Nitsche’s method for finite deformation thermomechanical contact problems

Alexander Seitz; Wolfgang A. Wall; Alexander Popp

doi:10.1007/s00466-018-1638-x

Computational Mechanics

June 2019, Volume 63, Issue 6, pp 1091–1110 | Cite as

Nitsche’s method for finite deformation thermomechanical contact problems

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Alexander Seitz
Wolfgang A. Wall
Alexander Popp

Original Paper

First Online: 26 September 2018

357 Downloads
1 Citations

Abstract

This paper presents an extension of Nitsche’s method to finite deformation thermomechanical contact problems including friction. The mechanical contact constraints, i.e. non-penetration and Coulomb’s law of friction, are introduced into the weak form using a stabilizing consistent penalty term. The required penalty parameter is estimated with local generalized eigenvalue problems, based on which an additional harmonic weighting of the boundary traction is introduced. A special focus is put on the enforcement of the thermal constraints at the contact interface, namely heat conduction and frictional heating. Two numerical methods to introduce these effects are presented, a substitution method as well as a Nitsche-type approach. Numerical experiments range from two-dimensional frictionless thermo-elastic problems demonstrating optimal convergence rates to three-dimensional thermo-elasto-plastic problems including friction.

Keywords

Finite deformation contact Frictional contact Thermo-structure-interaction Nitsche’s method

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Appendix: A Consistency of the thermal weak form using Nitsche’s method

To show the consistency of (39), i.e. equivalence of (39) with (30) in combination with (24) and (25), we first observe, that $\bar{\beta }_c$ and ${\mathcal {P}}_\tau $ are, due to (31) and (33), consistent substitutes for $\beta _c\vert p_n \vert $ and $\varvec{{t}}_\tau \cdot \varvec{{v}}_\tau $ in (24) and (25). Next, (24) and (25) provide the following equivalences for weighted heat fluxes:

$$\begin{aligned}&\left\{ q_c(T)\right\} _{\omega _\vartheta } = \left\{ q_c(T)\right\} _{(1-\delta _c)} +(1-\delta _c-\omega _\vartheta ) \varvec{{t}}_\tau \cdot \varvec{{v}}_\tau \end{aligned}$$

(53a)

$$\begin{aligned}&\left\{ q_c(T)\right\} _{(1-\delta _c)} = \beta _c\vert p_n \vert [\![T]\!] \;\;, \end{aligned}$$

(53b)

with which (39) can be re-written as

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}&\int _{\varOmega }\delta T C_v \dot{T} \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega +\int _{\varOmega }(\nabla _{\varvec{{X}}} T)^{{\mathrm {T}}} k_0 \varvec{{C}}^{-1}\nabla _{\varvec{{X}}}\delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega \\&\quad -\int _{\varOmega } \left( \frac{1}{2} T\frac{\partial \varvec{{S}}:\dot{\varvec{{C}}}}{\partial T} + \hat{R}_0\right) \delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega -\int _{\varGamma _q} \hat{Q}_0 \delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varGamma \\&\quad +\int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \frac{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert }{ \beta _c\vert p_n\vert +\gamma _\vartheta } \left\{ q_c(T)\right\} _{(1-\delta _c)} [\![\delta T]\!] \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&\quad +\int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \frac{\gamma _\vartheta \beta _c\vert p_n\vert }{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert +\gamma _\vartheta } [\![T]\!] [\![\delta T]\!] \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&\quad -\theta _\vartheta \int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \frac{1}{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert +\gamma _\vartheta } \left\{ q_c(T)\right\} _{(1-\delta _c)} \left\{ q_c(\delta T)\right\} _{\omega _\vartheta }\,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&\quad +\theta _\vartheta \int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \frac{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert }{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert +\gamma _\vartheta } [\![T]\!] \left\{ q_c(\delta T)\right\} _{\omega _\vartheta } \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&\quad -\int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}}\varvec{{t}}_\tau \cdot \varvec{{v}}_\tau \left( \delta _c\delta T^{(1)} + (1-\delta _c)\delta T^{(2)} \circ \chi _t \right) \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&= 0 \forall \delta T \in {\mathcal {V}}_T \;\;, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$

(54)

Next, let us take a closer look at the fifth and sixth line containing all terms tested with $ \left\{ q_c(\delta T)\right\} _{\omega _\vartheta }$:

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}&-\theta _\vartheta \int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \frac{1}{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert +\gamma _\vartheta } \left\{ q_c(T)\right\} _{(1-\delta _c)} \left\{ q_c(\delta T)\right\} _{\omega _\vartheta }\,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&\quad +\theta _\vartheta \int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \frac{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert }{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert +\gamma _\vartheta } [\![T]\!] \left\{ q_c(\delta T)\right\} _{\omega _\vartheta } \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&\quad = -\theta _\vartheta \int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \frac{1}{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert +\gamma _\vartheta } \left( \underbrace{\left\{ q_c(T)\right\} _{(1-\delta _c)} -\beta _c\vert p_n \vert [\![T]\!] }_{{\mathop {=}\limits ^{\text {eq.~(53b)}}}0} \right) \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&\quad = 0 \;\;. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$

(55)

What remains from (54) is

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}&\int _{\varOmega }\delta T C_v \dot{T} \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega +\int _{\varOmega }(\nabla _{\varvec{{X}}} T)^{{\mathrm {T}}} k_0 \varvec{{C}}^{-1}\nabla _{\varvec{{X}}}\delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega \\&-\int _{\varOmega } \left( \frac{1}{2} T\frac{\partial \varvec{{S}}:\dot{\varvec{{C}}}}{\partial T} + \hat{R}_0\right) \delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega -\int _{\varGamma _q} \hat{Q}_0 \delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varGamma \\&+\int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \frac{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert }{ \beta _c\vert p_n\vert +\gamma _\vartheta } \left\{ q_c(T)\right\} _{(1-\delta _c)} [\![\delta T]\!] \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&+\int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \frac{\gamma _\vartheta \beta _c\vert p_n\vert }{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert +\gamma _\vartheta } [\![T]\!] [\![\delta T]\!] \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&-\int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}}\varvec{{t}}_\tau \cdot \varvec{{v}}_\tau \left( \delta _c\delta T^{(1)} + (1-\delta _c)\delta T^{(2)} \circ \chi _t \right) \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\ =&\int _{\varOmega }\delta T C_v \dot{T} \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega +\int _{\varOmega }(\nabla _{\varvec{{X}}} T)^{{\mathrm {T}}} k_0 \varvec{{C}}^{-1}\nabla _{\varvec{{X}}}\delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega \\&-\int _{\varOmega } \left( \frac{1}{2} T\frac{\partial \varvec{{S}}:\dot{\varvec{{C}}}}{\partial T} + \hat{R}_0\right) \delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega -\int _{\varGamma _q} \hat{Q}_0 \delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varGamma \\&+\int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \left\{ q_c(T)\right\} _{(1-\delta _c)} [\![\delta T]\!] \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&-\int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} \frac{\gamma _\vartheta }{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert + \gamma _\vartheta } \left( \underbrace{ \left\{ q_c(T)\right\} _{(1-\delta _c)} - \beta _c\vert p_n\vert [\![T]\!] }_{{\mathop {=}\limits ^{\text {eq.~{(53)}}}}0} \right) [\![\delta T]\!] \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&-\int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}}\varvec{{t}}_\tau \cdot \varvec{{v}}_\tau \left( \delta _c\delta T^{(1)} + (1-\delta _c)\delta T^{(2)} \circ \chi _t \right) \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\ =&\int _{\varOmega }\delta T C_v \dot{T} \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega +\int _{\varOmega }(\nabla _{\varvec{{X}}} T)^{{\mathrm {T}}} k_0 \varvec{{C}}^{-1}\nabla _{\varvec{{X}}}\delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega \\&-\int _{\varOmega } \left( \frac{1}{2} T\frac{\partial \varvec{{S}}:\dot{\varvec{{C}}}}{\partial T} + \hat{R}_0\right) \delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varOmega -\int _{\varGamma _q} \hat{Q}_0 \delta T \,{\mathrm {d}}\varGamma \\&+\int _{\gamma _c^{(1)}} (\underbrace{\beta _c\vert p_n\vert [\![T]\!] - \delta _c \varvec{{t}}_\tau \cdot \varvec{{v}}_\tau }_{{\mathop {=}\limits ^{\text {eq.~(24)}}}q_c^{(1)}} ) \delta T^{(1)} \\&\qquad +(\underbrace{-\beta _c\vert p_n\vert [\![T]\!] -(1-\delta _c)\varvec{{t}}_\tau \cdot \varvec{{v}}_\tau }_{{\mathop {=}\limits ^{\text {eq.~25}}}q_c^{(2)}}) (\delta T^{(2)}\circ \chi _t) \,{\mathrm {d}}\gamma \\&= 0 \forall \delta T \in {\mathcal {V}}_T \;\;, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$

(56)

which is indeed equivalent to (30).

References

1.
Annavarapu C, Hautefeuille M, Dolbow JE (2012) A robust Nitsches formulation for interface problems. Comput Method Appl M 225:44–54MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.
Ball JM (1976) Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity. Arch Ration Mech Anal 63(4):337–403MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.
Baumberger T, Berthoud P, Caroli C (1999) Physical analysis of the state-and rate-dependent friction law. ii. dynamic friction. Phys Rev B 60(6):3928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.
Burman E, Zunino P (2011) Numerical approximation of large contrast problems with the unfitted Nitsche method. In: Blowey J, Jensen M (eds) Frontiers in numerical analysis-Durham 2010 Lecture notes in computational science and engineering, vol 85. Springer, Berlin, pp 227–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.
Chouly F (2014) An adaptation of Nitsches method to the Tresca friction problem. J Math Anal Appl 411(1):329–339MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.
Chouly F, Hild P (2013) A Nitsche-based method for unilateral contact problems: numerical analysis. SIAM J Numer Anal 51(2):1295–1307MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.
Chouly F, Hild P, Renard Y (2015) Symmetric and non-symmetric variants of Nitsches method for contact problems in elasticity: theory and numerical experiments. Math Comput 84(293):1089–1112MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.
Cottrell JA, Hughes TJR, Bazilevs Y (2009) Isogeometric analysis: toward integration of CAD and FEA. Wiley, HobokenzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.
Curnier A, He QC, Klarbring A (1995) Continuum mechanics modelling of large deformation contact with friction. In: Raous M, Jean M, Moreau JJ (eds) Contact mechanics. Springer, Berlin, pp 145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.
Danowski C, Gravemeier V, Yoshihara L, Wall WA (2013) A monolithic computational approach to thermo-structure interaction. Int J Numer Methods Eng 95(13):1053–1078MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.
De Saracibar CA (1998) Numerical analysis of coupled thermomechanical frictional contact problems. Computational model and applications. Arch Comput Method E 5(3):243–301MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.
Dittmann M, Franke M, Temizer I, Hesch C (2014) Isogeometric analysis and thermomechanical mortar contact problems. Comput Method Appl M 274:192–212MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.
Dolbow J, Harari I (2009) An efficient finite element method for embedded interface problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 78(2):229–252MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.
Farah P, Popp A, Wall WA (2015) Segment-based versus element-based integration for mortar methods in computational contact mechanics. Comput Mech 55(1):209–228MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.
Gitterle M, Popp A, Gee MW, Wall WA (2010) Finite deformation frictional mortar contact using a semi-smooth Newton method with consistent linearization. Int J Numer Methods Eng 84(5):543–571MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
16.
Griebel M, Schweitzer MA (2003) A particle-partition of unity method part V: boundary conditions. In: Hildebrandt S, Karcher H (eds) Geometric analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations. Springer, Berlin, pp 519–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.
Hager C, Wohlmuth B (2009) Nonlinear complementarity functions for plasticity problems with frictional contact. Comput Method Appl M 198(41–44):3411–3427MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.
Hansbo P (2005) Nitsche’s method for interface problems in computational mechanics. GAMM-Mitt 28(2):183–206MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.
Hansen G (2011) A Jacobian-free Newton Krylov method for mortar-discretized thermomechanical contact problems. J Comput Phys 230(17):6546–6562MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.
Holzapfel GA (2000) Nonlinear solid mechanics: a continuum approach for engineering. Wiley, HobokenzbMATHGoogle Scholar
21.
Hüeber S, Stadler G, Wohlmuth BI (2008) A primal-dual active set algorithm for three-dimensional contact problems with Coulomb friction. J Sci Comput 30(2):572–596MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
22.
Hüeber S, Wohlmuth BI (2005) A primal-dual active set strategy for non-linear multibody contact problems. Comput Method Appl M 194(27–29):3147–3166MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.
Hüeber S, Wohlmuth BI (2009) Thermo-mechanical contact problems on non-matching meshes. Comput Method Appl M 198(15–16):1338–1350zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.
Johansson L, Klarbring A (1993) Thermoelastic frictional contact problems: modelling, finite element approximation and numerical realization. Comput Method Appl M 105(2):181–210MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.
Juntunen M, Stenberg R (2009) Nitsches method for general boundary conditions. Math Comput 78(267):1353–1374MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.
Khoei A, Saffar H, Eghbalian M (2015) An efficient thermo-mechanical contact algorithm for modeling contact-impact problems. Asian J Civ Eng (Build Hous) 16(5):681–708Google Scholar
27.
Laursen TA (2002) Computational contact and impact mechanics. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
28.
Mlika R, Renard Y, Chouly F (2017) An unbiased Nitsche’s formulation of large deformation frictional contact and self-contact. Comput Method Appl M 325:265–288MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.
Nitsche J (1971) Über ein Variationsprinzip zur Lösung von Dirichlet-Problemen bei Verwendung von Teilräumen, die keinen Randbedingungen unterworfen sind. Abh Math Semin Univ Hambg 36(1):9–15zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.
Oancea VG, Laursen TA (1997) A finite element formulation of thermomechanical rate-dependent frictional sliding. Int J Numer Methods Eng 40(23):4275–4311zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.
Pantuso D, Bathe KJ, Bouzinov PA (2000) A finite element procedure for the analysis of thermo-mechanical solids in contact. Comput Struct 75(6):551–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.
Popp A, Gee MW, Wall WA (2009) A finite deformation mortar contact formulation using a primal-dual active set strategy. Int J Numer Methods Eng 79(11):1354–1391MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.
Popp A, Gitterle M, Gee MW, Wall WA (2010) A dual mortar approach for 3D finite deformation contact with consistent linearization. Int J Numer Methods Eng 83(11):1428–1465MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.
Poulios K, Renard Y (2015) An unconstrained integral approximation of large sliding frictional contact between deformable solids. Comput Struct 153:75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.
Qi L, Sun J (1993) A nonsmooth version of Newton’s method. Math Program 58(1):353–367MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.
Renard Y (2013) Generalized Newtons methods for the approximation and resolution of frictional contact problems in elasticity. Comput Method Appl M 256:38–55MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.
Sauer RA, De Lorenzis L (2015) An unbiased computational contact formulation for 3D friction. Int J Numer Methods Eng 101(4):251–280MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.
Seitz A, Farah P, Kremheller J, Wohlmuth BI, Wall WA, Popp A (2016) Isogeometric dual mortar methods for computational contact mechanics. Comput Method Appl M 301:259–280MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.
Seitz A, Wall WA, Popp A (2018) A computational approach for thermo-elasto-plastic frictional contact based on a monolithic formulation using non-smooth nonlinear complementarity functions. Adv Model Simul Eng Sci 5(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.
Simo JC, Miehe C (1992) Associative coupled thermoplasticity at finite strains: formulation, numerical analysis and implementation. Comput Method Appl M 98(1):41–104zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.
de Souza Neto EA, Perić D, Dutko M, Owen DRJ (1996) Design of simple low order finite elements for large strain analysis of nearly incompressible solids. Int J Solids Struct 33(20–22):3277–3296MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.
Temizer I (2014) Multiscale thermomechanical contact: computational homogenization with isogeometric analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 97(8):582–607MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
43.
Temizer I, Wriggers P, Hughes T (2011) Contact treatment in isogeometric analysis with NURBS. Comput Method Appl M 200(9–12):1100–1112MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.
Verdugo F, Wall WA (2016) Unified computational framework for the efficient solution of n-field coupled problems with monolithic schemes. Comput Method Appl M 310:335–366MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
45.
Wall WA, Ager C, Grill M, Kronbichler M, Popp A, Schott B, Seitz A (2018) BACI: A multiphysics simulation environment. Institute for Computational Mechanics, Technical University of Munich, Tech. repGoogle Scholar
46.
Wiesner T, Popp A, Gee M, Wall W (2018) Algebraic multigrid methods for dual mortar finite element formulations in contact mechanics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 114(4):399–430MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
47.
Winter M, Schott B, Massing A, Wall W (2018) A Nitsche cut finite element method for the Oseen problem with general Navier boundary conditions. Comput Method Appl M 330:220–252MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.
Wohlmuth BI (2011) Variationally consistent discretization schemes and numerical algorithms for contact problems. Acta Numer 20:569–734MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
49.
Wohlmuth BI, Popp A, Gee MW, Wall WA (2012) An abstract framework for a priori estimates for contact problems in 3D with quadratic finite elements. Comput Mech 49:735–747MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
50.
Wriggers P, Laursen TA (2006) Computational contact mechanics, vol 30167. Springer, New YorkzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
51.
Wriggers P, Miehe C (1994) Contact constraints within coupled thermomechanical analysis—a finite element model. Comput Method Appl M 113(3):301–319MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
52.
Wriggers P, Zavarise G (2008) A formulation for frictionless contact problems using a weak form introduced by Nitsche. Comput Mech 41(3):407–420zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
53.
Xing H, Makinouchi A (2002) Three dimensional finite element modeling of thermomechanical frictional contact between finite deformation bodies using R-minimum strategy. Comput Method Appl M 191(37):4193–4214zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
54.
Zavarise G, Wriggers P, Stein E, Schrefler B (1992) Real contact mechanisms and finite element formulation—a coupled thermomechanical approach. Int J Numer Methods Eng 35(4):767–785zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Alexander Seitz
- 1
Email author
Wolfgang A. Wall
- 1
Alexander Popp
- 2

1.Institute for Computational MechanicsTechnical University of MunichGarchning b. MünchenGermany
2.Institute for Mathematics and Computer-Based SimulationUniversity of the Bundeswehr MunichNeubibergGermany

Nitsche’s method for finite deformation thermomechanical contact problems

Abstract

Keywords

Notes

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article