( u, w  u)  ( w  u)  D( u), w  u  0, w  K
28
 Equivalence
• V.I. is equivalent to constrained optimization
– For arbitrary w

( w)  ( u)  21 a( w, w)  ( w)  21 a( u, u)  ( u)  a( u, w  u)  a( u, w  u)
 a( u, w  u)  ( w  u)  21 a( w, w)  a( u, w)  21 a( u, u)
 D( u), w  u  21 a( w  u, w  u) non-negative

 ( w)  ( u)  D( u), w  u w  K

• Thus, (u) is the smallest potential energy in

( u)  min ( w)  min  21 a( w, w)  ( w) 
wK wK

– Unique solution if and only if (w) is a convex function and set is

closed convex

29
 Constrained Optimization
• PMPE minimizes the potential energy in the kinematically
admissible space
• Contact problem minimizes the same potential energy in
the contact constraint set

K  w  [H1 (W)]N w G g  0 and ( x  xc )T en  0 on Gc 
gn  0 on Gc
• The constrained optimization problem can be converted
into unconstrained optimization problem using the penalty
method or Lagrange multiplier method
– If gn < 0, penalize (u) using

1 1
2
P  n  gn dG  t  gt2 dG
2 GC 2 GC

penalty parameter
30
 Constrained Optimization cont.
• Penalized unconstrained optimization problem

( u)  min ( w)  min  ( w)  P( w) 
wK w

constrained unconstrained

Solution space w/o contact

Contact
force
u

uNoContact

31
 Ex) Beam Deflection with Rigid Block
• q = 1 kN/m, L = 1 m, EI = 105 N∙m2, initial gap  = 1 mm
• Assumed deflection: v(x)  a2x2  a3x3  a4 x 4
• Penalty function:
P  21 n gn2 gn    vtip    a2  a3  a4
• Penalized potential energy
1 L L 1
 a    P   EI(v,xx ) dx   qv dx  n gn2
2
2 0 0 2

32
 Ex) Beam Deflection with Rigid Block
• Stationary condition
1
 a
 4EI  n 6EI  n 8EI  n   a2   3 q  n  
0    1 
ai  6EI  n 12EI  n 18EI  n   a3    4 q  n  
 8EI   18EI   144
EI    a   1 q   
 n n 5 n  4  5 n 

• Penetration: a2 + a3 + a4 − 
• Contact force: −ngn
Penalty a1 a2 a3 Penetration (m) Contact force
parameter (N)
3×105 2.31×10−3 -1.60×10−3 4.17×10−4 1.25×10−4 37.50
3×106 2.16×10−3 -1.55×10−3 4.17×10−4 2.27×10−5 68.18
3×107 2.13×10−3 -1.54×10−3 4.17×10−4 2.48×10−6 74.26
3×108 2.13×10−3 -1.54×10−3 4.17×10−4 2.50×10−7 74.92
3×109 2.13×10−3 -1.54×10−3 4.17×10−4 2.50×10−8 75.00
True value 2.13×10−3 -1.54×10−3 4.17×10−4 0.0 75.00

33
 Variational Equation
• Structural Equilibrium
( u; u )  P( u; u )  0 a( u, u )  ( u )  P( u; u )  0

P( u; u )  n  gn gn dG  t  gt gt dG  b( u, u )
GC GC
need to express in terms
bN ( u, u ) bT ( u, u ),
of u and ū

• Variational equation
a( u, u )  b( u, u )  ( u ), u 

34
 Frictionless Contact Formulation
• Variation of the normal gap
gn  ( x  xc (x))T en gn  u T en

• Normal contact form

bN ( u, u )   gn u T en dG
Gc

35
 Linearization
• It is clear that bN is independent of energy form
– The same bN can be used for elastic or plastic problem
• It is nonlinear with respect to u (need linearization)
• Increment of gap function
Dgn  D  ( x  xc (x))T en   DuT en  ( x  xc (x))T Den

Dgn ( u; Du)  DuT en Den et

x  xc en

– We assume that the contact boundary is straight line Den = 0

– This is true for linear finite elements

Rigid surface
36
 Linearization cont.
• Linearization of contact form
T
bN ( u, u )   g 
u en dG
Gc

bN* ( u; Du, u )   u T en enT Du dG

Gc

• N-R iteration
a* (u; Du, u )  bN* (u; Du, u )  (u )  a(u, u )  bN (u, u ), u 

37
 Ex) Frictionless Contact of a Block
• Calculate displacement, penetration and contact force at
y
the contact interface. q

• EA = 105N, n = 0, q = 1.0kN/m, plane strain Contact

boundary
• Plane strain: u  {ux , uy }T u  {ux , uy }T Elastic
body
• Contact boundary: en  {0, 1}T
x
0 1
x  x, xc  { xc , 0}T , x  { xc ,uy }T Rigid body

• Gap function: gn  ( x  xc )T en  uy
• Contact form: b ( u, u )   1 u u
N n 0 y y y 0
dx
• Penalized potential energy
1 T 1 1 1 2
  P    D dA   ( q)uy dx  n  gn dx
2 A 0 y 1 2 0 y 1

38
 Ex) Frictionless Contact of a Block
• From n = 0, D becomes a diagonal matrix, decoupled x & y
• Since load is only y-direction, xx = gxy = 0
• Linear displacement in y-direction
uy  a0  a1 y uy  a0  a1 y
• Penalized potential
1 1
P  A Ea1a1 dA  0 (q)(a0  a1 ) dx  n 0 a0a0 dx  0
– Need to satisfy for arbitrary a0 , a1
q q
a0   , a1  
n EA
q q As n increases,
uy    y, 0  y  1
n EA penetration decreases but
contact force remains constant
n gn  nuy q
y 0 39
 Frictional Contact Formulation
• frictional contact depends on load history
• Frictional interface law – regularization of Coulomb law
• Friction form
bT ( u, u )  t  gt gt dG
GC
  enT xc,xx
gt  t 0 xc  nu T et
  etT xc,xx
bT ( u, u )  t  ngt u T et dG g  enT xc,xxx
Gc
2
c t  gn 
n  t t0 c
-ngn

t

gt

40
 Friction Force
• During stick condition, fT = tgt (t: regularization param.)
t gt  n gn

• When slip occurs, t gt  n gn

• Modified friction form

 t  ngt u T et dG, if t gt  n gn

 Gc
bT ( u, u )  
T
  n sgn(gt G
) n gn u et dG, otherwise .
c

41
 Linearization of Stick Form
• Increment of slip
Dgt ( u; Du)  t 0 Dxc  n etT Du
• Increment of tangential vector

Det  e3  Den  en ( etT Du)
c

• Incremental slip form for the stick condition

bT* ( u; Du, u )  t  n2 u T et etT Du dG

Gc

ngt T
t  u ( en etT  et enT )Du dG
Gc c

t 
ngt
Gc c2
(g t  2 )g n   t
2
u T
e T
t t D u dG
e

42
 Linearization of Slip Form
• Parameter for slip condition: t  n sgn(gt ).
• Friction form: bT ( u,u )  t  n gn u T et dG
Gc

• Linearized slip form (not symmetric!!)

bT* ( u; Du, u )  t  nu T et enT Du dG
Gc

ngn T
 t  u ( en etT  et enT )Du dG
Gc c

 t 
ngn
Gc c2 
( g t  2  )gn   t 
2
u T
e T
t t Du dG
e

43
 Ex) Frictional Slip of a Cantilever Beam
• Distributed load q  axial load P, t = 106,  = 0.5
• Contact force: Fc = –ngn = 75N
• Penalized potential energy (axial alone)
L 1
 a   EA(u,x ) dx  Pu(L)  t gt2
2
0 2 x L
L
a  0 EAu,xu,x dx  Pu(L)  tgtgt x L  0, u 

P=100N

44
 Ex) Frictional Slip of a Cantilever Beam
• Linear axial displacement field: u(x) = a0 + a1x
u(0)  0  u(x)  a1x u,x  a1 u,x  a1
• Tangential slip in terms of displacement
– Parametric coordinate x has an origin at x = L, and it has the same
length as the x-coordinate
xc,x  t  t 0  1 xc0  0 gt  xc  u(L)  a1

• Assume the stick condition: t gt  n gn

a1 (EAa1  t a1  P)  0, a1 
Px
u(x)   9.09  10 5 x
EA  t
t gt  90.9  37.5  n gn The assumption is violated!!

45
 Ex) Frictional Slip of a Cantilever Beam
• Assume the slip condition:
L
a  0 EAu,xu,x dx  Pu(L)  n sgn(gt )gngt x L  0, u 

– With contact force = 70N, n gn  37.5N

a1 (EAa1  P  37.5)  0, a1 

a1  62.5  10 5
utip  0.625mm

46
5.4

FINITE ELEMENT
FORMULATION OF
CONTACT PROBLEMS
47
 Finite Element Formulation
• Slave-Master contact
– The rigid body has fixed or prescribed displacement
– Point x is projected onto the piecewise linear segments of the
rigid body with xc (x = xc) as the projected point
– Unit normal and tangent vectors
x2  x1
et  , en  e3  et
L

Flexible body
x

g
x0
en
x1 xc0 x2
x xc et Rigid body
L
48
 Finite Element Formulation cont.
• Parameter at contact point
1
xc  ( x  x1 )T et
L

• Gap function
gn  ( x  x1 )T en  0 Impenetrability condition

• Penalty function


NC
1
P   g
2 I 1  2
 I

– Note: we don’t actually integrate the penalty function. We simply

added the integrand at all contact node
– This is called collocation (a kind of integration)
– In collocation, the integrand is function value × weight
49
 Finite Element Formulation cont.
• Contact form (normal)
NC
bN ( u, u )   gn 
d T
en I  {d }T { fc }
I 1

– (gn): contact force, proportional to the violation

– Contact form is a virtual work done by contact force through
normal virtual displacement
• Linearization
Heaviside step function
H(x) = 1 if x > 0
D gn 
 H( gn )enT Du  H( gn )enT Dd = 0 otherwise

NC NC
bN* ( u; Du, u )    H(gn ) d T
en enT DdI
 {d } T
  H(gn ) en enT I { Dd}
I 1 I 1
 { d }T [Kc ]{ Dd}

Contact stiffness 50
 Finite Element Formulation cont.
• Global finite element matrix equation for increment

{d }T [KT  Kc ]{ Dd}  { d }T { fext  fint  fc }

– Since the contact forms are independent of constitutive relation,

the above equation can be applied for different materials
• A similar approach can be used for flexible-flexible body
contact
– One body being selected as a slave and the other as a master
• Computational challenge in finding contact points
(for example, out of 10,000 possible master segments, how
can we find the one that will actually in contact?)

51
 Finite Element Formulation cont.
• Frictional slip
gt  l0 (xc  xc0 )

• Friction force and tangent stiffness (stick condition)

ftc  t gt et
ktc  t et etT
• Friction force and tangent stiffness (slip condition)
ftc  n sgn(gt )gn et , if t gt  n gn

ktc  n sgn(gt )et enT

52
5.6

CONTACT ANALYSIS
PROCEDURE AND MODELING
ISSUES
53
 Types of Contact Interface
• Weld contact
– A slave node is bonded to the master segment (no relative motion)
– Conceptually same with rigid-link or MPC
– For contact purpose, it allows a slight elastic deformation
– Decompose forces in normal and tangential directions
• Rough contact
– Similar to weld, but the contact can be separated
• Stick contact
– The relative motion is within an elastic deformation
– Tangent stiffness is symmetric,
• Slip contact
– The relative motion is governed by Coulomb friction model
– Tangent stiffness become unsymmetric

54
 Contact Search
• Easiest case
– User can specify which slave node will contact with which master
segment
– This is only possible when deformation is small and no relative
motion exists in the contact surface
– Slave and master nodes are often located at the same position and
connected by a compression-only spring (node-to-node contact)
– Works for very limited cases
• General case
– User does not know which slave node will contact with which
master segment
– But, user can specify candidates
– Then, the contact algorithm searches for contacting master
segment for each slave node
– Time consuming process, because this needs to be done at every
iteration
55
 Contact Search cont.

Node-to-surface Surface-to-surface
contact search contact search

56
 Slave-Master Contact
• Theoretically, there is no need to distinguish Body 1 from Body 2
• However, the distinction is often made for numerical convenience
• One body is called a slave body, while the other body is called a
master body
• Contact condition: the slave body cannot penetrate into the master
body
• The master body can penetrate into the slave body (physically not
possible, but numerically it’s not checked)

Master
Slave

57
 Slave-Master Contact cont.
• Contact condition between a slave node and a master segment
• In 2D, contact pair is often given in terms of {x, x1, x2}
• Slave node x is projected onto the piecewise linear segments of the
master segment with xc (x = xc) as the projected point
• Gap: g  ( x  x1 )  en  0
• g > 0: no contact
• g < 0: contact

Slave
x
x0 g
en
x1 xc 0
x2
x xc et
Master
L

58
 Contact Formulation (Two-Step Procedure)
1. Search nodes/segments that violate contact constraint

Body 1 Violated nodes

Contact candidates

Body 2

2. Apply contact force for the violated nodes/segments

(contact force)

Contact force
59
 Contact Tolerance and Load Increment
• Contact tolerance
– Minimum distance to search for contact (1% of element length)

Out of Within Out of

contact tolerance contact

• Load increment and contact detection

– Too large load increment may miss contact detection

60
 Contact Force
• For those contacting pairs, penetration needs to be
corrected by applying a force (contact force)
• More penetration needs more force
• Penalty-based contact force (compression-only spring)
FC  Kn g

• Penalty parameter (Kn): Contact stiffness

– It allows a small penetration (g < 0)
– It depends on material stiffness
– The bigger Kn, the less allowed penetration

x1 xc x2
g<0 x

FC
61
 Contact Stiffness
• Contact stiffness depends on the material stiffness of
contacting two bodies
• Large contact stiffness reduces penetration, but can
cause problem in convergence
• Proper contact stiffness can be determined from allowed
penetration (need experience)
• Normally expressed as a scalar multiple of material’s
elastic modulus
Kn  SF  E SF  1.0

• Start with small initial SF and increase it gradually until

reasonable penetration

62
 Lagrange Multiplier Method
• In penalty method, the contact force is calculated from penetration
– Contact force is a function of deformation
• Lagrange multiplier method can impose contact condition exactly
– Contact force is a Lagrange multiplier to impose impenetrability condition
– Contact force is an independent variable
• Complimentary condition

g  0 FC  0 contact
FC g  0
g  0 FC  0 no contact
• Stiffness matrix is positive semi-definite

K A  d  F 
 T     
A 0   FC   0 

• Contact force is applied in the normal direction to the master segment

63
 Observations
• Contact force is an internal force at the interface
– Newton’s 3rd law: equal and opposite forces act on interface

Np Nq

pC1 pC2 F  pci   qci

i=1 i=1
qC1 qC2 qC2

• Due to discretization, force distribution can be different,

but the resultants should be the same
64
 Contact Formulation
• Add contact force as an external force
• Ex) Linear elastic materials F

[K]{d}  {F}  {FC (d)}

pC1 pC2
Internal External Contact
force force force qC1 qC2 qC2
• Contact force depends on
displacement (nonlinear, unknown)
F
[K  KC ]{ Dd}  {F}  {FC (d)}  [K]{d}
Tangent stiffness Residual

 F 
[KC ]   C  Contact stiffness
 d 
65
 Friction Force
• So far, contact force is applied to the normal direction
– It is independent of load history (potential problem)
• Friction force is produced by a relative motion in the
interface
– Friction force is applied to the parallel direction
– It depends on load history (path dependent)
• Coulomb friction model
Body 1
Ff  FC Stick
 FC Slip
Friction force

Friction
force Contact force
Relative
motion

66
 Friction Force cont.
• Coulomb friction force is indeterminate when two bodies
are stick (no unique determination of friction force)
• In reality, there is a small elastic deformation before slip
• Regularized friction model
– Similar to elasto-perfectly-plastic model
Ff  Kt s Stick Kt: tangential stiffness
 FC Slip
Friction
force

FC
Kt Relative
motion

67
 Tangential Stiffness
• Tangential stiffness determines the stick case
Ff  Kt s Stick
 FC Slip
• It is related to shear strength of the material
Kt  SF  E SF  0.5
• Contact surface with a large Kt behaves like a rigid body
• Small Kt elongate elastic stick condition too much (inaccurate)

Friction
force

FC
Kt
Relative
motion

68
 Selection of Master and Slave
• Contact constraint
– A slave node CANNOT penetrate the master segment
– A master node CAN penetrate the slave segment
– There is not much difference in a fine mesh, but the results can
be quite different in a coarse mesh
• How to choose master and slave
– Rigid surface to a master
– Convex surface to a slave
– Fine mesh to a slave

Master
Slave

Slave Master
69
 Selection of Master and Slave

• How to prevent penetration?

– Can define master-slave pair twice by changing the role
– Some surface-to-surface contact algorithms use this
– Careful in defining master-slave pairs

Master-slave pair 2 Master-slave pair 1

70
 Flexible or Rigid Bodies?
• Flexible-Flexible Contact
– Body1 and Body2 have a similar stiffness and both can deform
• Flexible-Rigid Contact
– Stiffness of Body2 is significantly larger than that of Body1
– Body2 can be assumed to be a rigid body
(no deformation but can move)
 107 
– Rubber contacting to steel  
7
 10 
• Why not flexible-flexible?
 1 
– When two bodies have a large difference in  
stiffness, the matrix becomes ill-conditioned  1 
– Enough to model contacting surface only for Body2
• Friction in the interface
– Friction makes the contact analysis path-dependent
– Careful in the order of load application

71
 Effect of discretization
• Contact stress (pressure) is Uniform pressure
high on the edge

Slave body

• Contact stress is sensitive

Non-uniform
to discretization contact stress

72
 Rigid-Body Motion
• Contact constraint is different from displacement BC
– Contact force is proportional to the penetration amount
– A slave body between two rigid-bodies can either fly out or
oscillate between two surfaces
– Always better to remove rigid-body motion without contact

Rigid master Rigid master

Rigid master Rigid master

73
 Rigid-Body Motion
• When a body has rigid-body motion, an initial gap can
cause singular matrix (infinite/very large displacements)
• Same is true for initial overlap

Rigid master Rigid master

74
 Rigid-Body Motion
• Removing rigid-body motion
– A small, artificial bar elements can be used to remove rigid-body
motion without affecting analysis results much

Contact stress
at bushing due to
shaft bending

75
 Convergence Difficulty at a Corner
• Convergence iteration is stable when a variable (force)
varies smoothly
• The slope of finite elements are discontinuous along the
curved surface
• This can cause oscillation in residual force (not converging)

• Need to make the corner smooth using either higher-

order elements or many linear elements
– About 10 elements in 90 degrees, or use higher-order elements
76
 Curved Contact Surface
• Curved surface
– Contact pressure is VERY sensitive to the curvature
– Linear elements often yield unsmooth contact pressure
distribution
– Less quadratic elements is better than many linear elements

Linear elements Quadratic elements

77
 Summary
• Contact condition is a rough boundary nonlinearity due to
discontinuous contact force and unknown contact region
– Both force and displacement on the contact boundary are unknown
– Contact search is necessary at each iteration
• Penalty method or Lagrange multiplier method can be used to
represent the contact constraint
– Penalty method allows a small penetration, but easy to implement
– Lagrange multiplier method can impose contact condition accurately, but
requires additional variables and the matrix become positive semi-definite
• Numerically, slave-master concept is used along with collocation
integration (at slave nodes)

• Friction makes the contact problem path-dependent

• Discrete boundary and rigid-body motion makes the contact problem

difficult to solve
78