Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NONSMOOTH MECHANICS
AND APPLICATIONS
EDITED BY
J.J. MOREAU
UNIVERSITY OF MONTPELLIER
P.O. PANAGIOTOPOULOS
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY
AND
R.W.T.H.
Page
Preface
J.J. Moreau
Universite des Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc
Montpellier, France
ABSTRACT
An approach to the dynamics of mechanical systems with a finite number of
degrees of freedom, involving unilateral constraints, Is developed. In the
n-dimensional linear spaces of forces and velocities, some classical con-
cepts of Convex Analysis are used, but no convexity assumption is made
concerning the constraint Inequalities. The velocity is not supposed to be a
differentiable function of time, but only to have locally bounded variation, so
the role of the acceleration is held by a n-dlmenslonal measure on the consi-
dered time interval. Dynamics is then governed by measure differential
inclusions, which treat possible velocity jumps on the same footing as
smooth motions. Possible collisions are described as soft, thus dissipative.
Friction is taken into account under a recently proposed expression of
Coulomb's law. These formulations have the advantage of generating
numerical algorithms of time-discretization, able to handle, In particular,
the nonsmooth effects arising from unllaterallty and from dry friction.
2 J.J. Moreau
1.1NTRODUCTION
Usual mechanisms consist of parts which, at the first level of
Investigation, are treated as perfectly rigid bodies. The mechanism operation
rests on the fact that some of these parts may come Into contact or get
loose from each other, but none of them can overlap. Similarly, the parts may
touch the external bodies which support the mechanism, but can never
encroach upon the region of space they occupy.
In terms of the parameters q1, ... , qn, making an element of IRn denoted In
the sequel by q, which are used to locate every position or the considered
system, the above Impenetrability properties may as a rule be expressed by a
set of Inequalities, say foc(q)<O, ocE{ I ,... ,y}. Each of these inequalities
corresponds to what is traditionally called a l/nilateral constraint
Naturally, the description of a constraint in Mechanics does not reduce to the
geometric restriction It Imposes to the system possible positions. Pre-
dicting the system behaviour always requires some additional information
about the forces of constraint or reactions needed by the system dyna-
'mlcs, for the geometric conditions to be satisfied at every Instant.
Constraints whose geometric effect Is expressed by equalities are, In
contrast, said bilateral They are commonly realized by the conjunction of
several unilateral constraints and, In practice, this may leave a residual
looseness whose Investigation has primary Importance in some applications.
However omnipresent unilateral constraints are In machines, the place
they receive In the books on Classical Mechanics Is very modest. Here Is the
traditional approach of the situation.
Starting with a position of the system In which some of the contacts
are effective (I.e. the corresponding Inequalities hold as equalities> and
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 3
4 The set of inequalities f(X~O <with f(XEC 1and \lf(X;z:Q) defines in IRn the
feasible region, denoted by 4> and assumed in the sequel independent of time
If a motion t-+q(t) is described in the above terms and if Q(0E4> for every t,
one elementarily finds (see Sec.2) that u+(t) belongs to a certain polyhedral
conic convex subset of IR", denoted by V(q(t)). This is the tangent cone. to the
region 4> at point q(t), equal in particular to the whole of IR" when q(t) is
Interior to 4>. Actually, a cone denoted by V(q), and Its polar cone N(q) in
the sense of the standard scalar product of IR", will In the sequel be defined
even for qt4>. When QE4>, the cone N(q) Is nothing but the <outward) normal
cone to 4> at this point <reduced to {0} if q is interior to 4>).
Because the right-hand side Is a cone, one shows that t!Jis condition Is
Indifferent to t!Je c/Joice of tile base measure dbJ. Furthennore, the existence
of a function R~ verifying< 1.3) implies that u+(t> belongs to V(q(t)). Through
Prop.2.4 below, this ensures q(t)E4l for every t, provided the Initial data
satisfy q<t0>eP,.
Assertion <I .3) about the contact impulsion makes the definition of the
class of unilateral constraints that we cal! frictionless and soft. When
transported Into the equality of IR0 -valued measures, which governs
Nonsmooth Dynamics, It generates a measure differential Inclusion. The
existence of solutions to the resulting Initial value problems has so far been
established only In some special cases [II][ 12][ 13] and Is currently under
investigation. The velocity Jumps possibly occurtng In such solutions are of
the sort the author has previously called "standard Inelastic shocks" [ 14]
8 J.J. Moreau
1oo For better agreement with the behaviour of real systems, one is
commonly Jed to apply the traditional law of Coulomb with different values
of the friction coefficient, depending on whether the sliding velocity
vanishes or not. This distinction made between the "static" an "dynamic"
friction coefficients seems, at first glance, to destroy the unity brought into
the formulations by the use of Convex Analysis. Actually, It Is shown in
Sec.17 that, far from beeing a mere empirical alteration of these formu-
lations, such a distinction is inherently involved in the consequent deve-
lopments. The numerical techniques proposed in these lectures are able to
handle it without causing any computing problem. In fact, whether the
sliding velocity exactly vanishes or not at the end of a time-step IS
explicitely determined by the algorithms; so the friction coefficient for the
next step may be adjusted accordingly.
2.DIFFERENTIAL PROPERTIES
Let a mechanical system have a finite number n of degrees of freedom;
every possible position of It may be located through the value It Imparts to
Q=(Q 1, . ,qn ), an element of some open subset 0 of IRn . This holds at least
I n
locally; In other words, q ,... ,q are local coordinates In the manifold of the
system possible positions.
One defines a motion by making q depend on time. If the derivatives q' i
or the n functions t-+q1 exist at an Instant t, we shall refer to the element
q'=(q' 1,... ,q.n) of IRn as the velocity of the system at this instant.
Motions will be studied on some time interval I, containing its origin t 0
but nonnecessar11y closed nor bounded from the right. We shall not suppose
the function q:I-+IRn derivable everywhere. Instead, we assume the existence
of a velocity function u:I-+Rn such that
'v'tEI : q<t>=q<t0 > + Jt u('r) dt. (2. 1)
This makes sense as soon as u Is locally Lebesgue-integrable on I. More
specially, we shall suppose that the function u has locally bounded
variation on I, I.e. It has bounded variation on every compact subinterval of
I; notation: uEibvO,IRn). This secures that, at every t In the Interior or I, the
rlg!Jt-1/mlt u+(t) and the left-limit u-(t) exist.
By convention, for the Initial Instant t 0 , the left-limit u-<t 0 > is
understood as equal to u<t0>. This Is more than a notational trick; such a
writing actually reflects the significance we generally mean to give to
the Initial condition u<t0>=u 0 of an evolution problem. It Is Intimated that
Investigation begins at t 0, but that the mechanical system was already In
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 13
The functions fiX :0-IR are supposed c 1 with respective gradients 'VfiX =
<afiX/aq 1,... ,afiX/aq0 ) different from zero, at least in a neighbourhood of the
corresponding hypersurface fIX =0.
Through the chain rule, the existence of one-side derivatives for the
functions t-qi(t) implies the same fort- fiX{q{t)). Consequently, If a motion
verifies f()({q{t))~O for every t, then at any instant t such that f()({Q(t))=O,
one readily finds u+(t).'VfiX{Q{t))~O and u-(t).'VfiX(Q{t))~O {the dot refers to
the usual scalar product of IR 0 ).
14 J.J. Moreau
and
V(q) := (vEIRn: \f<XEJ(q), v.\7f <X(q)~O} (2.4)
uEL 1Joc(I,IRn) tllroug/7 (2.1 ). Suppose tllat q(t 0 )E4> and tllat, for Lebesgue-
almost every tEl , one /las u(t)EV(q(t)). Tllen q(t)E4> for every t.
PROOF. Let us suppose the existence of some LEI , with q(T)~<t> and look for
contradiction. There exists <XE{ 1,.... ~}such that f<X(q(r))>O. The set {tEl: t~T
and f<X(q(T))~O} Is nonempty Cit contains t 0); let a denote its l.u.b .. Due to the
continuity of f<X, one has f<X(q(O))=O. Since f<X lsc 1, the function t-+ f<X(q(t))
is absolutely continuous on [o,T] ; after expressing its derivative by the
chain rule, one may write
f(X(Q(T)) =I~ U(t).\7f(X(q(t)) dt.
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 15
REMARK 2.5 The subset V(q) of IR0 is a closed convex cone. In case qE4>, this
coincides with what is usually called the tangent cone to the region 4> at
point q (equal, in particular, to the whole of IR 0 if qEint 4>). On the contrary,
if qi4>, one commonly agrees to say that the tangent cone to 4> at this point
is empty; so is not V(q).
Some caution is needed when Interpreting the concept of a tangent cone.
Let q0E4> and vEIR 0 ; in view of Prop.2.2, for the existence of a mapping q:t-4>
such that q<t0)=Qo and q'+(t 0 >=v, it is necessary that vEV(q0 >; a
counter-example may be found in [ 15], showing that this is not sufficient.
However, if In addition one assumes lnt V(q 0 );z!.0, then existence Is secured
[29]. Through classical Convex Analysis, the latter assumption Is equivalent
to the polar cone of V<q0 > having a compact basis; this is the convex cone
generated in IR 0 by the elements \i'fo:<q 0), with <XEJ(q 0), so the assumption
amounts to assert the existence of a hyperplane in IR0 , not containing the
origin, which intersects all the half -lines generated by these elements. We
shall meet this cone again in Sec.S.
3.KINEMATICS
In all the sequel, each of the inequalities foc~O will be understood as
characterizing the system positions agreeing with the mutual impenetrabi-
Hty of a certain pair of rigid bodies. For instance, let us drop the subscript
ex and assume that condition f ~o expresses that some rigid part :B 1 of the
system does not overlap a given external obstacle :B0, fixed relative to the
18 ].].Moreau
For every q such that f(Q)=O, this introduces the mapping q- Gqq', I Inear of
IR 0 to the Euclidean linear space ~3 of the vectors of physical space.
In the case of a pair of bodies which both are parts of the system, a
linear mapping slm11ar to Gq would express from q' the relative velocity, at
a possible contact point, of one of this part with respect to the other.
The writing In (3.1) Is not restricted to motions agreeing with the lm-
penetrabi I ity constraint. We now are to take this constraint Into account. Let
a value of q correspond to contact, i.e. f(q)=O, and let veiR 0 . Let a motion
start from this position q at some time 1, with right-velocity q+ equal to v
at this instant. Evaluating f at all subsequent pos1tions, one obtains a
function of time whose right-derivative at 1 may be expressed through the
chain rule, namely v.\7f(q). A~sume v.\7f(Q)<0; then Instant 1 Is followed by a
nonzero time interval over which f <0, I.e. ~1 and ~0 break contact. This
implies that, at 1 , the right-velocity aqv of the contact particle )(1(q) of
~1 veri fie 1'{Q. Gqv ;;:O; otherwise the motion of this particle would require
of ~ 1 to overlap ~ 0 , so making f;;:O.
This shows that, for vEIR 0 and for any fixed q satisfying f(q)=O, one has
the implication
v.\7f(q)<0 ~ 1'{Q. Gqv ;;:0. (3.2)
Let us introduce now the 1inear mapping G~ : x3 - IR", the transpose of
Gq x
in the sense of the Euc11dean autodua11ties of 3 and IR" ; then 1'{q aqv =
*
v. Gq 1tq Recall that we have assumed 'Vf ';'!
.
0 ; through a unilateral version
of the Lagrange multiplier theorem, implication (3.2) yields:
PROPOSITION 3.1 For ever_y q venfying f(q):O, there exists A.;..O SfJCIJ
tllat
20 J.J. Moreau
REMARK 3.2 We shall later need t~tat the element G;nq of IRn differ frorn
zero, i.e. "A>O. It is a general fact that the kernel of G; equals the subspace
of ~3 orthogonal to the range Gq<IRn) of Gq. In particular, when Gq<IRn) is
the whole of ~3 , the kernel of G; reduces to {0} and this secures G;1{q;r0.
But, in some usual applications, Gq<IRn) will be a strict subspace of ~3 ; for
instance, if the primitive constraints allow ~1 to perform only motions
parallel to some fixed plane, then dim Gq<IRn) =2. What precedes shows that
G;nq =0 if and only if Gq<IRn) is contained in the two-dimensional subspace
of ~3 consisting of the vectors parallel to the common tangent plane to
contacting bodies.
REMARK 3.3 So far, Gq has been defined only for such q that f(q)=O. In
computation, as well as in existential studies, it will prove useful to extend
the definitions of Gq and 1tq, in a smooth arbitrary way, to the whole range 0
of the local coordinates in use, or at least to some neighbourhood of the
hypersurface f=O. This extension may additionally be required to preserve
the property (3.3).
REMARK 3.4 Let a motion comply with condition f~O at every time. Consider
an instant of contact, i.e. at which f(q)=O, and suppose that the two-sided
derivative q' exists at this instant. Since the latter equals the common value
of q'+ and q-, the observations made in Sec.2 imply q'.V'f(q)=O. In view of
Proposition 3.1, this yields 1tq.Gqq'=O, expressing that the velocity of the
particle :M1(q) of ~ 1 through which this body touches the fixed obstacle ~ 0 is
a vector parallel to the common tangent plane.
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 21
Here :fc(q,q') denotes the expression of the kinetic energy; since we assume
the system scleronomlc, this Is
:fc(q,q') = ~ Aij(q) q' iq, j ' (4.2)
where Atj,k denotes the partial derivative of A11 with regard to qk: Therefore,
(4.1) takes on the form A11 q.. j = K1 + r 1 ; here the term r 1 refers to the
totality of the reactions of superimposed constraints, while K1 is a known
function of t, q, q, equal to Fi minus all the terms in (4.3) which Involve
q'Jq.k. Since the matrix A is invertible, we may finally write this down as
q" =A- 1K + A- 1r. (4.4)
It has been assumed that each Inequality foc<q>=O expresses the contact
between some pair of rigid bodies. Let us denote by r 1ex ,... ,r~ the covariant
components of the corresponding reaction, making an element of IR0 denoted
by roc. Formally, this term will be Introduced also when the said contact Is
not In effect, so we shall state
(4.5)
To fix the ideas, suppose, as in Sec.3, that the contact expressed by
foc(q) =0 takes place between some part, say :Bo:, of the system and an
unmoving external obstacle. Suppose that the contact action on :Boc results in
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 23
checked that (5.2) is equivalent to the existence of 'Rex agreeing with the
above assumptions. And, in view of the convention made in (4.5), this
equivalence remains valld for every QE<I> if one stipulates that Vcx =0 when
foc(Q)<O. Furthermore, in formulating our evolution problem under the
geometric condition QE<Il , it is Immaterial to state that (5.2) also holds for
non feasible q.
Therefore, a value of the total reaction term r = I, rcx is compatible
with the stated laws of contact if and only if 1t satisfies
r E - N(Q), (5.3)
where N(Q) denotes t/Je convex cone generated in IR" by the elements Vfcx(q),
<XEJ(q) (see Notation 2.1 ). According to an usual convention, if J(q)=0 this
cone consists of the zero of IR". In all cases V(Q), as defined in (2.4), and N(q)
make a pair of mutually polar or conju,.qate cones. When q belongs to the
feasible region, N(q) Is nothing else than the <outward) normal cone to 4> at
point Q, but what we are denoting here by N(q) also makes sense and is
nonempty for qt<ll.
Eliminating r between (5.3) and the Lagrange equations, as they are
displayed In Sec.4, one obtains that a smooth motion of the system agrees
with all the mechanical conditions stated, if and only If the differential
inclusion
-A(q) q" + K(t,q,q') E N(q) (5.4)
The Proposition below marks a turning point, regarding all our subject
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 25
matter. For every (closed, convex> subset of IR0 , say C, we denote by 'c Its
Indicator function, I.e. c<x>=O If xEC and +oo otherwise. The subdlfferen-
tlal O'i'c<x> is known to equal the normal cone to Cat point x <empty if xtC).
PROOF. For every t such that (5.6) holds, the right-hand side 1s nonempty,
hence u(t)EV(q(t)). Since, by assumption, u is a (locally absolutely) conti-
nuous function, (2. 1) entalls that u(t) equals, for every tE1nt I, the (two-
sided) derivative of t-.q(t) Through Proposition 2.4, one concludes that, 1f
(5.6) is verified Lebesgue-a.e., then (5.5) holds. Furthermore, (5.6) implles
(5.4) because a'i'V(q)<u> is essentially a subset of N(Q), the polar cone of V(Q).
Conversely, suppose that the function t-.q(t) satisfies (5.5). Since u Is
continuous, Proposition 2.2 shows that u(t), for every tEint I, belongs to
V(q(t))n-V(q(t)) wt1ich is the linear subspace of IR0 orthogonal to N(q(t)).
Therefore, if (5.4) holds Lebesgue-a.e., then for Lebesgue-almost every t, the
values of u and -Au'+ K are orthogonal and respectively belong to the pair of
mutually polar cones V(q(t)) and N(q(t)); consequently they are conJiJ..qate
pomts relative to this pair, i.e. (5.6) holds.
REMARK 5.2 At the present stage, where the motion smoothness, i.e. the
local absolute continuity of u, is a priori assumed, the same symmetry
between past and future is observed as in the classical case of b11aterally
26 J.J. Moreau
Observe that u1+ hK is nothing but the value that uF would take in the case
J(QM)=0, i.e. the value that the discretization of Lagrange equations would
yield in the absence of superimposed unilateral constraints.
After determining uF, one finishes the computation step by calculating
QF= qM+~h UF.
28 J.J. Moreau
7. NONSMOOTH DYNAMICS
We now intend to Insert the description of shocks Into a generalized
formulation of the dynamics of the Investigated system, which does not
require -the local absolute continuity of the velocity function u:I-R". This
function will only be assumed to have locally bounded variation., i.e. to have
bounded variation on every compact subinterval of I ; notation: uE lbvO,IR 0 ).
Classically, with such a function, an IR"-valued measure on the Interval I Is
associated, that we shall call the differential measure of u and denote by du.
A characteristic property of this measure Is that, for every compact sub-
Interval [0,1:] c intI, one has
ho;t] du = u+("t)- u-(O). (7.1)
In fact, the bounded variation assumption secures the existence of the
one-sided limits of u at any point of lnt I . Equality <7.1) remains valid for
o=to provided that, as already proposed in Sec.2, we agree on the convention
32 J.J. Moreau
u-(t 0>=u(t 0). The symmetrical convention may also be used for u+ at the
possible right end of I.
By making 0=1:, one sees in particular that, if u is discontinuous at
point 1: , then the measure du is expected to possess an atom at this point,
with value equal to the total jump of u.
It is clear on (7.1) that du depends on the function u only through u+
and u-. Tne values that u may- take at its discontinuity points are immate-
rial Neither nave these values any- effect on tne expression (2. 1) of Q
since tne set of tne discontinuity- points of u is countable,. hence
Lebes._que-negligible.
The reader may refer to [7] as a monograph on the lbv functions of a real
interval and their differential measures, with values in a Banach space X. For
a vast class of Banach spaces, in particular for X= IR 0 , there comes out that,
if u is locally absolutely continuous, the measure du possesses, relatively
to the Lebesgue measure on I, here denoted by dt, a densi!J~' tunct ion , say
ut E L \x:<l, dt; IR">. Of course, the latter is defined up to the addition or a
dt-negliglble function. This is commonly expressed by saying that the
IR"-valued measure du equals tne product of tne real measure dt by the
IR"- valued_ local!)/ dt- integrable, function ut; notation du = ut dt. Also du
is said local/}' dt- continuous. Conversely, if du has sucrl a form, Ule
function uElbv(I,IR 0 ), possibly after correcting the unessential values it
takes on a countable set, is locally absolutely continuous. Furthermore, for
Lebesgue-almost every t , the value ui<O of the density function makes the
(two-sided) derivative of u.
Throughout these lectures, we shall comply with the widespread usage
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 33
The right-hand side refers to the covariant components of the totality of the
forces acting on the system. including the reactions of possible contacts. For
these differential equations to make sense. then functions t-. ci have to be
elements of L 11oc(l, dt; IR) ; so each of then equations (7.2) may equivalently
be expressed as an equality of measures on the interval I,
. . k
A.. (q) du 1 +(A .. ~-<q) - -2
1 A." .(q)) u1u dt =c. dt. (7.3)
1J IJ ,11. J11. ,1 I
One readily checks that the functions of t, by which the measures dui or dt,
on the left-hand side, are multiplied, have the local integrability properties
required in order that the products make sense.
Now, this new writing keeps meaningful for general uElbv<I,IR\ and
allows one to replace the terms ci dt, on the right-hand side by some real
measures dCi , said to be the covariant components of the total impulsion
dC experienced by the system. These will equal the sum of the dt-continuous
measures Fi(t,q,u) dt, describing given forces, and of the covariant
components dRi of the contact impulsion dR, an IRn -valued measure on I. For
instance, in the case of an isolated collision occuring at instant t 5 , as
34 J.J. Moreau
components
K.(t,Q,U)
1
=F1.(t,Q,U) - (A1}... k(Q) - -21 A.k} ,1.(Q)) uj uk .
T!Jen t!Je following equality or IRn- valued measures on t!Je Interval 1
8. CONTACT SOFTNESS
Let us consider again the differential inclusion (5.6), which has been
found to govern the assumedly smooth motions of the system. This inclusion
equivalently means that the expression t-r<t>EIRn of the covariant
components of the contact forces makes an element of L \x:<l, dt ,IRn) which
vertftes, for Lebesgue-almost every t,
- r<t> E a11'v(Q(t))<u<t>>. (8.1)
In the context of Sec.S, q(t) belongs to <P for every t; therefore, due to Prop.
2.2 and to the continuity of u, one has u(t)EV(q(t)) for every t. Hence, the
right-hand side of (8.1) is nonempty for every t Ut contains at least the
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 35
(8.2)
PROPOSITION 8.2 Inclusion (8.2) holds for every tEl If and only If the same
Is true after replacing dV by another nonnegative real measure relative to
which dR possesses a density function.
36 J.J. Moreau
PROOF Suppose that (8.2) holds for every t in I and denote by dv another
nonnegative real measure such that R'\) exists. If we put do=d~+dv, the
Radon-Nikodym theorem ensures the existence of the density functions ~a
and v'0 , nonnegative elements of 00 (1, do; on Then dR=R'vt.~'0 do=R'v v'0 do ;
so the IR 0 -valued functions R'vt.~' 0 and R'v v'0 are equal, except possibly in
some do-negllgible (hence dv-negl1gible) subset S of I. The subset N={tEI :
v'0 (0=0} is dv-negllgible. Outside the union SUN , the above implies R'v=
R'vV'0 /v' 0 , with V'ufv'0 ~0; then the expected inclusion holds, since the right-
hand member of (8.2) Is a cone. For tESUN, this <closed, convex> cone, being
nonempty, contains at least the zero of IR 0 . After replacing by zero the
values that the function R'\) , as formerly defined, may take in SUN, one
obtains the asserted conclusion, with dlJ and dv playing symmetric roles.
required to hold for every tEl . Here dtJ may equivalently be replaced by any
nonnegative real measure. relative to which du and dt possess density
functions. The existence of such measures is a priori secured by the
Radon-Nikodym theorem; one may take, for mstance, d~ = ldul + dt . where
ldul denotes the nonnegative real measure modulus (or variation measure)
[6][7] of the vector measure du. Since K is continuous and since the
discontinuity set of u is dt-negligible, it does no matter to replace u, on the
left-hand side, by u+ or u-.
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 37
Here again, the fact that the right-hand member is a cone entails that such
an assumption does not actually depend on the peculiar choice of dv.
Since the right-hand member of (8.2) Is conta.lned In N(q(t)), (8.5)
constitutes a weaker assumption than what expresses Definition 8.1, I.e. the
set of the superimposed constraints may be frictionless without being soft.
(8.6)
9. SOFT COLLISIONS
In the setting of the above Section, the following characterizes the
possible velocity jumps
PROPOSITION 9.1 Let tEl , different from t!Je possible ng!Jt end of t!J!s
Interval. For any motion satisfying (8.3), one !Jas
u+(t) = prox <u-(t), V(Q(t)), (9. I)
Now Vtt'v(t)=O, since the Lebesgue measure dt has no atom. Then, after
multiplying both members or the above by Vt' one obtains
If one uses in IRn a base orthonormal relatively to the metric in view, A(Q(t))
This Proposition, which, under the convention u-<t 0)=u<t 0), also holds
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 39
for t=t 0 , shows that u exhibits a nonzero jump at point t 1f and only if
instants where geometry makes them unavoidable. This agrees with the
heuristic maxim of the "minimal singularity", but does not result from any
explicit mechanical assumption. Here is a familiar example demonstrating
this method deficiency.
Suppose an object performing a sliding motion in the contact of a table
<or simply at rest on it>. If an operator hits the table with a hammer, the
object is commonly observed to jump. So the table has imparted an Impulse
to the contacting object, without itself exhibiting any motion at the
macroscopic observation scale. In contrast, the assumption that unilateral
constraints are frictionless and soft rules out such an active behaviour of
boundaries.
Incidentally, the replacement of softness, in frictionless unilateral
constraints, by the quite different assumption of energy conservation
would also permit a deductive treatment of the above situation. It will be
shown In Sec. I 0 that energy loss, in velocity jumps, should on the contrary
be expected when frictionless soft constraints are present.
REMARK 9.3 Equation (9.1) expresses that, In the considered motion, all
velocity jumps are of the sort that the author has previoulsy called stan-
dard inelastic shocks [ 14][ 15]. These were proposed as a generalization of
the shocks which, In the case of a system involving a single constraint
Inequality, say f(q),O, are traditionally called "inelastic" or also "soft". In
fact, if f(q(t 5))=0, the tangent cone to the feasible region of IR 0 at point
q5 =Q{t5) Is simply the half-space V(q 5) = {vEIR 0 : v.V'f{q 5),0}. Since the
lert-slde velocity u-(t5) must belong to -V(q 5) (at least If one supposes
t 5 >t 0>. equ.(9.1) yields In this special case that u<t5 > equals t/Je ort!?ogo-
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 41
Then
-1
ul =U 1+ h AM KM
is the value that the discretized equations of Dynamics would yield for uF in
the absence of contact force (here one may read the subscript L as referring
to "loose").
If QME int4> (i.e. all f(X(qM) are strictly negative) or uL EV(qM), one consi-
ders that contact forces have no effect on the calculated step; so one rnakes
uF=uL and goes to Stage 3 (this decis10n is actually a trivial case of Stage 2
below).
Stage 2 On the left-hand side of (8.4), let us replace A(q) and K(t,q,u) by Ar1
and KM . Then, an approximant of the integral of this left-hand side over
Ct 1,tF) is -A.r1CuF-uL). Concerning the right-hand side, it will be considered
that the set V(q(t)) keeps, throughout the interval, the constant value V(qM),
whose indicator function will be denoted by ~M Furthermore, let us take uF
as an approximant -one may rather say a simulat1m- of u+ This yields as a
simulation of (8.4) on the said interval
-AM(UF-UL) E aljJM(UF)
If the matrix AM is used in order to define a Euclidean metric on IRn, this
characterizes uF as the proximal point to ul in the closed convex set V(qM).
Therefore, computing uF is a Quadratic Programming problem: to minirm~?e
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 45
L'3 orthogonal to 1{Q , I.e. the common tangent vector plane at the contact
point
The above is the situation in which, traditionally, Coulomb's law of tiry
friction is formulated. This Jaw is a relation between trle sltding veloci(v
UET(q) and the contact force REI'3 experienced by ~1
For brevity, let us write 1{ for 1{Q and Tfor T<ql. The familiar formu-
lation rests on the decompositlOn of 1{ into
1{ =Rr + p 1{. with RrET and p~O. <12. 1)
and consists of two well known separate assertions concerning the res-
pective cases U=O and U;rO in T
In some of the author's early papers [20] [21], it has been observed that.
as far as the normal component p is treated as known, this pair of
assertions is equivalent to a relation. between tM elements RT ami U of
the linear space T, which derives from a "pseudo-potential". Furthermore,
this formulation readily extends to the description of poss1bly am~-:otropic
equivalently be written as
( 12.3)
where the dissipation function tp equals the support function of the set
-1> 1; in particular, for isotropic friction tp=yll.ll.
Elementary applicatiOns, where p in fact is known, may be found in
(22]. Furthermore, having to treat p as known does not prevent using this
pseudo-potential formulation <or an equivalent variational inequality which
expresses a "principle of maximal dissipation") in the proof of existence of
solutions to dynamical problems. See [331, where the normal components of
the contact forces become the primary unknowns in some functional analytic
arguments
In the present lectures, we choose to formulate the same Jaw under a
comcal equivalent form [24], avoiding the decomposition ( 12.1 ). The fric-
tion cone C at the contact point is introduced, a closed convex conical
subset of the 1inear space ~3 (reca I 1 that, speaking of a cone in a I inear
space, one understands that it has vertex at the origin). In traditional iso-
tropic friction, this is a cone of revolution about 1{; generally, C equals
t!Je cone. generated In ~3 by t!Je. set 1> 1+ 1{. So C contains 1{ and lies
entirely on the corresponding side ofT.
PROOF Assume that <12.4) holds; hence -UET. Denoting by [1{] the linear
subspace generated in ~3 by 1{, one has
3VEotjiC(R), 3'WE[1{] : -U=V+'W. ( 12.5)
Let us decompose 1{ in the form ( 12.1 ); necessarily p )0, since ( 12.4) implies
50 J.J. Moreau
plane :4 =T+ p1{. Therefore a, .:..<'V = [1{] and< 12.5) means that
Is stated at this place). Then <12.2) Is true also in the sense of the auto-
duality of ~3 and, using translations as above, one concludes
- 'U E Oljl ~nJ.lV
Here we need to know whether the inclusion on the right side of ( 12.6)
actually holds as an equality of sets. If p>O, this equality results from a
known calculation rule for the subdlfferentlal of a sum of l.s.c. proper convex
functions in finite-dimensional spaces: in fact there exists a point in the
relative Interior or C=domljlc where ~~~~takes a finite value <see [34),
Theorem 23.8). In that case, by going from <12.6) backward to <12.5), one
estab11shes <12.4).
It Is only for p=O that the assumption of bounded friction. made once
for all In the preceding, has to be used. If p=O, the set 1> reduces to {0}, so
( 12.2) simply consists In the assertion:" U arbitrary in Tand 'Rr = o ";one has
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 51
to establish that such is also the meaning of (12.5) in this special situation.
For ~ = 0, the subd1fferent1al oi!Jc(.R) consists of the polar cone co of c.
Because the section of C by the plane Jl (constructed for instance with P= I)
is compact,co contains the vector -1( in its interior (see e.g.[35], parag.8.7).
Consequently, the proJection of co to T equals the whole of this subspace;
tt1is completes the proof.
In turn ( 12.4) may be transformed as follows [25]:
equivalent to
UET and OEo~!~c<~>+U+[1(],
The set of the values of 1{ EI"3 that ( 12.4) or ( 12.8) make correspond
with each 'UEI"3 <actually the empty set if 'UfT) is a cone, since the mul-
tiplication of 1{ by any strictly positive number leaves alllc<R) invariant.
expected to possess a density relative to dt, but in any case this measure
may be represented in the form 'Pvd~. where d~ is a nonnegative real measure
on I and 'Pv EL\.lc(l dbf; ~3 ) The 1Rn-valued contact impulsion dR, as
introduced in Sect.7 for insertion into the measure equation of Nonsmooth
Dynamics (74), has the form dR=R~d~, and. simi Jarly to (4.7),
Rv<U=G;w 'Pv<o <12.9>
rlOlcls for every t.
As far as Coulomb's law is accepted for the description of dry friction,
one naturally admits that, in possible nonsmooth motions, the density 'Pv<t>
of the local contact impulsion will be related, for every t, to the sliding
velocity 'U through the same relation as 1{ is in ( 12.4), or equivalently in
<12.8). This, at least, raises no discussion when t-.'U is continuous. At ins-
tants of velocity jumps, we decide tllat tile same relation will llold wltll 'U
replaced by Its rlgllt-llmlt, namely u+ =Gqu+, since the linear mapping
Gq: !Rn --.~3 continuously depends on q. This assumption entails that U\t)
belongs to T<q(t)) for every t (an immaterial assertion when f(q(t))<O, since
it has been agreed that T(q(t)) = :3 in this evenn In view of Proposition 3.1,
this is equivalent to u\t>ET<q(U), a property which, in the frictionless case
of Sect.9, has been identified as characterizing the "softness" of unilateral
constraints. We thus are induced to put the following definition.
(recall tllat T(q)=~3 and C(q)={O} wllen f(qkO) or tile equivalent form
54 J.J. Moreau
Because this relation is conical with regard to the element Tv (t), t11e
reasoning already used in the proof of Prop.8.2 shows that the choice of the
nonnegative real measured~ is immaterial, as long as d'Ppossesses, relative
to it, a density function.
REMARK 12.4 Since we have agreed to extend the definitions of T(q) and C(q)
to positions such that f(q)>O, <12.1 0) makes sense also in that case. But, as
previously observed, this relation implies that u\t) belongs to T(q(t)), hence
to V(q(t)). In view of Prop.2.4, this secures that, provided t!Je im!ial data
satts~:vf(q<t 0 ))~0, inequali"v f(q(t)h;O will hold t!Jrou_q!Jout I.
REMARK 12.5 The validity of ( 12. I 0) for t=to calls for some comments. In
beginning this section, we recalled the meaning given to the initial condition
u<t0>=u 0 of an evolution problem. It is understood that u0 equals the
left-limit u-<t 0) in some anterior motion, during which the unilateral
constraint was already in effect. In particular, one may have f(q 0)=0 and u0
interior to the half-space -V<q 0); this implies that a collision takes place at
instant t 0. Then softness, as expressed by ( 12. 10), makes that u+<t 0) belongs
to the linear space TCq0)=V<q 0>n-V(q0). But the case f(q0>=0 with u0
interior to V(q 0), i.e. Initial velocity implying contact break, Is excluded
from the present study. This will cause no great inconvenience in practice.
REMARK 12.6 Put the notation Gq<V(q))=V(q); this is the closed half -space
of :t3 lying on the same side as 1{Q with respect to T(q). The set a!c<P~,) is
contained in co, the polar cone of C, which in turn is contained in the half-
space -V(q). Then, In ( 12.1 0), the operation projT(q) might equivalently be
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 55
( 13.4)
REMARK 14.1 The latter is the most interesting item of the discussion. It
shows that, contrary to the frictionless case, an episode of smooth motion
with persistent contact may end with a velocity jump without any collision
occurring This is a dynamical analogue to the locking effect, well known in
the statics of mechanisms with dry friction.
The earliest reference we know of, where such a possibility is asserted,
is a note by L. Lecornu [26]. At the time, a controversy has been opened by P.
Painleve [36], with the observation that, in systems involving Coulomb
friction, some initial value problems could have no solution, or also several
solutions. In addition, the behaviour of the system depended on its constants
in a discontinuous way. To Palnleve, and later to E. Delassus [37][38], these
findings seemed In contradiction with the very bases of Physics. In the
62 J.J. Moreau
REMARK t 4.2 From the mathematical standpoint, we think that little has to
be retained of the early discussions on the subject. At the time, differential
equations were impltcttely understood in the sense of the elementary theory:
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 63
REMARK 14.3 There remains to discuss whether the velocity jumps agreeing
with the constraint law (12.10) are physically realistic. We have already
stressed that, even in the absence of friction, predicting safely the outcome
of a shock would require some high order of information, actually una-
vailable in engineering situations. Things naturally become worse if friction
is entered into account. What do we know about the Physics of high pressure
friction, during the "very short" interval of time on which the velocity
change takes place? Already for the frictionless case, we have in Sect.6 been
reluctant in accepting the invariance of the direction of \lf(q) during this
interval. The latter invariance, if admitted, makes of the no-friction
assumption a time-independent linear condition imposed on the contact
force at every instant; therefrom, the normality of the contact percussion is
inferred, by integration on the interval. On the contrary, Coulomb law
imposes on contact force a nonlinear condition. Even if one assumes this
condition independent of time, it cannot be expected in general to commute
64 J.J. Moreau
Stage 2 If, on the contrary, f(qM) ;>- 0 and uL.\?f(qM > 0 , contact Is
estimated to have effect on the considered time-step. One constructs a
discrete analog to the measure differential inclusion of Dynamics
du = A- 1(q) KU,q,u) dt + A- 1(q) dR
by equalling some approximate values of the integrals on <t 1,tF) of the
respect 1ve members, namely
UF - u1 =hAM-1 KM + AM-1 R. ( 15.1 )
Let GM denote the value taken at q=qM by the linear mapping GQ: IRn -+IR 2
defined in Sec.13. Then an approximate version of ( 13.7) reads
R = G~ P,
where P, an element of the calculation plane, is an approximant of the total
contact impulsion on U1e interval <t 1,tF). Puttmg u1 = GMul and UF = GMuF ,one
derives from <15. 1) that
-1
UF - U1 = hGMAM KM + HMP. ( 15.2)
Here, similarly to what has been done in Sec. 13, one denotes by HM the
symmetric positive definite 2x2 matrix GMAr1 1 G~.
According to the decision made In Sec. 11, of considering uF as a
simulation of u+, the softness condition ( 13.7) will, in the present discre-
tization procedure, be transcribed as
30 E IR : UF =0 i. ( 15.3)
Discretizing the two-dimensional Coulomb law consists in relating P to UF
by the system of implications
0>0 :::> PED+
0<0 :::> PED
66 J.J. Moreau
REMARK 15.2 The case -H~ 1 ULEC yields UF=O, i.e. zero sliding velocity <the
discuss JOn here is simpler than that of the simi Jar geometric construction
made in Sec. 14, because SM is certainly interior to C).
In that connection. the algorithm works very well to compute a motion
involving the event which, in Remark 14.1, we have call~Q a frictional
catastrophe. Now, we have just seen that each computation step is deter-
ministic, i.e. it yields a untque pair qF, uF. This contrasts wtth the conclu-
sions of Sec.14, showing multiple possible outcomes for such a cata-
strophe: all the points of a line segment are solutions in wM"t concerns the
contact percussion P and similarly in what concerns u\t5 ) or U+(t5 ) (the
latter may take any value between zero and u-(t 5 )).
In fact, the algorithm is able to approximate any of these solutions. As
soon as the successive discretization intervals are chosen, a sequence of
values of uF is unambiguously generated. This sequence is smooth, except for
a jump in one of the intervals, said catastrophic. Before this jump, the
computation of the motion, from given initial data q(t0), u(t 0), yields
consistent results, for arbitrarily fine discretizations. But the value of the
jump obtamed in a catastrophic interval depends on the ratio in which the
68 J.J. Moreau
exact instant divides this interval. So, calculations made with different
discretization meshes may yield different results after the catastrophe.
FIXED BOUNDARY
Figure 15. 1
sode of persistent contact with sliding of constant direction, a catastrophe
occurs. The horizontal component of the velocity of the lowest particle of :B 1
(this equals the sliding velocity in the case of contact) presents a sudden
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 69
drop. At the same instant, contact is broken, with zero normal velocity. In
the process, a percussion is imparted to ~1 from ~0 , making the negative
angular velocity increase in magnitude.
Though discretization is rather rough, the corrective procedure of the
possible constraint violation. described in Remark 11.1, has not been used.
Drawing is however found to comply very well with the unilateral constraint.
On Figure 15.2, the horizontal component of the velocity of the lowest
particle is plotted versus time. All curves correspond to the same initial
conditions as above, but are computed with finer discretization. In order to
display the multiple possible outcomes of the catastrophe, computation has
TIME
Figure 15.2
been repeated, each time with uniform time-mesh, but successively using
different values of the step-length, namely
70 J.J. Moreau
Stage I. Calculate tM=t 1 +~h , the midpoint approximant qM=q 1 +~hu 1, the
force estimation FM= F<tM,qM,u 1) and the "loose velocity" uL =u 1 + h FM.
Stage2.
If f(qM) < 0 or UL.V'f(qM) ~ 0, then UF = UL .
Otherwise, uF is determined by a semi-implicit discretization of (16.2).
In view of the positive homogeneity of the multifunction a~c this is
oEaljlcCuF- uL) +aecuF),
whith the cone C and the function e evaluated at point qM Using the
definition of e, one gives to this inclusion the form OE alji 0CuF) +uF, where D
denotes the set T(qM)n<CCqM)+uL). Through elementary Convex Analysis, this
means that uF equals the proximal point to the origin in this set, with regard
to the usual Euclidean metric of 1R 3 . For the traditional, isotropic, Coulomb
law, Dis a disk, so the proximal point is specially easy to calculate.
REMARK 16.1 Even if one assumes isotropic friction, computing the motion
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 73
EXAMPLE 16.2 The numer1cal technique presented here has been applied [24]
to the motion of a particle P submitted to gravity and confined by a plane
boundary with prescribed motion. This particle represents an object which,
in the case of contact. may sl1de on the boundary, without rolling nor
tumbling. The plane boundary may be the ground surface, in the course of an
earthquake, or also a vibrating table. Motions of the following sort are
common in industrial conveyors.
z z
0 ____ p
----IlL--
-- 0
Figure 16. 1
The vibrating table 1s assumed to have the motion of the shaft in a
crank and s!Jaft mechanism. Let orthonormal axes Oxyz be attached to the
table, with Oxy in its surface. Axes oy anct oz move In fixed plane OYZ. The
point 0 is guided along a segment of the line OY. The point A (0, a, 0) of the
table is astrained, by an eccentric, to describe, at constant velocity, a circle
in the plane OYZ, centered on OY. Therefore, the plane OXY is the mean
posit1on of the vibrating table.
74 J.J. Moreau
0 A
Figure 16.2
Fig.16.3 displays a larger scale drawing, corresponding to the same
direction of rotation as on Fig.16.1. The trajectories correspond to 7 lnfttal
positions equally spaced from y=5 toy= 150.
76 ].]. Moreau
ImlllrrfrllftM'iii2 LWJ.IJ
0 y_
Figure 16.3
Figure 17.1
Depending on the span of the cone C and on the angle that W makes w1tt1
1(, the orthogonal projection of C toW may equal the whole of W or some
Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction 79
making with 1{ an angle larger than n/2. In statical problems, this could be
described as a wedging effect.
The above discussion provides an example of the Interaction between the
constraints of the system and the frictional effects at possible contact
pomts. The treatment of systems involving several contacts with Coulomb
friction, a question left aside In these lectures, leads in general to similar
situations .
.
REFERENCES
I. Delassus, E.: Memoire sur Ia theorle des liaisons flnles unllaterales, Ann.
Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup., 34 <1917), 95-179.
2. Peres, J.: Mecanlque Generale, Masson, Paris 1953.
3. Moreau, J.J.: Les liaisons unllaterales et le prlnclpe de Gauss, C.R. Acad.
Sci. Paris, 256 ( 1963), 871-874.
4. Moreau, J.J.: Quadratic programming In mechanics: dynamics of one-sided
constraints, SIAM J. Control, 4 (1966), 153-158.
5. Dunford, N. and J.T. Schwartz: Linear Operators, Part 1: General Theory,
lnterscience Pub. Inc., New York 1957.
6. Dlnculeanu, N.: Vector Measures, Pergamon, London, New York 1967.
7. ~1oreau, J.J.: B.ounded variation in time, in: Topics in Nonsmooth Mechanics
(Ed. J.J. Moreau, P.O. Panaglotopoulos and G. Strang>, Blrl<hauser, to
appear.
8. Pandlt, S.G. and S.G. Deo: Differential Systems Involving Impulses,
80 J.J. Moreau
P.D. Panagiotopoulos
Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece
R.W.T.H., Aachen, FRG
ABSTRACT
These lectures concern the study of mechanical problems involving non-
convex and possibly nondifferentiable energy functions, the superpo-
tentials. First superpotentials connected with the notion of generalized
gradient are considered, then the V-superpotentials are defined and fina~
ly the quasi differential. After the defintion and formulation of several
classes of mechanical problems involving superpotentials we study the
questions of existence and approximation of the solution of a variation~
hemivariational inequality resulting in the delamination theory of von
Karman laminated plates. Then a general semicoercive hemivariational in-
equality is studied and necessary and sufficient conditions are derived.
The last section is devoted to the new notion of quasidifferentiability
and its application to the study of mechanical problems.
84 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
1. INTRODUCTION
The present Chapter deals mainly with the study of mechanical
problems expressed in terms of nonconvex superpotentials and general-
ized gradients. These problems have as variational formulations hemi-
variational inequalities, expressions of the principle of virtual work
or power in inequality form. We mention here, for instance, problems
involving nonmonotone, possibly multivalued laws between stresses and
strains or reactions and displacements, or generally speaking, between
generalized forces and velocities. A further aim of the present Chapter
is the discussion of some other types of variational formulations which
result from V-superpotentials and from quasidifferentials. All the a-
forementioned problems are expressed in terms of nonconvex energy
functions and their treatment differs inherently from that of problems
having as variational formulations variational inequalities.
The study of variational inequalities started in 1963 with the works of
G. Fichera [1],[2] and of J.L. Lions with G. Stampacchia [3]. An im-
portant achievement of J.J. Moreau [4] in 1968 was the introduction of
the notion of (convex) superpotential and his connection with the theory
of variational inequalities. By means of Moreau's superpotential large
classes of complicated, yet unsolved problems in mechanics and engi-
neering, could now be formulated and solved correctly, which could not
be achieved with the methods of classical bilateral mechanics. Because
the variational inequalities are expressions of the principle of virtu-
al work or power in inequality form all these problems are also called
inequality problems.
Until 1981 all the inequality problems studied were expressed in terms
of variational inequalities and included convex energy functions (super-
potentials). But the convexity of an energy function implies the mono-
tonicity, e.g. of the underlying stress- strain relation. Thus, only
monotone, possibly multivalued conditions between generalized forces
and velocities could be considered. In order to overcome the constraint
of monotonicity the notion of nonconvex superpotential was introduced
by P.D. Panagiotopoulos [5],[6] by using the generalized gradient of
F.H. Clarke. Thus a new type of variational expressions in inequality
form was obtained, the hemivariational inequalities which are no longer
connected with monotonicity. With respect to static hemivariational in-
equalities we have substationarity "principles" for the potential and
the complementary energy and nonuniqueness of the solution, instead of
the minimum "principles" and the uniqueness of the solution as happens
in the case of convex superpotentials. For the formulation and treat-
ment of variational inequality problems we refer the reader to [2],[7],
[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] and for the hemivariational inequalities to [6],
[12] both for the mechanical and the mathematical aspects of the theory.
In this Chapter several types of hemivariational inequalities are
studied. The mechanical problems chosen are representative and form
the appropriate substratum upon which the mathematical theory is de-
Hemivariational Inequalities 85
O{af(x) . (2.6)
Every local minimum and every saddle point is a substationarity point.
Also a local maximum x0 is a substationarity point iff is Lipschitzian
around x0 The substationarity has a more profound equivalent defi-
nition in terms of the directions of approximately uniform descent; see
in this respect [15] p.102, and [12].
A functional f:X~[~,~l is called a-regular if
vector fEF and the generalized velocity vector uEU. Here F and U are
vector spaces placed in separating duality through the bilinear form
<U,f> expressing the work produced by f due to u. Let~:~[~,~] and
suppose that between f and u a relation of the form
-fEa<I>(u) in ~ (2.8)
holds. By definition (2.8) is equivalent to the relation
<I>t(u,v-u);;; <f,v-u> vvEU (2.9)
which is called a hemivariational inequality.
i) Suppose now that <I> is a maximum type function, i.e .. ~(u)=mqx{~.(u)},
1 1
i=1, ... ,m, u={u 1, ... ,~}and ~i() are smooth functions. Let us
introduce the sets Ai={uj~(u)=~i(u)}. Then (cf. also [15])
a<I>(u)= {gra~i(u)} if uEAi (2.10)
a<I>(u)= co{grad~.(u),grad~.(u)} if uEA.nA. (2.11)
1 J 1 J
a<I>(u) = co{ grad~.1 (u) ,grad~.(u) ,grad~k(u)} if uE:A.nA .nAk. (2.12)
J 1 J
88 P.O. Panagiotopoulos
Here "co" denotes the convex hull and thus in (2.11) (resp. (2.12))
a~(u) is the line segment (resp. the triangle) connecting the ends
of the two (resp. the three) gradients.
ii) Suppose that~ is the indicator Ic of a closed set CCU=ffin, i.e.
~(u)=Ic(u)={O if uEC, oo if u~C}, and that u={u 1 , ... ,un}. Then
3~(u)=Nc(u), where NC(u) d2notes the nor~al cone to Cat the
point u.
iii) If more specifically C={uEffin ~i(u)SO i=1, ... ,m} where the
functions ~i are smoothmthen it can be shown (cf.[12] p. 146) that
NC(u)= {fEF=ffin f= EA.. grad~.(u), A..;:;o,~.sO,A..~.=O} (2.13)
i=1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
The dotted line in Fig. 1b is more realistic, since we avoid the ideally
brittle behaviour. All the aforementioned laws can be put in the form
-SN{ajN(uN) , (2.22)
where jN() results by integration. For instance, in the case of Fig. 1a
UN+
jN(uN)= f k(0d1:, (2.23)
0
-SN -sN
SN>~
UN UN
A k(UNo)
(a) (b)
-ST -sr
ur ur
(c) (d)
-Sr -Sr
'
'
ur ur
(e) (f)
a -sr
(g) (h)
m af.(ST;SN)
-uT= i: 1A; 1 asT , A;~ 0, fi(ST;SN)~ 0, "-/i(ST;SN)= 0. (2.29)
With respect to the general friction law (2.25) we can adapt the idea
of nonlocal effects caused by the asperities of the contact surface [19].
In this case SN should be replaced by Q(SN), where Q is an appropriate
smoothing operator.
The previous static friction laws are of importance for static and
certain quasistatic problems. Due to the similarity of this theory to
the deformation theory of plasticity (holonomic theory of plasticity),
the existing criticism and comparisons between this theory and the flow
theory of plasticity applies also to all the static friction laws. For
dynamic problems we have to consider analogous relations between ST and
vT, where vT is the tangential velocity. In this case we may write the
same laws as before by replacing uT by vT. We can explain the noncon-
vexity of the boundary between the sliding and adhesive friction by
means of analogous arguments to those of Green and Naghdi [20] in plas-
ticity; thus a star-shaped friction boundary results. Moreover we can
justify a nonconvex superpotential law of the form
-vTEaW(ST;SN) (2.30)
if we assume that the elastic properties of the asperities change during
the tangential deformation. The justification we shall present is a-
nalogous to the one given in nonconvex plasticity [12]. Let ST be the
actual tangential stress vector assumed to be on the friction surface
(Fig.2a) and let Sf be on or inside the friction surface; we denote by
K the admissible set for the ST's. An external action changes the Sf
into ST and let an additional action produce an additional displacement
increment -dur Let dST be the tangential stress vector increment which
does not need to be tangential to the friction surface, if the latter
changes with frictional deformation (analogously to the hardening ef-
fects in plasticity). Further the external action releases dST and the
tangential vector returns to the initial value Sf. We assume that for
the stress path ABr6EA the work produced consists of one conservative
94 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
{a) {b)
part, which does not depend on the path, and a nonconservative part.
The first results from the elastic deformation of the asperities, where-
as the second from irreversible local fractures causing a change of the
elastic properties of the asperities. Let us assume that the nonrecove~
able work w is a function of ST,ST' of the path followed and of SN. Let
also w= 0 if ST= ST' We assume that the work produced over ABI't.EA is
positive, i.e.
(2.31)
Setting ST= ST, implies -<dST,dur>> 0 and by making this expression as
small as possible we get the inequality
-<ST-s:y,dur>+ w(ST,ST,path,SN) ~ 0 VSTEK . (2.32)
Now we assume the existence of a function W:R 3~[~.~J such that
Hemivariational Inequalities 95
(2.33)
(2.35)
a a
(a) (b)
p 0
(c) (d)
oEaw(E), where w denotes the area between the graph and the horizontal
axis on which the strains are measured.
Generalizations of the above onedimensional examples for threedimension-
al continua can be constructed in analogy to the ideally plastic and
locking materials. Let us e.g. construct a threedimensional analogon to
the onedimensional stress-strain diagram of Fig. 3d. One method would
be to consider four elastic energy structures which intersect each other
and form reentrant corners causing the stress jumps. Moreover the last
energy surface should guarantee that o=O after the last jump (cf.Fig.4a).
/
/
(a) (b)
/
/
,......a=O
0 cl
o,
a
a'1 c3
El E E'l E
(c) (d)
{C~jhkEhk}-IJ{~ij-(PK1E)ij}~{C~jhkEhk} . (2.39)
1 .I
Let us denote their set by S . Let {e 1 .. } be the value for which (2.39)
lJ
is satisfied as equality. This procedure continues until the final
100 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
W(E)
Hemivariational Inequalities 101
All the above considerations hold for the case of loading. Obviously
the unloading along an elastic path could be included in the same model,
but then we have to work with stress and strain increments (cf. Sec.2.9).
o.. (m) m= 1 , 2 , ... , 1 we can wr1 t e th ere 1a t 1ons
a~~). + f~m) = 0 , (2.51)
1J 'J 1
(2.52)
(2.53)
'v'VEU~~), ( 2. 54)
where U~~) is the kinematically admissible set of Q(m), i.e.
(2.56)
Q,
where u d= u u(m)
a m=O ad
104 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
In (2.56) we introduce the integrals along the joints r , q=1, ... ,k.
The new enumeration of the r~m)_boundaries has the adva~tage that final-
ly the energy of each joint appears. Care should be taken of the fact
that the variation of the energy of each constraint of the form (2.47)
and (2.48) must appear only once in the last terms of (2.56). Further
we introduce the elastic energy of the m-structure
a(u
(m)
,v
(m) f (m) ( (m)) 8 ( (m))
) = Q(m)cijhk 8 ij u hk v (2.57)
dQ
+ f F~m)(v~m)_u~m))dr] (2.58)
r(m) 1 1 1
F
(2.59)
since <P~n)=O on r(n). (2.59) implies that (2.51) holds on Q{n) in the
sence o~ distributions over Q(n). This procedure is repeated for
n=1,2, ... 1. Now applying the Green-Gauss theorem to each body we
obtain the equality
(2.60)
More correctly in (2.60) we should have instead of f(m) and f(m) the
duality pairing<.,.> between H112(r) and H- 1/ 2{r).rF rs
From (2.60) and (2.58) we derive the inequality
(2.61)
m=n. and that v~m)_u;m)= 0 for mfn on r~m) and on rq for every q, we
obtain s;n)= F~n) as an equality in H- 112(r(n)); this can be shown for
every n. From (2.61) by setting [v~q)]-[u~q)] = r~q) on rq for q=n and
the same difference =0 for qfn. and setting [viq)]-[u+q)] = 0 on rq for
every q we obtain
(2.62)
106 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
au(m)
-s(m)Eaj (S(m) [~Ttl). (2.64)
T T(m) ' a
In this case we write again (2.54) but by considering instead of dis-
placement variations, velocity variations. Thus we are led to a hemi-
variational inequality as the (2.58) but now having instead of v(())
-u(m) and [v(m)]-[u(m)] the variations v(m)_ au(m) and [v(m)]-[auNm]
N N at N at .
Suppose now that the substructures Q(m) m=1, .. ,1 obey a general non-
monotone law of the form o(m)EaW(m)(E), where W(m) is an extended real-
valued function nonconvex and noneverywhere differentiable (cf. e.g.
(2.43)). Then the variational expression of the problem is the same as
(2.58) but now the term m~ 1 a(u(m) ,v(m)_u(m)) has to be replaced by
j 1J(m)w{m)(E(u(m\E(v(m)_u(m)))dQ.
g
If the w(m) 's are convex super-
potentials, i.e. are convex, l.s.c and proper functionals, then we
define
Hemivariational Inequalities 107
(2.65)
otherwise
and we are led to a variational formulation analogous to (2.58); now
the elastic energy function a(.,.) is replaced by the difference
(E(v(m)))- Wm(E(u(m)))]. This variational form is called vari-
:E 1[vJ
m= m
ational-hemivariational inequality and is the expression of the princi-
ple of virtual work for the considered problem.
In all the above variational formulations we can assume that one or
more of the ni's are rigid. Thus we can incorporate into our model
boundary conditions of the form (2.22) and (2.24).
(2.66)
(2.68)
where
(2.69)
and
rr(v)=rr 1(v)- (l,v). (2.70)
Now let us compute directly arr 1(u) by using the definition (2.2) of
'If(u,v-u). Note that A(u(m)) = 1!2a(u(m) ,u(m)) is a-regular and
A0 (u(m),v(m)) = a(u(m),v(m)) . (2.71)
Moreover let us denote by JN(q) the integral
JN(q)([u~q)]) = ~jN(q)([u~q)])dr, (2.72)
> .. f J(u+A.v)-J(u)
11m1n (2.80)
= A.
A.-+0 +
Thus
J(u,v)= fJ'(u,v)dr= fj 0 (u,v)dr= J 0 (u,v) ( 2. 81 )
r r
The a-regularity of the functions of rr 1 implies that (the proof follows
the same steps indicated in (2.78) and (2.80) but now for finite
sums ( 1) )
( 2.86)
and
( 1) Instead of Fatou's lemma the inequality
limsup(f+g)(y):,; limsupf(y) + limsupg(y)
y-+x y-+x y-+x
is applied and the analogous one for liminf.
Hemivariational Inequalities 111
'v'TEl;ad. (2.89)
- ( m)
Here T.-- T.. n., TN and TT correspond to SN and ST, L: ad- m=O
u L: d , and
a
1 1J J
T= {c( 1 ) , ,T()}. Moreover let us introduce the elastic energy of
the m-structure expressed in terms of the stresses
(m) (m)) _ J (m) (m) (m)
A(a ,a - n(m)cijhkaij ahk dn , (2.90)
( 2. 91)
is a variational-hemivariational inequality.
-~
~
(a) (b)
A
(c)
c
(J
E E
(d) (e)
n o
i:lwi(Ei(u),Ei(v)-Ei(u))+TIR(v)-TIR(u)+TIR/C(v)-TIR/C(u) ~
c directions of cracks at P1
a
.. : ...
L ....l..~\, .....
~ . . . . . ..
. . . 1'-
... , .
a
.. .. :...
B E
a)
c
b) c)
Fig. 6, On the Determination of Cracked Zones in a Structure
116 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
Note that for each crack direction we may introduce both a normal
and a tangential spring in order to study the tangential interface
effects (e.g. friction) at the crack. The directions of the fic-
titious springs may be different at every integration point but
they indicate the directions of all the cracks in the area of the
proportionate subdomain of the element. Thus, if wp is the weight
coefficient of the integration point PP for the numerical integration
and F is the area of the considered element ABC then the cracked or
crushed area around Pp is wpF (Fig. 6b). The aforementioned springs
have a stress-strain law like the one depicted in Fig. 6c whose
values are determined by the ultimate strength in tension and com-
pression of the material. Further nonlinearities of the stress-
strain law of the material may be incorporated into the classical
finite element analysis of the structure. Due to the consideration
of the law of Fig. 6c we can determine the areas which are cracked
(o=O EE[e,f)), crushed (o=O EE(a,b] ), intact ((o,e:) is on cd) or
they are at an intermediate stage ((o,E) on de or de' and on cb or
ca' ). The problem is described by the hemivariational inequality
(cf. (2.95))
n o n' o ~o
}:; w.(Ei(u),E.(v-u))+}:; (j (u ,v -u )+j (u ,v -u ))+
i=1 1 1 p=1 p p p p p p p p
- f~H ( u) ( 2. 103)
is introduced, which is by definition equivalent to the expression
W(u)= {fEFIG(u,v-u,{B},{8},path,history,time derivatives, ... )~
~ <f, v-u> VvEU}. (2.104)
G is an appropriately defined function expressing the virtual power (or
work) of the system. It may be of a nonlocal nature depending on the ob-
servable variables {B} and on the hidden variables {8}, on the "path" of
the variation v-u, on the history of the mechanical system etc. The law
(2.103) is called V-superpotential (virtual power superpotential) law
and may serve for the following "Hypothesis of Dissipation".
(H) for every real thermodynamic process a V-superpotential Wcan be de-
termined such that the "flux" uEU associated with the "force" fEF satis-
fies (2.103).
This hypothesis is a generalization of the hypothesis of normal dissi-
pation of [21]. We can easily verify that if
G(u,-u,{B},{8},path,history, ... ) ~ 0 (2.105)
then the inequality fiui~ 0 expressing the second principle of thermo-
dynamics is satisfied. If furthermore we assume that
G( u, v, ... ) > G( u, o, ... ) WEU, H 0 ( 2. 106)
120 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
iii)Several methods have been proposed until now for the numerical treat-
ment of the hemivariational inequalities. Let us begin for the
moment with the monotone case and with a very special discrete
problem, the elastic cable structures for small displacements (see
e.g. [39],[40]):
The arising system of equalities and inequalities is equivalent to a
quadratic programming (Q.P.) problem (cf. also [12] p.350).
Hemivariational Inequalities 123
(2.116)
:/
lZT
w
A c
E
a) ( b)
8'
( c)
vertical parts of the graph denote local jumps and the decreasing
branch is "attained" by small monotone increasing "stress recovery"
parts AA' ,BB'. The physical explanation of this approximation is
obvious and is based on the idea of gradual failure of the material
on the decreasing branch. Small numerical examples solved by this
method are given in [23] and in [53]. The method is fully examined
in [52] and has certain advantages concerning its ability to describe
the localization of the failure. However there are considerable nu-
merical difficulties in obtaining numerically all the solutions of
the problem. At this point we would like to remark that a structure
may have a position of overall equilibrium in which one ore some ele-
ments of the structure are in unstable equilibrium. For instance
the framework of Fig. Bb with strong linear elastic vertical and
horizontal beams is always in equilibrium under the loading P even
if the diagon~l AB has a stress-strain law derived by the potential
function of Fig. Be. Note that a simple rod-element having this
strain energy would have as a position of stable equilibrium the
point Band as other possible position of equilibrium the point C
and all the points between rand~ (r~ is an horizontal line segment).
Indeed all these positions of equilibrium are substationarity points.
It is also noteworthy that a convexification of the energy would e-
liminate several positions of equilibrium (dotted line in Fig. Be).
Let us now assume that the final value of the loading is attained
128 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
mainly due to the normal interlayer stresses [54], is one of the main
causes of strength-degradation of composite plates. Here the mechanical
behaviour of the interlayer binding material, together with the possi-
bility of local cracking and crushing effects, are described by a non-
monotone, possibly multivalued law between the interlaminar bonding
forces with the corresponding relative displacements. This law can be
derived from a nonconvex superpotential and leads to a hemivariational
inequality. Here in order to study a larger and more realistic class of
problems we assume at the boundary of the von Karman plate monotone
boundary conditions which include e.g. the Signorini-Fichera boundary
condition, the plastic hinge condition, etc. (see e.g. [7],[12]). These
conditions are derived through subdifferentiation from a convex generally
nondifferentiable and nonfinite functional, the convex superpotential of
Moreau.
Unilateral problems for a single plate have been studied for monotone
boundary conditions in [7] and [12] and for nonmonotone boundary con-
ditions in [47]. A laminated-plate theory concerning Kirchhoff plates
(small displacements - no stretching) has been presented in [55],[56]. We
refer also at this point the work of Naniewicz and Wozniak [57] ,[58],[59]
on the hemivariational inequalities and their applications to the de-
bonding processes in layered composites.
Let us consider a laminated plate consisting of two laminae and the
binding material between them (Fig. 9). In the undeformed state the
middle surface of each lamina, say the j one, occupies an open, bounded
and connected subset Qj of R2 Qi is referred to a fixed Cartesian
right-handed coordinate system Ox 1x2x3 . The boundary of the j-th lamina
rj is assumed to be a Lipschitz boundary C0 ' 1 The interlaminar binding
material occupies a.subset g' such that o'co 1no 2 and ono 1 =~. ono 2 =~.
Let us denote by 6(J)(x) the vertical deflection of the point xEQ. of
the j-th lamina, by f(j)=(O,o,fp)(x)) the distributed vertical l~ad on
the j-th lamina, and by u(j)={u~j) ,u~j)} the in-plane displacements of
the j-th lamina. The j-th lamina has constant thickness hj' while the
interlaminar binding layer has constant thickness h. For each lamina
130 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
the von Karman plate theory is adopted, i.e. each lamina is regarded as
a thin plate undergoing large deflections. Thus we have the following
system of differential equations:
K.M {;( j ) - h . (a ( j ) ~ ( j ) ) f (j ) in Q.
J J ae ,B ,a J
(3. 1)
a( j) =0 in Q.
ae.B J '
(3.2)
and a(j) = C(j) (E(j)(u(j))~(j)6(j)) in Qj (3.3)
ae aeyo yo 2 ,y ,a
The subscripts a,B,y,6 = 1,2 indicate the coordinate directions; {a~l},
{~)} and {C~~ 0 } are the stress, strain an~ elasticity tensors in the
plane of the j-lamina. The components of c(J) are assumed to be ele-
ments of L~(Q.) and they satisfy the well-known symmetry and ellipticity
properties ofJthe Hooke's tensor. Moreover, Kj= Eh~/12(1-v 2 ) is the
bending rigidity of the j-th plate withE Young's modulus and v Poisson's
ratio. Here we consider isotropic homogeneous plates of constant thick-
nesses. However, in place of (3.1-4) we could assume the appropriate
equations for orthotropic or anisotropic plates in bending. The mathe-
matical treatment is the same. In order to model the action of the in-
terlaminar normal stresses a 33 , f(j) is splitte~ ~nto f(j), which de-
scribes the interaction of the two plates, and f(J)EL 2(Qj), which re-
presents the external loading of the j-th plate:
f(j) = f(j)+ f(j) in Qj' j=1,2. (3.4)
If f denotes the stress in the interlaminar binding layer, we have that
f = 1( 1) = -1( 2 ) in Q' (3.5)
Then a phenomenological law connecting f with the relative deflection of
the plates (see Fig. 9b)
[{;]=6( 1)-6( 2) (3.6)
1\
is introduced. Let f be a multivalued nonmonotone funct1on B (cf.
Fig. 10a), of [~;] i.e.
1\
-fEB([{;]) in Q' (3.7)
Hemivariational lnequalities 131
r1
(a)
=(1)
+1
(b)
(3.13)
-f. p"
A
I
I
I
I
B ' B
a)
b - O,M
b)
( .) d (j)
M. (1: J )Eb. (-1:- ' j=1,2' (3. 14)
J J 3n
Here bj' bj, j=1,2 are generally multivalued maximal monotone operators
from 1R into !P( lR) [12], i.e. complete nondecreasing curves [61] (see
also the graphs of Fig. 10b). Accordingly, convex, l.s.c, proper
functionals [62] ~j' ~j j=1,2 can be determined such that
a(:(j) 31: ( j)
bj(--ar;-) d~j (--ar;-)' j= 1,2 (3.17a)
a (j) ()
J~.(-z-)dr-{~' .(z J )dr,
r. J an r. J
J J
d(j) 1 () 1
if ~j(~)EL (rj) and ~j(z J ) L (rj)
(3.19)
2 2
M(~) = -K[v~~+(1-v)(2n1n2~,12+n1~,11+n2~,22] ' (3.22)
- a~~ a 2 2
(3.23)
Q(O = -K[Tn+ ( 1-v) a1: [n1n2(~.22-~,11)+(n1-n2)~,12]]
Here 1: is the unit vector tangential to r, such that n,1: and the Ox 3-
axis form a right-handed system. In (3.22-23) Mand Q are the bending
moment and the total shearing force (Q= Q-aM/ac) respectively on the
boundary r. Analogously we get from (3.2) the expression
and
(3.26)
(3.27)
Taking into account (3.25, 3.26), (3.20) and (3.24), the boundary con-
ditions (3. 14-16) and (3. 19), the inequalities defining the subdiffer-
entials a in (3. 17a,b), and (3. 18), as well as the interface conditions
(3.5),(3.8),(3. 12) and the definition of the generalized gradient a we
obtain from (3.20) for j=1 and j=2 and addition and from (3.24) the
following problem~. in which due to the aforementioned addition
the relative deflection [~] appears.
Problem~: Find u(j)E[H 1(nj)] 2 and ~(j)EZj, j=1 ,2, such as to satisfy
the variational-hemivariational inequality
~ ~
a. . ( ( j ) , Z ( j )- ~ ( j ) ) + ~ h . R(E( u( j ) ) + _lp (~ ( j ) ) , P( ~ ( j ) , Z ( j ) -~ ( j ) ) ) +
j=1 J j=1 J 2
+ fJ 0 ([~],[z]-[~])dQ+ ~ {<I>.(z(j))-<I>.(~(j))};;;
Q' j =1 J J
R(E(U(j))+~P(~(j)), E(V(j)_u(j))) = 0 ,
vv(j)E[H 1(nj)J 2, j=1,2 (3.29)
m'
J J 0 (.,.)dn is replaced by the term J 1 ,J J~(.,.)dn, where m'=r-1 is
n' n
(m) ( ")
the total number of interfaces, and (3.28) must hold for very z J EZj'
j=1, ... ,r.
Several other types of boundary conditions may be considered. The only
condition which should be fulfilled is that the classical boundary con-
ditions must ensure the coerciveness of the quadratic form of bending
aj(~(j) .~(j)), i.e. they must prevent any rigid-plate deflection. This
is guaranteed, if, e.g., a plate is partially clamped or simply sup-
ported on a curved boundary part. Moreover the boundary conditions
(3.19) can be replaced by u1=u 2=0 or any other combination of classical
boundary conditions which, together with the boundary conditions in
bending, will guarantee the vanishing of the term
J h.o(j)~(j)n(j)(z(j)_~(j))dr in (3.20). For nonhomogeneous classical
r. J al3 ,13 a
J
boundary conditions we obtain through an appropriate translation analo-
gous variational problems as in the homogeneous case. In the general
"'
model problem P', which will be studied further, the classical boundary
conditions of each plate in bending define the kinematically admissible
sets z. which are assumed to be subspaces H2(n) on which the bilinear
form a~(~(j) .~(j)) are coercive. Our study is mainly based on [63].
~ a.(~(j),z(j)_~(j))+ ~ h.R(E(u(j))+l(~(j)),P(~(j),z(j)_~(j)))+
j=1 J j=1 J
R(E(u(j)l+fU:(j)), dv(j)_u(j))) = 0,
vv(j)E[H 1(Qj)J 2, j=1 , ... ,r. (3 .31)
(3.33)
Let us now introduce the operators A.: Z.->Z '. and C.: Z.-.z '. (where ZJ'. is
J J J J J J
the dual space to Z.) such that
J
Moreover
<C.(~(j)),~(j)> = h.R(G.(~(j)),2G.(~(j))) ~ 0,
J J J J
'v'~(j )EZj, j=1 ,2, .. ,r (3.36)
From the coercivity of aj(~(j) .~(j)) on Zj we obtain
~ <T.(~(j)),z(j)_~(j)>+ ~ fJo([~](m),[z](m)_[~](m))dQ +
j=1 J m=1~ m
The basic assumption for the existence and the approximation of the so-
lution of our problem, concerns the interface law: For some EE R
( 3.41)
Now the regularized problem P is defined:
E
Let p be a mollifier (pEC;(-1,+1), p~ 0 with :s p(~)d~= 1), and let
(3.42)
Problem PE: Find (;;~j)EZj' j=1, ... ,r, such as to satisfy the vari-
ational equality
Further a Galerkin basis of Zj, j=1, ... ,r is introduced. Let Zjn be the
corresponding n-dimensional subspace of Zj. The corresponding finite
dimensional Problem PEn reads:
Hemivariational Inequalities 141
~ <T.(~(j)),z(j)>+ ~ <grad~.(~(j)),z(j)> +
j= 1 J En j= 1 J En
+ ~ Jl3(m)([~
, E En
J (m))[z] (m)dn = ~ (f(j) ,z(j)),
. 1
m= 1r;m J=
Proposition 3.1: Let assumptions (3.39a) and (3.45) hold. Then for
f(j)EL 2(aj)' j=1, ... ,r problem P has at least one solution.
~ 0- p~m)P~m)mesQ~ (3.47)
( 1)(3.45) could be omitted. Then we shall use the fact that there is 6
such that grad~.(6 0 ) is finite. Again (3.48) with 6 instead of 0
zero would be u~ed. . 0
142 P .D. Panagiotopoulos
- ~
."
c'.' r (j) '!
J 1ISEn
1
IZ.' c., c'. const .> 0 ' j=1, ... ,r . (3.49)
J=1 J J J
Due to (3.49) we can apply Brouwer's fixed point theorem and thus (3.46)
has a sou ;,En w1 th 11II sEn
l t 10n 9'
0
T (j ) :, <
0
-1 2
1 ~cj' J-, , ... ,r.
Now we may de t erm1ne 0 0
subsequences, again denoted by {1:~~)}, j=1 , ... ,r, such that for E~O,n~
sEn ~ T(j)
T(j) s wea kl y 1. n Zj, J. = 1, ... , r , (3 . 50)
2 2
and because of the compact imbeddings H (oj)CL (oj), j=1 , ... ,r
Accordingly
c(j)~
En
1:(j) a.e. in QJ. ' j=1, ... ,r . (3.52)
Further we may omit the indices and (m) if no ambiguity occurs. Now we
prove that 13~m)([1:En](m)) is Heakly precompact in L 1 (o~), m=1, ... ,m'.
Equivalently, due to the Dunford-Pettis theorem (e.g. [62] p.239) we
must show that for each ~ m>0 a 6 m(~ m)>0 can be determined such that for
( 3. 53)
The inequality
(3.54)
implies that
(3.55)
Hemivariational Inequalities 143
But
= J I . . . I dQ - J i I dQ + 2f : I dQ :s
I u:En(x)] [>p I [~En(x)] [,;p1 I [~En(x)] l<;;p1
dQ + 2f I .. I dQ
: [~En(x)] i<;;p1
(3.56)
Now let us set z( 1)=z( 1)EZ 1n in (3.44) such that z( 1 )=z( 2 ) on Ql'
The definition of the mollifier and (3.42) imply easily the estimate
(3.58)
(3.60)
we obtain that
(3.61)
(3.62)
For the present specific plate problem we have that H 2 (o)CC 0 (Q)CL~(g)
(imbeddings). Moreover (3 is a C~-function and thus (3.62) results im-
E
mediately without using the Dunford-Pettis theorem and the estimates
(3.53)7(3.61) based on [65]. However, this procedure is necessary in
most other types of nonmonotone nonlinearity and in any other type of
functional setting. Indeed in any hemivariational inequality formulated
in the H1-space the above procedure is necessary because H 1 (o)~C 0 (Q).
The same holds for any type of nonlinearity term (3() for which the
previous C0 -imbedding does not hold: For instance, let us consider in
Hemivariational Inequalities 145
From (3.44),(3.62) and (3.65)we obtainpassinq tothe limit n-+oo, E:-+0 that
(3.67)
At this point it is worth noting that, if (3.67) did not hold, then we
would choose appropriately the Galerkin basis. For instance for an
analogous problem formulated in a V-space with V~C 0 (Q)CL00 (Q) we would
consider a Galerkin basis in the space VnL00 (Q). Then it is necessary
that VnL00 (Q) be dense in V for the V-norm (cf. Sec.4 and [12] p.272).
To complete the proof we will show that
w(j)= gradq>j(~(j)) in Zj , j=1,2, ... ,r, (3.68)
146 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
and that
(3 .69)
X = ~ <grad<1?.(1:(j))-grad<1?.(&.) r:(j)_&.> :; 0
n j= 1 J En J J ' En J '
(3.70)
( 3. 71)
(3.73)
Since H2(n') is compactly imbedded into L00 (Q' ), we have that limB= 0 due
to (3.62). Also it implies that
(3.74)
and thus
(3.75)
Hemivariational Inequalities 147
with ~(j)EL00 (Qj-wj). Due to this uniform convergence, for every a>O a
w with meSW<a. can be found such that for any ~>0 and for E<E 0 <~/2 and
n>n 0 >2/~
and analogously
ess inf 13(!;-t) :S 13E(!;) (3.81b)
JtJ:St=:
From (3.80) and (3.81a,b) we have that
(3.85)
b) The "nondifferen tiable" case: In this case graclci>j does not exist
everywhere for some j. Then we regularize the convex superpotentia ls
~j' by assuming that for every j=1,2, .. ,r a sequence of convex Gateaux-
Hemivariationallnequ alities 149
Now, we prove that (3.53) holds for {[3(m)([!;: ](m))} (cf. Prop. 3.1)
E Epn
and thus,
[3~m) ([r;Epn] (m) )-+ x~m) weakly in L1 (Q~), m=1, ... ,m' , (3.93)
and
(3.95)
where the constants do not depend on E,n,p. Therefore we have for E-+0,
The relations
are proved as in Prop. 3.1. From (3.98) and (3.99) and the convexity
inequalities
ct>j 0 (E(j))-ct>jp(z(j)) ~ <9radct>j 0 (z(j)),E(j)_z(j)>, VE(j)EZj we get
We let z(j) in (3.100) be such that <I>.(z(j))<=, j=1,2, ... ,r. Then, due
to (3.87) there exist constants c.
J
su~h that <I>. (z(j))< c., j=1,2, ... ,r
JP J
and from (3. 100) it results that
"" (r(j))~_
"' s c'. , 1, 2 , ... ,r
J= (3.101)
JP p J
But (3. 101) and (3.91) imply (3.89) for each <I>jp' Now let us write
(3.100) as
(3.102)
uz(j)EZ.,
v J . 1 2
J=,, ,r (3.103)
152 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
( 3. 104)
and that
(3.107)
and analogously for Jj 0 (u,-q)dQ. Thus (4. 10) is shown. The rest of the
Q'
proposition is obvious q.e.d. Further we give a sufficient condition.
Proposition 4.2: Let
6(-=)<6(=). (4.14)
Then if
J[6(-=)q -6(=)q ]dO< (f,q)< JW(=)q -6(-=)q ]do 'v'qEkera,q tO,
Q' + - Q' + -
(4.15)
problem P has a solution.
Proof: The proof has some parts similar to the proof of Prop. 3.1. We
point out here the new arguments. First a Galerkin basis of VnL=(o) is
introduced. This is possible due to (4.3). Let Vn be then-dimensional
subspace of VnL=(o). We regularize Problem P through the mollifier p .
E
Then the corresponding fin~te dimensional problem PEn is formulated.
Problem PEn Find uEn EV n such that
a ( u n, v) + f6 ( u ) vdQ = ( f, v) VVEVn . (4.16)
E Q' E En
Now we will apply Brouwer's theorem to show that (4. 16) has at least one
solution uEn and that { iluEn [[}is bounded. According to this theorem
we have to prove that r> 0 exists such that
(4.19)
Here it will be shown that a number M> 0 can be determined such that
(4.20)
Then we may take lluEnll= r>M. For the proof of (4.20) it is suf-
ficient to prove that
(4.21)
(4.22)
where u =
En
u +q Accordingly it is sufficient to prove that
En En
(A(uEn),uEn);;; 0 implies JqEn[ 2 ;;; c, or equivalently, that a number R> 0
can be determined such that
(4.23)
This last relation will be shown now. From the definition of 8 we prove
E
that
+E
8 (ex>) = 1 im8 (f;) = 1im J8(f;-t)p ( t)dt~ 1 imess inf8(x) ;;;
E ~ E ~" E f;-+c4x-(;[;;;E
lq En (x)j>fu
158 P.D. Panagiotopoulos
;;; ( 1 - _l)
N
f qc:n13c: ( uc:n ) dQ - p p me sQ '
1 2
(4.32)
00
luc:n (x) I<N
I qc:n ( x) I >fu
I uc:n I = u
I c:n + qc:n I > ( 1 - l loo> f.f
~~
(4.33)
and therefore
(4.35)
- o 1o 2mesn'- (f,q
En
)- (f,u ) (4.36)
En
Using (4.30), we obtain for a>a 0 sufficiently large from (4.36), that
( 4.37)
From (4.37) we obtain assuming that a>a0 and that (4.22) holds the final
Hemivariational Inequalities 159
est i rna te
(A(uEn),uEn)>n[qEnl 2 -c[qEnl~/ 2 -c', c,c' const>O. (4.38)
where
if xE{xli= f, ... ,k= f}, where co denotes the convex hull. This
formula can be shown independently of the theory of generalized gradient
[73]. Now we consider pairs of sets ri= {Ai,Bi}' i=1,2 , where AiCX'
and BiCX' and we define their addition by
(5.12)
if ),.2; 0
( 5. 13)
if A.< 0
Using these definitions we can show that, if fi' i=1, ... ,n, are quasi-
differentiable functions at x then g= ~a.f. is also quasidifferentiable
1 1 1
at x(a 1.ElR ) and Dg =~a. Of .. Moreover it can be shown that if f 1 and f 2
1 1 1
are quasidifferentiable at x then g= f 1f 2 has the same property and
(5.14)
The following properties are of importance: With i' i=1, ... ,n,
f= m~x{i} is quasidifferentiable at x and for l(x)= {ili(x)= f(x)}
E=-
v +w I
vo+wo , maxmin{llv+wll wEa'f(x 0 ),vEl'f(x 0 )}= llv 0 +w0 ll
II o o II w v
( 5. 23)
is a direction of steepest descent (not unique) of f at x0 , and if x0
does not satisfy (5.22) then the direction
With respect to the same mechanical system ~~e may introduce a more
general law of the form
{-r,-f}E~(u)= {~'<ll(u),a'<ll(u)} (5.26)
where f,fEF and <ll is a quasidifferentiable function. The greater possi-
bilities offered by (5.26) in comparison with (5.25) are obvious. To
explain better (5.26) let us assume, for the sake of simplicity, that
U=lRn and F=lRn. For a bounded subset ACF we define the support function
sA(u) = sup{<u,f>lfEA} . (5.27)
1' .
{-L;T . , -L;
.1.1.1 1
a
-.1
a L;<D 1 ( u) }
}n: D<D . ( u ) = DL;<D ( u) ={ I L;<D ( u ) , I (5.32)
1 1 1 1 1 1
(5.34)
.. ~::.~11:=
w'(E,E*)= max{l: lJ {'r .. }EA}+ min{~ .. ~::.~1
lJ lJ 1J 1J
(5.41)
Several materials obey the foregoing material law. For instance materi-
als having as a strain energy density w a finite function which is the
sum of a co~vex and a concave finite part i.e. w=w 1+w 2. Then ~w(E)=aw1 (E)
and a'w(E) =aw2 (E). Analogous is the case of a strain energy which with
respect to certain components E1 of the strain tensor is convex and with
respect to the remaining components ~ is concave. Let for instance
E-+W(E) = w(1 ,E 2) be finite on E{E 2ClR where E1ClRa, E2cm13 ,,a+t3= 6, are
open and convex. Then w(.,E 2) (resp. w(E 1,.)) is co~vex (resp. concave)
and the sets aE 1w(.,E 2) -the subdifferential -and aE 2w(E 1,.) -the
superdifferential - are nonempty, compact, convex sets. It can be
proved [ 73] p.232) that E-+W(E 1,E 2) is quasidifferentiable on E,xE 2,
and that at E= (E 1 ,E 2)
Then the set of all ~'s satisfying (5.49) is a closed convex cone n[C]
in the space e and the set of the corresponding elements [A,B] of Q
~
forms a convex closed cone N[C] in the space Q. Now let us consider a
n
closed set TC1R and x0 ET. Then a vector y is said to be tangent toT
at x0 if a sequence {xn}ET and a sequence {tn},tn>O, with tn~o+ can be
determined such that lim(xn-x 0 )/t= y as ~oo. All the tangent vectors
to T at x0 ~orm the tangent cone ~eT(x 0 ) which is closed. Suppose now
that [A,B]EQ. ~~e say that [A,B] is quasinormal toT at x0 if for C a
closed cone such that CC~T(x 0 ) we have that [A,B]EN[C]. Further let us
denote by nT(x 0 ) the set of all quasinormals toT at x0 . Suppose
further that T= {x[p(x) SO} where pis a quasidifferentiable function
and let x0 be such that p(x 0 )= 0. Let us denote by r(.) the function
(sa'p(x ) - s-a'p(x ))() and let the nondegeneracy assumption
- 0 0
(5.51)
and every ray {A.x(A.;;: 0, x~U} does not intersect in more than one point
the boundary of U. As it is known [20] ,[87] star-shaped surfaces
constitute a very general type of yield surfaces in the theory of
plasticity. The expected connection of (5.52) and the calculus de-
veloped in [85] with the theory of plasticity and the limit load analy-
sis is still an open problem.
REFERENCES:
[1] Fichera, G.: Problemi elastostatici con vincoli unilaterali: il
problema di Signorini con ambigue condizioni al contorno,
Mem. Accad. Naz. Lincei, VIII 7 (1964), 91-140.
[2] Fichera, G.: Existence Theorems in Elasticity. In: Encyclopedia of
Physics (ed. by S. FlUgge) Vol. VIa/2, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1972.
[3] Lions, J.L. and G. Stampacchia: Variational Inequalities, Comm. pure
and applied Math., XX (1967), 493-519.
[4] Moreau, J.J.: La notion de sur-potentiel et les liaisons unilatera-
les en elastostatique, C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 267A (1968), 954-957.
[5] Panagiotopoulos, P.O.: Non-convex Superpotentials in the Sence of
F.H. Clarke and Applications, Mech. Res. Comm, 8 (1981),335-340.
[6] Panagiotopoulos, P.O.: Nonconvex Energy Functions. Hemivariational
Inequalities and Substationarity Principles, Acta Mechanica, 42
(1983), 160-183.
[7] Duvaut, G. and J.L. Lions: Les inequations en Mecanique et en
Physique, Dunod, Paris 1972.
[8] Baiocchi, C. and A. Capelo: Variational and Quasivariational In-
equalities, J. Wiley, New York 1984.
[9] Kinderlehrer, D. and G. Stampacchia: An Introduction to Variational
Inequalities and their Applications, Academic Press, New York 1980.
[10] Friedman, A.: Variational Principles and Free Boundary Problems,
J. Wiley, New York 1982.
[11] Rodriguez, J.F.: Obstacle Problems in Mathematical Physics,
North Holland, Amsterdam 1987.
[12] Panagiotopoulos, P.O.: Inequality Problems in Mechanics and Appli-
cations. Convex and Nonconvex Energy Functions, Birkhauser Verlag,
Boston-Basel 1985 (Rus. Transl. M/R Pub., Moscow 1987).
[13] Clarke, F.H.: Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis, J. Wiley,
New York 1983.
[14] Rockafellar, R.T.: Generalized Directional Derivatives and Sub-
gradients of Non-convex Functions, Can. J. Math., XXXII (1980),
257-280.
[15] Rockafellar, R.T.: La theorie des sous-gradients et ses applications
a l 'optimization. Fonctions convexes et non-convexes, Les Presses
de l 'Universite de Montreal, Montreal 1979.
[16] Hamel, G.: Theoretische Mechanik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1967.
Hemivariaitonal Inequalities 173
[17] Floegl, H. and H.A. Mang: Tension Stiffening Concept Based on Bond
Slip, ASCE, ST 12, 108 (1982), 2681-2701.
[18] Panagiotopoulos, P.D.: Hemivariational Inequalities in Frictional
Contact Problems and Applications. In: Mech. of Material Interfaces
(ed. by A.P.S. Selvadurai, G.Z. Voyatzis), Elsevier Sc. Publ.,
Amsterdam 1986.
[19] Pires, E.B. and J.T. Oden: Analysis of Contact Problems with
Friction Under Oscillating Loads,Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 39
(1983), 337-362.
[20] Green, A.E. and P.M. Naghdi: A General Theory of an Elastic-Plastic
Continuum, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 18 (1965), 251-281.
[21] Halphen, B. and N.Q. Son: Surles Materiaux Standards Generalises,
J. de Mecanique, 14 (1975), 39-63.
[22] Germain, P.: Cours de Mecanique des milieux continus I, Masson,
Paris 1973.
[23] Panagiotopoulos, P.D. and E.K. Koltsakis: Interlayer Slip and Dela-
mination Effect: A Hemivariational Inequality Approach, Trans. of
the C.S.M.E., 11 (1987), 43-52. -
[24] Baniotopoulos, C.: Analysis of Structures with Complete Stress-
strain Laws, Doct. Thesis, Aristotle Univ., Dept. Civil Eng.,
Thessaloniki 1985.
[25] Panagiotopoulos, P.D. and C. Baniotopoulos: A Hemivariational In-
equality and Substationarity Approach to the Interface Problem:
Theory and Prospects of Applications, Eng. Anal., 1 (1984), 20-31.
[26] Holister, G.S. and C. Thomas: Fibre Reinforced Materials, Elsevier,
London 1966.
[27] Green, A.K. and W.H. Bowyer: The Testing and Analysis of Novel Top-
Hat Stiffener Fabrication Methods for Use in GRP Ships, Proc. 1st
Int. Conf. on Composite Structures (ed. by I.H. Marshall), Applied
Science Publishers, London 1981.
[28] Williams, J.G. and M.D. Rhodes: Effect of Resin on Impact Damage
Tolerance of Graphite/Epoxy Laminates, Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on
Composite Materials, Testing and Design, ASTM STP 787 (ed. by
I.M. Daniel), ASTM, Philadelphia 1982.
[29] Schwartz, M.M.: Composite Materials Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York
1984.
[30] Baniotopoulos, C.C. and P.D. Panagiotopoulos: A Hemivariational In-
equality Approach to the Analysis of Composite Material Structures,
Proc. Conf. Composite Structures Patras, Omega Press, London 1987.
[31] Dunford, N. and J. Schwartz: Linear Operators, Part I: General
Theory, Interscience Publ., New York 1966.
[32] Sheikh, A. and S.M. Uzumeri: Analytical model for concrete confine-
ment in tied columns, J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 108 (ST12) (1982),2703.
[33] Emori, K. and W.C. Schnobrick: Inelastic behavior of concrete
frame-wall structures, J.Struct. Div. ASCE, 107 (ST1) (1981), 145.
[34] Gilbert, J. and R.F. Warner: Tension stiffening in reinforced
concrete slabs, J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 104 (ST12) (1978), 1885.
[35] Hutchinson, J.W.: Micromechanics of Damage in Deformation and
Fracture, Edition of Solid Mech. Dept., T~ Denmark 1987.
174 P.D, Panagiotopoulos
M. Fremond
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees
Laboratoire de Modelisation des Materiaux et des Structures du Genie Civil
Paris, France
1. INTRODUCTION
support S
Figure 1
The system formed by ~ and the part r of the support.
Figure 2
Links ensuring adhesion
...
where u denotes the stresses, D(u) the strain rates
(oii (u) ~(ui ,i+ ui,i >) and R the internal reaction. It is
obvious that this expression does not take into account the
power of the microscopic velocities. Thus it should appear in
another term having the usual expression of a power : that is
a linear function of the velocity. The simpliest choice avai-
lable is
-
D(v) = 0 in D vextv = 0 and~= 0 in D n r.
The first two relations are classical. The last one is new.
One can point out that it finds strong support from existing
experience which emphasises the necessity of some deformation
of the structure in order to modify the adherence (that is to
say in order to have~~ 0) [9].
VD c 0, Vd E U, ~i + ~e 0.
a.1 J. . + f
J 1 = 0 in D, ( 1)
( 2)
F = A, ( 3)
( 4)
3. ENERGY BALANCE
dE
dt
~e + Q =- ~i + Q, (1)
We choose for Q
o, ( 2)
0, ( 3)
Assuming ! to be flat,
where the ~'s are the two indices of the orthogonal coordi-
nates in r.
~r
dtJmf'
{Pnen + p 5 e 5 }dO
= Lr{Pn
den
- - + Ps
dt
de 5
dt
}en.
Let us recall that the relation
-d
dt
J
D
pe dO= J pde
- dO,
D dt
v:o c n,
p
de
dt
+ div q= aD(;) + r, in :0, ( 4)
We then obtain
-
Pn --- + p5 --- + divrq F13 + R(u-uext) + r + (w+qn), (5)
dt dt
dS
dt
~
J:0 E
T
dO +
which must be satisfied for any domain :0 and any actual evo-
lution. We obtain easily that
ds q r
P + div ~ o, in n,
dt T T
dsn ds 5 r+w+qn
- - + Ps - - +
dt dt
T ~ o, in r.
Pn
dsn
[T ---
dt
den
dt
l +
ds 5
P, [T ---
dt
de,
dt
l +
+ F~ + R(uext-u) - -
q gradr T
T
~ o,
- - - - -
Defining ~ = e-Ts, ~n = en-Tsn, ~s e 5 -Ts 5 and inte-
grating over a domain :0 we obtain the Clausius-Duhem
inequality,
Contact with Adhesion 187
v:n, r {p
J:n
d'l<
dt
+ Ps
dt
dT}dO + Jmr{en d.J..n
- - + P.n S.n
dt dt
dnT}
d'l<s
d'T}
- - + Ps ss - - d1 s
+ {" dt dt f:u{ao(\i) q grad
T
T}dn
L,{~
_ q gradrT}
+ + R(uext-u) - d1,
T
. . d.nT d5 T
where the der1vat1ve dt and dt are the material derivatives
with respect to the structure and the support
aT aT
+ grad T u, +grad T uext.
at at
--
domain :0 and by any actual evolution; i.e., for any veloci-
ties u, uext, ~. and any heat fluxes q and q. -
The free energies '1<, .J. 5 and '1< 5 depend on the
temperature T and other quantities xi . Let us define the
functions
I a1',}
Lr{Pn
a>11 a>1'n
p --dll + - - + Ps - dr
at at at
J:o
~ grad
s J:o{ao(u) - q T}dll ( 1)
r
Lr{ro
q gradrT}
+ R (ue x t -u) - dr,
+ T
""} fJ
( 2)
J {ro
mr
+ RcU ex t -U> - Pn ---
a>1'n
at Ps - - dr
at '
-
02 =
I :0-
q~ grad
T
T dll + I -
mr
- q gradr T
T
dr, ( 3)
0 1 ~ 0 and 62 ~ o. ( 4)
-
where k and k are the thermal conductivities of the structure
and the bonds. Thus the second inequality of (4) is
satisfied.
a>j;
I p --
at
D
a> o
The quantity at is the material derivative of - 0 where
the temperature T is kept to its value T(t) at time t.
(6)
o,
- -
f3 ( ue x t -u) = 0' ( 1)
and
- --
(uext-u)n?:: 0, ( 2)
besides
0 :::; f3 :::; 1, ( 3)
We
support
now suppose,
is rigid - for the sake of simplicity, that the
u ext = 0 and that the structure is fixed
along a part 1 0 u = o on 1 0 (figure 3).
Contact with Adhesion 191
support S
Figure 3
The structure fixed on the part 1 0
-
{v v E V : v = 0 on 1 0 } x B,
where A(T), 1-L(T) are the Lame elastic parameters and k 2 (T) a
positive elastic rigidity, (3A+21-L > o, 1-L > o, k 2 > 0).
-
~(D,u,~,T) = 12 - -
11:1 (D,u,u,T) + i1 ~ (D,-u,-u,T)
- -
E = ~- Ta~
- = J PCT + (3A 0 +~ 0 )cxT 0 kk (u)dO
aT D
.,..
~ + --- u.
au
We cannot use the subdifferential of a convex function
[10) because ~ is not convex. Thus we define a similar notion
the local subdifferential.
-
The elements d = (v,~) of U0 or the deformations and the
adhesion intensity are in duality with the internal forces
f = (a,R,F) by the bilinear form
194 M. Fremond
Fr (x) =- w(T).
...
Let us define fr = (ar,Rr,Fr) and d1 (u,~). Because
wr is convex, we have
Contact with Adhesion 195
( 1)
For d 1 -
(u,~) E K, we have
(3)
Vd 1 (u,~) E K,
there exist fr such that
a> o
Let us calculate which is an element of inequality
at
(4.6).
( 2)
dd, {'Jill 0
< f, - - >::;. (3)
dt at '
(5)
subdifferential o~(~ 1 6) if
with d 1
f E a> (d 1 ) I ( 6)
(7)
- I F) = f + f
(a I R 1r r (8)
or by denoting d 1 = (u -1 (3) 1
( 1)
Let U~ -
be the subspace of the (u,~) such that the sup-
port of~ is contain in that of~' and Uu be the subspace of
the (v,~) such that the support of v is contained in that of
u. It is worth noting that the function d ~ ~(d) is convex
on these subspaces. It can therefore be shown that the rela-
tion (1) or (2} is satisfied not only on a neighbourhood of
d 1 but on U~ n K and Uu n K as well.
7.3.1. Contact (u = 0)
Figure 4
A domain D and a neighbourhood 0 of a point x of 1
~
( 6)
~ JDl1 (w+F) (~-~)d1.
We let
c 2 (0) =
Inf{-Jnn 1 (w+F) (~+~)d1 I ~ 0 on 0 ;
~
~v
~
~u outside (J)}.
By relations
~ ~
w= v on :0 n 1}
1 uv-ullfDr 1 uvu~,
2 2
Contact with Adhesion 201
-
is the square of a norm of the difference u-v on D n 1 which
differs from u only on C (it is a H1 ' 2 Sobolev norm).
(7)
is a tension (RN 0) .
-= o
Let us first suppose that ~ ~
-
where the norm of R is the dual norm of the norm of v. Let us
take v = ~~(~ > 0) and thus (7) gives
- -+
-
Taking the minimum of the right hand side with respect
to~ (~ can be bounded since d = (~~~~) must be an element of
Defining
202 M. Fremond
o on 0 } ( 8)
( 9)
-
where <p is the function which achieves the supremum in ( 8) .
Taking the infimum of the right hand side of (9) with respect
to Ct > 0 (et
-
can be bounded since d = (et<p J') must be an
I
-
Note.If c 2 (0) = 0, relations (7) and (9) show that RT = 0
and RN ~ 0 is arbitrary. This is the classical unilateral
constitutive law. This occurs for example if f3 and u are
simultanously zero on 0 or if f3 < 1 (since F+w = 0,
relation (5)). The quantity c 2 (0) is strictly positive only
if (3 = 1.
-
The properties of R comply well with what is expected
for contact behaviour : if is possible to press down without
any limit but it is not possible to pull too much.
o, (10)
w+F-H :<:; 0
n nr
-
Let D be a domain of and ~ a subdomain of D where
~ = 0. Let us first take (v,~) E K with v- = u- ouside ~. By
virtue of (2), we have
Figure 5
A neighbourhood ~ of a point x of r where there is not
....
contact and functions (v,~)
Let us define
c2 (~)
c 2 (0)
H(x) lim (12)
0--->x meas (0)'
we obtain
w+F ~ H.
Let us define
1 1
2~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Y[D,v,C] = 2 A, (D,v,v) + (D,v,v)
We then have
rnf{F[D,v,o(u) u Q 1 v
- F[D,u,o(u)J.
F[D,u,D(u) U OJ - F[D,u,D(u)J
H(x) lim
0--+x meas(O)
Figure 6
The domains D and D' (D c D').
The interior boundary f between D and D'-D.
Let us define
~ ~
B(D,v-u) = 21 ~,
- - - -
(D,v-u,v-u) + 2
1 ~
- - - -
(D,v-u,v-u)
and
c 2 (O,D) = Inf{B(D,v-u) -
v 0 on i5 (u) u 0
c 2 (O,D')
(13)
We have also
c 2 (O,D) + Inf{B(D'-D,v-u) -
v
(14)
Contact with Adhesion 209
Let us define
It is obvious that
(15)
c2 (C 1 :0) + L(:0 -:0 1 v(:O)) ~ c 2 (C 1 :0 1
1 ).
We have
-
L(:D'-:0 1 v) 1
=- -
llv-ull 2 112 -
2 H <r >
We assume that
c 2 (C I :D) c2 (C 1 :0 1 )
lim
meas(C) = lim meas(C) H.
()--4x ()--4x
210 M. Fremond
v-u 0 outside ~}
(w+F) f3 ;?: H
where
c' 2 (~)
H(x) lim ;?: o,
~x meas(~)
is the energy release rate. When w+F > 0 (it is the case when
0 =A= F, relation (2.3)), we have~= 1 and
w+F ;?: H.
H 0.
Contact with Adhesion 211
w+F ~ H, where ~ o,
w+F H = o, where 0 < ~ < 1, (16)
w+F ~ H, where ~ 1.
w ~ H, where ~ 0,
w ~ H, where ~ = 1,
Figure 7
The structure loaded by surface forces on r, .
The equations that have to be satisfied by an equilibri-
um position d 1 = (u 1 ~) are the equilibrium equations (2.1) 1
(2. 2) 1 (2. 3) 1 (2. 4) and the constitutive law
vn c n, Vd E Uo I ~e (Did) + ~i (Did) = 01
Moreover
\ld E 'W(d 1 ) n K,
We then have
1
=2
-+ -+
Y[d] ~(O,d) - be (O,d) ~ (O,v,v)
K -- {V I vE 'U 01
K(v) = meas{x 1 x E r
~
v(x) = 0},
+
w+G 2 -H :5: o, where ~ = 0
w+G 2 = H = O, where 0 < ~ < ( 2)
w+G 2 -H 2 o, where ~ = 1
Let us choose
1 ..
<~>,(f3)=
2
(g * ~)~,
g * ~ (x) frg(x-y)~(y)dy.
216 M. Fremond
The pseudo-potential
F-G2 = g * f3.
we then have
bonds no matter how large the applied forces are. Such is the
case with glued wall paper.
This gives
w+A = g * ~. ( 3)
,G =1
---..s(t) > o
~=0 u=O
s( t) X
Figure 8
Line debonding (s(t) > O).
References
J. Haslinger
KFK MFFUK, Praha, Czechoslovakia
ABSTRACT
The main part of this contribution deals with the approximation of variational in-
equalities, with special emphasize to contact problems. Finite element technique is
used, starting from different variational formulations (primal, mixed). More details,
concerning the approximation and numerical realization of contact problems can be
found in [9]. Second part of this contribution is devoted to the optimization of the
shape of contact zone of an elastic body, unilaterally supported by a rigid founda-
tion, in order to obtain an even distribution of normal forces along contact part (for
more details see [10]).
224 J. Haslingcr
- symmetric on V:
where
1
J(v) = 2a(v,v)- (J,v), f E V'
is a quadratic functional.
Now, let K 'f= 0 be a closed, convex subset of V. We shall assume the following
minimization problem
find u E K such that
{ (P)
L(u):::; L(v) Vv E K.
Using classical arguments of calculus of variations and assumptions, concerning L,
one has
THEOREM 1.1. There exists a unique solution u of(P). Moreover, this solution can
be equivalently characterized through the relation
REMARK 1.1. Let A: V 1-+ V' be the linear, continuous mapping defined by
REMARK 1.2. In our next considerations, L will play the role of the total poten-
tial energy of the system, V the space of virtual displacements and ]{ the set of
kinematically admissible displacements.
Sometimes it becomes that formulation (P) is not suitable, sometimes from
theoretical, sometimes from practical point of view. In these cases, reformulation of
(P) is useful. Below we describe one way how to do it, making use of the saddle-point
approach. Using the form of L, one can rewrite (P) in the following form:
if v E ]{
I(v) =sup <P(v,J.L) ={ 0
JLEA +oo if v tt I<,
1.e. I is the indicator function of I<.
PROOF:
1 Ifv E I<, then <P(v,J.L) ~ 0 VJ.L E A and <P(v,B) = 0 so that I(v) = 0.
2 Let v tt I<. Then there exists j1 E A such that
<P(v,jl) = c > 0.
But
I(v) ~ <P(v,pfl) = p<P(v,Jl) = pc ~ +oo, p ~ oo.
D
Then S : B --+ R 1 is called dual functional to L and J.L the dual variable to v.
An interesting question arises, namely: what relation holds between the primal
and the dual formulation. This relation can be established on the basis of the saddle-
point theory, some results of which we present below (for details see [1 ]).
Let 1{ : A x B --+ R 1 be a general functional.
DEFINITION 1.1. A point {u, A} E A X B is said to be a saddle point of 1{ on A x B
if and only if
1i(u,p,):::; 1i(u,A):::; 1i(v,>..) (1.6)
holds for any v E A, J.L E B.
An equivalent characterization of a saddle point is given by
THEOREM 1.2. {u, A} is a saddle point of1i on Ax B if and only if
PROOF:
1 Let v E A, J.L E B be arbitrary. Then
from which
sup inf 1i(v,p,):::; inf sup1i(v,p,). (1.8)
p.EB vEA vEA p.EB
Approximation of Contact Problems 227
But
'H( u, ).) = inf 'H( v, ).) = S().) = sup [inf 'H(v, J-l)] = sup S(J-l) . (1.10)
vEA llEB vEA llEB
Analogously
'H(tt,A) = sup'H(tt,J-l) = inf sup'H(v,J-l) :S sup'H(v,J-l).
11EB vEAilEB 11EB
and
minsup'H(v,J-l) = sup'H(u,J-l) ~ 'H(u,A)
vEA IEB 11EB
so that
'H( u, J-l) :<; sup 'H( u, J-l) = 'H( u, ). ) = inf 'H( v, ). ) :S 'H( v, ). )
11EB vEA
CONSEQUENCE 1.1. Let us assume the situation given by Example. Then the first
component of a saddle point of C on V X A belongs to I< and it is a solution of the
constraint minimization problem:
u E I< : L( u) :<; L( v) \lv E I< ,
while ). E A is a solution of the dual problem:
S().) = inf C(v,A) =sup inf C(v,J-l) = supS(J-l).
vEV IlEA vEV IlEA
Next we prove some useful results concerning the properties of saddle points,
their existence, eventually uniqueness.
To this end we shall impose the following supplementary conditions, concerning
A, B and 'H: namely let A, B be closed, convex and
(j) VJ-l E B, v ~--t 'H(v,J-l) is convex and weakly lower semicontinuous;
(jj) Vv E A, J-ll--t 'H( v, J-l) is concave and weakly upper semicontinuous.
As far as the existence of a saddle point is concerned, we have
228 J. Haslinger
THEOREM 1.3. Let assumptions (j), (jj) concerning 'H be satisfied and let A, B be
moreover bounded. Then there exists at least one saddle paint of 'H on A x B.
If A and B are not bounded, one can use
THEOREM 1.4. Let (j), (jj) be satisfied and moreover let
- B be bounded or
K={vEV!Bv=O}.
(1.11)
or
find u E V such that
{ (1.13')
a(u,v) + [ft,Bv] = {f,v} Vv E V.
Let A be the mapping V ~-+ V' defined by means of
a(u,v) = {Au,v}.
230 J. Haslinger
1 1
'H(u,J.L) = - 2a(u,u) = - 2(Au,u)
= -~(f,A- 1 f)+ ~(f,A- 1 B*J.L) + ~(B*J.L,A- 1 f)- ~(B*J.L,A- 1 B*J.L) (1. 14 )
~ -c1IIB*J.LII~, + c2IIB*J.LIIv, + ca
with Ct, c2, ca > 0.
From (1.11) it follows that
sup -[J.L,Bv]
- - =sup [B*J.L,v]
II II = liB* J.L I V' 2: f3 II J.L I Y' .
vEV 11 V 11 V vEV V V
if IIJ.LIIY'
oo. All assumptions of Theorem 1.5 are satisfied.
-t D
Recall that under our assumptions (Ph) has a unique solution tth for any h > 0.
REUARK 2.1. As in continuous case. llh E J{h sohing (Ph) can be equiYalently
characterized through the relation:
A natural question arises: what is the relation between u and tth. First we prove
LEMMA 2.1. Let u, uh be solutions of(P), (Ph), respectively. Then
aiJu- uhJJ 2-:5:(f,u- vh) + a(uh- u,vh- u) + a(u,vh- u) + j(vh)- j(u) (2.3)
Vvh E I<h .
REMARK 2.3. (2.2) and (2.3) will be used for estimating the discretization error
JJu- uhJJ.
Concerning the convergence of uh to u, the following result will be needed:
232 J. Haslingcr
Then
llu- uhll ___. 0 , h ___. 0 + .
PROOF: From the definition of L and (2.4), the boundness of {uh} follows, i.e.
As V is a Hilbert space, one can find a subsequence {Uh'} C {uh} such that
Uh' __.. u* E J{
( 2.G)
Passing to the limit in (2. 7) and using weak lower semicontinuity of L, we arrive at
i.e. u* solves (P). As u* is unique, the whole sequence {uh} tends weakly to 1t = u*.
In order to prove that Uh ___. u, h ___. 0+ in V, we use (2.2). Let fh E J(h be such
that
Vh ___. u , h ___. 0+ (2.0)
and substitute v := u. Using the fact that uh __.. u, h ___. 0+ as well as the weak
lower semicontinuity of j and (2.9), we arrive at the assertion. o
or
(BC) a bounded convex subset of Y.
Let {u, >.} be a saddle point of .C on ]{ x A, i.e .
or equivalently
THEOREM 2.2. If(CCH) and b(vh,J.iH) = 0 Vvh E Vh ===} J.iH = 0, then there
exists a unique solution of (PhH ).
If { AH} are uniformly bounded, situation is simpler. One has
THEOREM 2.3. Let (BCH) be satisfied. Then there exists a solution of (PhH ), the
first component of which is uniquely determined.
Our aim will be to establish relations between uh, u and AH, >-.. To this end we
give another, equivalent formulation of (f5).
Let 'H = V x Y be a Hilbert space, equipped with the norm
Next, let JChH = f{h x AH be a closed, convex subset of 'H; JChH ct. JC, in general.
The problem
The boundedness of a, b together with the inequality 2hf:::; !h 2 + c:P yield (c > 0)
c
allu- uhll2
~ At(vh) + A2(v) + {b(u, AH- Jl)- [g, AH- Jl]}
THEOREM 3.2. There exists a unique solution u of (P ). Moreover, the solution can
be equivalently characterized through the relation
and set
N;j = C:ij(v). (3.20)
Then, using (3.20), we can formally write
with notation of Section 3.3. We may look at (3.20) as constraints, which will be
removed by introducing the following lagrangian:
if N = c:(v)
otherwise.
Thus
inf ,J( v) = inf sup H([N, v], ,\) . (3.21)
vEK vEK >.ES
NES
,\* = r(u) ,
follows. {uh', AH'} being solution of (Ph' H') (or (Ph' H')) satisfies
a( uh', Uh' - Vh') + b( uh' - Vh', AH') ~ (!, uh' - Vh') Vvh' E Kh'
(2.27)
b(uh',J.lH' -AH') ~ [g,J.lH'- AH'] 'VJ.LH' E AH'. (2.28)
Passing to the limit with h', H'---+ 0+ in (2.27) and using (2.25), (2.26) we obtain
a( u * , u * - v) + lim inf b( u h' , AH' ) - b( v, A* ) ~ (!, u * - v)
h',H'-->0+ (2.29)
Vv E K.
The same procedure can be applied to (2.28):
Applying (2.20) with v = u, J.l = A, Vh = vh, J.LH = flH and using the weak conver-
gence uh ____. u, AH ____. A, we obtain uh ---+ u in V. D
REMARK 2.6. If Kh C K, AH C A, the conditions (2.23), (2.24), respectively, are
satisfied.
Approximation of Contact Problems 239
THEOREM 2.7. Let (CC), (CCH) and (S) be satisfied. Let {u,.\} be the unique
solution of (P). Moreover, let us suppose that
Vv E v 3vh E vh : Vh ~ v in v ; (2.32)
Vp, E A P,H ~ p, in L ;
3p,H E AH : (2.33)
Ji.H E AH , Ji.H ~ p, in L implies p, E A ; (2.34)
there exist a real number d, a positive number c and a (2.35)
bounded sequence {ih}, Vh E Vh such that j H( Vh) ~ d
Vvh E Vh, Vh, HE (0, 1), ]H(vh) :S c Vh, HE (0, 1) .
Then Uh ~ u, AH ~ .\.
PROOF: We shall prove the boundedness of {uh} and {.\H} only. The rest of the
proof is analogous to that of Theorem 2.6. The convergence of AH to .\follows from
(2.16).
According to the interpretation of (PJ.H ), Uh E vh satisfies
a(tth,Vh- Uh) + JH(vh)- JH(uh) ~ (f,vh- Uh) Vvh E vh 0
Hence
a(tth,uh) + JH(uh) :S a(tth,vh) + JH(iih)- (f,vh- uh).
This and (2.35) imply the boundness of {uh} and by virtue of (2.16) we deduce the
boundedness of {.\H }. D
REMARK 2.7. If AH C A VH E (0, 1), (2.34) is automatically satisfied.
Condition (S), guaranteeing the convergence of AH to .\, is very restrictive. If we
are interested in the convergence of uh to u, condition (S) may be avoided. Indeed
let us suppose that the functions
j(v) = sup{b(v,p,)- (g,p,]}
A
JH(vh) = sup{b(vh,Ji.H)- [g,p,H]}
AH
take their values from the set {0, +oo }. We shall denote by
K={vEVIj(v)=O}
JChH = {vh E vh I JH(vh) = 0}
'
i.e. j and j H are the indicator functions of the closed convex sets JC and JChH,
respectively. Let {u,.\} E V x A and {uh,.\H} E Vh x AH be solutions of (P) and
(PhH ), respectively. Following the interpretation of these problems we already know
that u E K and Uh E JChH are solutions of the minimizing problems:
J(u) :S J(v) Vv E JC
and.
THEOREM 2.8. Let (CC), (CCH) be satisfied and there exist solutions {u,>.} and
{ uh, AH} of ('P) and (PhH ), respectively, the first components of which are uniquely
determined. Let
Then uh-+ u in V.
Similarly, the stresses can be characterized by the so called stress tensor (sym-
metric)
(3.2)
In the equilibrium state the sresses r are related to the volumic forces F =
(F 1 , F2) by the system of equilibrium equations
inn. (3.3)
In the case of linear elasticity the stress and strain tensors are connected by the
linearized Hooke's law 1
'Tij(u) = Cijk/Ck/(u)
=L
2
(3.4)
Cijk/t:kl(u),
k,l=l
0) (11)
0 t:zz , (3.6)
J.1 12
(3.7)
J J J
so that
'Tij(u)t:;j(v)dx- 'Tij(u)njv;ds = F;v;dx, (3.8)
n an n
making use of (3.3). Here n = (n 1 ,n 2 ) denotes the outward normal unit vector to
on.
To guarantee the uniqueness of the displacement field u, we impose the condition
u = 0 on a given non-empty part r u open in On the remaining part r P of the
on.
boundary the surface tractions P = (P1 , Pz) are given, i,e. T; r;ini = P;, i = 1, 2. =
We denote by V the space of admissible displacements:
J
n
'Tij( u )t:ij( v) dx = J
n
F;v; dx + J
rp
P;v; ds =(J, v) . (3.10)
(equilibrium equations):
or
a (u) + F; = 0
I) inn i = 1,2; (3.14)
Xj
and it satisfies the following set of boundary conditions:
T;j(u)nj = P; on rp ; (3.15)
u; = 0 on r u i = 1, 2; (3.16)
Tn(u) = Tij(u)n;nj ~ 0' Un = u. n ~ 0' Tn(u)un =0 on rK ;
(3.17)
ITt(x)l ~ g(x) }
ITt(x)l < g(x) ::::::} Ut(x) = u(x) t = 0 on r/( .
ITt(x)l = g(x) ::::::} 3A(x) ~ 0 such that Ut(x) = -A(x)Tt(x) (3.18)
Approximation of Contact Problems 243
Here T n ( x), Tt ( x) denotes the normal, tangential component of the stress vector
T(u) at a point x, tis the tangential vector to an, g(x) is bounded, measurable and
non-negative function defined on an. (3.17) is a condition of unilateral contact of n
with a rigid support. 1 Influence of friction is modeled by (3.18). We consider a very
simple model, namely the so called "model with a given friction". Later, we shall
briefly discuss the case of coulombien friction.
j(v) = { glvtl ds ,
lrK
L(v) = ..1(v) .
K is the closed, convex subset of V of all admissible displacements, ..1 is a total
potential energy functional. Next, we shall assume that F = (F~, F 2 ) E (L 2 (0))2,
P = (P1,P2) E (L 2 (rp)) 2
By a variational8olution we mean a function u E K, satisfying
1 Here we assume that n is unilaterally supported by a rigid foundation along the whole r K, i.e.
dist(rK,rigid foundation) =
0 and rK cannot enlarge during deformation.
236 J. Haslinger
THEOREM 2.4. Let (CC), (CCH) and (S) be satisfied. Let there exist a solution
{u,-X} of(P). Then
Relations (2.15), (2.16) and (2.20) can be used to estimate the rate of convergence
of Uh to u and AH to A, provided the exact solution is smooth enough. Other
applications are given by the following convergence theorems.
THEOREM 2.6. Let (BC), (BCH) be satisfied and, moreover, let
Vv E K 3vh E Kh : in V ;
Vh--+ v (2.21)
'VJL E A 3jLH E AH : JLH--+ JL in Y; (2.22)
Vh E Kh , Vh __. v (weakly) in V implies v E K; (2.23)
JLH E AH , JLH __. JL (weakly) in Y implies JL EA. (2.24)
PROOF: First, {uh}, PH} are bounded. For PH} this follows from (BCH ), for {uh}
from (2.21) and (P~H)z. Hence, there exist a subsequence {uh,AH} C {uh,AH}
and an element {u*, A*} E V x Y such that
(2.25)
246 J. Haslinger
r = Ae, (3.4')
where A is the symmetric and positive definite mapping from the space S (see Section
3.4) into itself. By Ai we denote the square root of A. A-1, A-! are the inverse
mappings to A, A!, respectively.
Let V be endowed with the equivalent norm
The set Hi (r K) of all traces of functions, belonging to V, will be equipped with the
norm
The symbol !V denotes the trace of v E V. From this definition, it follows immedi-
ately that
{ (Ae(u),e(v)) =0 \fv E V,
(3.25)
"{V = cp on r u.
.
H (dlv,n ) = { a= (aij )2i,j=l E S,dlV
. a= (8a1j
8xj ' axk 8a2k) E [L 2(n )Jz} .
We equip H( div, n) with the norm
p.
1
llaiiH(div,!l) = {(A-la, a)+ (diva, div a)o (3.26)
Approximation of Contact Problems 247
The closed subspace of H( div, 0) consisting of functions with zero divergence will
be denoted by H 0 (div,f2). Clearly, H 0 (div,f2) is a Hilbert space with norm
(3.27)
has a unique solution u = u(r.p*). On setting a = Ac:(u) and using (i), we get
immediately that a E H 0 (div,f2) and T(a) = r.p*.
The symbolii'P*II-~,rK denotes the usual dual norm, namely
Hence
(cp*,cp} ::=; llriiHo(div,n)lllvlll Vv E V, 'YV = cp,
so that
llcp*ll-i,rK ::=; llriiHo(div,n) Vr E Ho(div,n), T(r) = cp*. (3.29)
Let u = u(cp*) be the solution of (3.28) and let a= Ac(u) E Ho(div,n). Then
By inserting v = u(cp*) into (3.28), using (3.30) and the definition of II lli,rK' we
obtain
(cp*,1u} = (Ac(u),c(u)) = lllu(cp*)IW = iiaiiHo(div,n)lllulll
;::: iiaiiHo(div,n)llrull~.rK
Hence
llcp*ll-i,rK ;::: iiaiiHo(div,n)
This inequality and (3.29) yield the following lemma.
LEMMA 3.4. The following expression holds:
PROOF. From the definition of II'P*II-1 rK as the dual norm, it follows that
2'
and so
(cp,,v} <II *II (3.31)
s~p lllvlll - cp -i,rK
On the other hand, let u = u( cp*) be the solution of (3.28). Then, for a = Ac( u ), we
get
(cp*,1u} = lllu(cp*)IW = lllu(cp*)lllllaiiHo(div,n)
= lllu(cp*)lllllcp*ll-i,rK'
by virtue of Lemma 3.3. From this, and from (3.31), the lemma follows.
In a similar way to the proof of Lemma 3.2, one can prove
LEMMA 3.5. T maps H0 (div,!l) onto H-i(rK)
Let cp* be an arbitrary element of H-i (r K ). By virtue of Lemma 3.2, there
exists r E Ho(div,n) such that T(r) = cp*. Let us set,.,.= T(r) E H-!(rK) and
write,.,.= (3*cp* with (3*: H-i(rK)--+ n-i(rK) It is readily seen that,.,. does
not depend on the choice ofT E Ho(div,!l) where T(r) = cp*. By comparing Green's
formulas (i), (ii), we obtain
Approximation of Contact Problems 249
(3.32)
where u E I< is the solution of ('P) and Tn( u ), Tt( u) are the corresponding normal
and tangential components of the stresses on r K.
REMARK 3.3. If we wish to remove the non-differentiability of ('P) only, it is sufficient
to introduce the set A= A 2 and to define
v= u, 5. = Tt(u),
(3.33)
Let us set
(3.34)
We derive the explicit form of S. For (f.l 1 , fl2) E A1 X A2 fixed, (3.34) is connected
with the solution of the following linear elliptic boundary value problem:
In view of the linearity of (3.35), one can split z into z and z and write z = z + z,
where z, zE V are the unique solutions of
1 1 1 1 -
(z,{lt,fl2) =- 2(f.ll,zn)- 2(f.l2,zt)- 2(F;,z;)o = -2(/ll,zn)
(3.38)
- ~(f.l2,zt)- ~(f.li,zn)- ~(f.l2,it)- ~(F;,z;)o- ~(F;,z;)o.
On inserting v = z in (3.36), using the symmetry of (Ac:(z),c:(v)) and (3.37), we
obtain
Approximation of Contact Problems 251
Then the term ( F;, i;) does not depend on (Ill, f-L2) and, therefore, it can be omitted.
Finally, let us set
and
KF,P(O.) ={rES I (r,c(v)) = (f,v) Vv E Vo}.
It is easy to see that r E KF,P(n) if and only if
O
- +
8T;j
8xi
F,
;= inn' i = 1,2 j
T;jnj = P; on rp ' i = 1, 2 j
Tt(r) = T;jnjti =0 on rK.
Moreover
and
sup (-(Tn( T ), Vn}] (r E KF,P(f?.))
vEK
is the indicator function of Kj; p(O.). Thus
'
inf S(r) = inf sup [-21 (A- 1 r,r)- (Tn(r),vn)]
rEKf,p(O) rEKF,P(O) vEK
Denote by
.C(r,v) = ~(A- 1 r,r)- (Tn(r),vn}
the lagrangian, defined on KF,P(O.) x K. One has
Approximation of Contact Problems 253
F
--+
oaij
OXj
i= 0 inn' i = 1, 2;
Wi =.0 on ru ' i = 1' 2 ;
Uijnj =Pi on r p ' i = 1' 2 ;
Tt(a) = a;jnjti =0 on rK;
on rK.
where
Koo(n) = {T E S I (T,c:(v)) = 0 Vv E V0 } .
Then
inf C(T,v) = inf
rEKoo(f!)
C(To + r,'v).
rEKF,P(f!)
254 J. Haslinger
with
1
'H(T) = 2(A- 1 T,T) + (A- 1 r,ro)- (Tn(r),vn),
T E Koo(O). Next we shall analyze problem
Relation between (3.43) and (3.44) is clear: iff solves (3.44), f +To solves (3.43). f
satisfies the following relation
'iT E Koo(O) .
To= Ac:(uo) .
Then
(A- 1To,T) = (uo,T(T))r., + (uon,Tn(T))rK,
because ofT E ]{00 (0). Next we shall assume that
Uo = 0 on f u
Uon = 0 on rK.
f = Ac:(u) ,
where u is a displacement field solving the linear elasticity problem:
OTij
OXj
= 0 Z = 1, 2 1n Hr. ,
we see that
1
.C(f + To,vn) = -2(H(vn) n,vn)- (Tn(ro),vn)
Denote by 1( Vn, vn) = ~ (H( Vn) n, Vn} the quadratic part of <J?, 8( Vn) =
-(Tn(ro),vn) its linear term, and
{
find v~ E Hj(ri,) such t~at
(3.45)
<ll(v~):::; <ll(vn) Vvn E H~(rK)
clef
11'-PII.!2' rK = inf
vEV
lllvlll = lllulll (3.46)
Vn='i' on fK
~~(~~) = 0} on rK.
In order to give the variational formulation of such a problem, we use the model
with "a given" friction as an auxiliary one. Nevertheless, some modification is neces-
1
sary: instead of g E L=(rK), we shall write :Fg, where g E H~ 2 (rK) = -A 1 . Then
term frK glvtJ ds will be replaced by (:Fg, JvtJ). Let u = u(g) be the solution of the
following Signorini problem with given friction equal to :Fg:
(g)= -Tn(u).
A weak solution of a Signorini problem with friction obeying Coulomb's law is defined
1
as a fixed point of in H~ 2 (r K ). The existence of a fixed point of for small values
of :F and special geometry of n has been proved (see [4]).
Let S be a quadratic functional given by (3.42) and K:Fg by
we see that coulombien friction corresponds to the case, when g = -.\ 1 (g), i.e. when
g is a fixed point of 4>. As a result, we are led to the so called quasivariational
inequalityfor -Tn(u).
258 J. Haslinger
and
Kh = {v E vh I v. n(A;) :::; 0, i = 1, ... 'm + 1} '
where H(T) denotes the set of linear polynomials, defined on T. It is easy to see
that Kh represents a finite dimensional approximation of K and Kh ct. K, in general.
An approximation of our problem is defined as the solution of the following
problem:
find Uh E Kh such that
{
:f(uh) ::=; :f(v) Vv E Kh
with :r defined in Section 3.3 (with g = 0 on r K ).
Now we shall need some auxiliary results:
Approximation of Contact Problems 259
1
2a(u- uh,u- uh) :s; 1
2a(vh- u,uh- u) + 1
rK
Tn(vn- Ukn)ds
Let ~i(x), X E AiAi+l be the linear Lagrange interpolate of uh on AiAi+l and let
- m
us define ~ on U Ei as follows:
i=l
We may write:
m m
Let q be the arc's parameter of the point P(x) = (P1(x),P2 (x)) and denote Q1(x) =
x1. Then for j = 1, 2 we have
j = 1,2.
Approximation of Contact Problems 261
Thus, (4.5) and the inverse inequality between H 1(A;Ai+ 1) and H~(A;A;+I) yield:
(4.6)
(4.7)
m
where rh = U A;Ai+l is the polygonal approximation of rK. Using the trace
i=l
theorem we obtain:
where c > 0 does not depend on h for h sufficiently small. Using these estimates
(4.3), (4.4) and (4.7) we deduce
vn=<i> on rJ( .
Then v n ~ 0 on rK, consequently v E I<. Finally we may write
{ Tn(Vn-Uhn)ds= { Tn(<i>-Uh)ds
lrK lrK ( 4.9)
~ ch ~ 1\uh \\l,o .
Since the norms 1\uh\\l.o remain bounded, the assertion of Theorem now follows from
(4.1), (4.9).
In the above error estimates we needed strong regularity assumptions, concern-
ing the solution u. Unfortunately, there are no reasons to expect such a great smooth-
ness. This is why we are going to prove the convergence of uh to u without estimating
the rate of convergence, using no regularity assumptions. According to Theorem 2.1,
it is necessary to verify (2.4) and (2.5).
LEMMA 4.3. (verification of (2.4))
Let us suppose that f' u n f' K = 0 and there exists only a finite number of boundary
points f'p n f'K, f' u n f'p. Then the set
M =I< n (C 00 (0)) 2
Vh ~ v in V , h ~ 0+ . (4.10)
[ v n <p ds ~0
lrK
Approximation of Contact Problems 263
hence
Vhn ---+ Vn in L 2 (r I\) , h ---+ 0 + .
Let 'l1 h be the piecewise linear function defined on (a, b), nodes of which are the
points AI, ... , Am+ I Then
By virtue of ( 4.11)
(4.12)
We may write
(4.14)
From the definition of 19hh it follows that these ones are piecewise linear Lagrange
interpolates of 19h on (a, b). Corresponding division of (a, b) will be denoted by
a = tr' < t'2 < < t~+l = b. Using the approximative property of 19hh we have
where c > 0 is independent of h for h sufficiently small and ( 4.10) has been used.
From this, (4.12) and (4.14), (4.13) follows. Now, let us prove that
264 J. Haslinger
for any t.p E C 1 ( (a, b)), t.p 2: 0 on (a, b). Using (4.13) we have
(4.15)
For the numerical computation of J: 1Jhh nt.p dx 1 we use the trapezoid formula:
1b 1Jhh nt.pdxl ~h((1Jhh n)(t~)t.p(t~) + 2(1Jhh n)(t2)t.p(t2)
+ + (1Jhh n)(t~+ 1 )t.p(t~+ 1 )) =[1Jhh n,t.p].
Since (1Jhh n)(tj)t.p(tj) = (vh n)(Aj)t.p(tj) ~ 0 Vj = 1, ... , m + 1 we have
Vh > 0.
The proof will be finished, if
We may write
By virtue of the inverse inequality between H~ ((a, b)) and H 1 ((a, b)):
v ={v E (H 1 (0)) 2 I v
= 0 on ru}'
A= n_:;!(rK) = {JL E n-!(rK) I (JL,Vn} ~ 0 Vv E v, Vn ~ 0 on rK}.
Mixed formulation of the contact problem without friction is defined as the problem
of finding a saddle-point (u*, A) E V x A of C over V X A, i.e.:
(see also Section 3.5). It is easy to prove that there exists a unique saddle-point
( u *,A) of C over V x A. Moreover, the following interpretation holds:
u* = u , A= -Tn(u), (4.18)
i.e. AH contains all non-negative and piecewise constant functions (over TH ). The
approximation of (P) is now defined as follows:
find ( uj;, AH) E vh X AH such that
{
(u'h,J-LH):::; (u'h,.AH):::; (vh,AH) Vvh E vh, VJ-LH E AH
or equivalently
find (ui.,.AH) such that
{ a(u'h,vh) + (.AH,Vhn) = (F;,Vih)o + (Pi,Vih)o
(ui.n,J-lH- AH):::; 0 VJ-LH E AH.
Interpretation of uj;. Let
b(vh,J-lH)=(vhn,J-lH)= { VhnJ-lHds,
lrK
g =0.
As already known, the crucial point is the verification of the stability conditions (S):
(4.19)
LEMMA 4.5. If (4.20) is regular in above mentioned manner, then (4.19) is satisfied,
provided the ratio h/ H is sufliciently small.
The main result of this section is:
THEOREM 4.3. Let the solution of (P) belong to I< n (Hl+q(n))2 for some q > 0
and let Tn(u) E L 2(rK) Then
+(un,Tn(u)-!lH)}
IITn(u)- AHII-~,rK ~ C{llu- uhll + ITn(u)- llHI-~,rK} (4.23)
making use of classical approximation results. This, together with (4.22) and (4.23)
leads to the assertion of Theorem 4.3.
Higher regularity assumptions make possible to improve the rate of convergence
(see [8]).
(5.1)
(5.2)
Let the rigid foundation be given by the set {(x1,x2) I x2 ~ 0}. Then we have
the following system of unilateral conditions on rK:
Uad ={a E C 01([a,b]) I 0 ~a~ Co, la'(xl)l ~ cl, measO(a) = C2}, (5.6)
ru
co -----
Figure 5.1.
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 5.2.
By V(a), K(a) we denote corresponding sets of functions, defined over fl(a)
and set
.7a(v) =2(r(v),e(v)) (a)- (Fi,vi)o,O(a)- (Pi,vi)o,rp
1
0
As the stress peaks are undesirable from the practical point of view it is natural
to ask whether it is possible, and how to findsuch a shape for the contact surface
that the normal stresses become evenly distributed, see the joint Figure 5.3 .
T2 for
20 final design
. . . . . . . . . . . . . r 2 for
60
inial design
Figure 5.3
This would seem to motivate the study of the problem of minimizing the maximal
stresses on the boundary, i.e.
min E(a),
where E(a) = max JT2 (a)(x)J. This approach however leads to some difficulties.
rK(a)
First of all, the functional E(a) may not be defined, in general. Secondly, if it were
possible to define E(a) (by using a-priori regularity assumptions, for example), then
E(a) would not be differentiable, in general.
So another choice of the cost functional is necessary. A good choice (frequently
used by engineers) is the total potential energy functional, evaluated in the equilib-
rium state u(a)
E(a) = ..1a(u(a)). (5.7)
For a suitable Uad it is possible to show that the minimizer of E( a) in Uad yields an
"even" distribution of contact forces. Moreover, E( a) is differentiable with respect
to a despite the fact that the mapping a ~---+ u( a) is non-differentiable, in general.
So our problem reads:
LEMMA 5.1. Let an=:a in [a,b] and let <p E K(a), <p = (<pt,<f'2) be given. Then
there exist <pj E (H 1 (f2)) 2 and a subsequence {an(j)} C {an} such that <f'iln( 01 n<n) E
K(an(j)) and <pj - t (pin (H 1 (f2)) 2 , where (p = ((p 1 , (p 2 ) denotes the Calderon exten-
sion of <p from n( a) on n.
PROOF: Define a function
i.e. tfln( 01 ) E K(a), where '' = (7ft, tP2) with tPt = cp1. Let us split 'P as follows:
'P ='If + 1>. From the construction of 'If we see that
Applying the classical density result, one can find a sequence {ci> i}, ci> i = ( 1> 1j, 1> 2j) E
ccoo(n)) 2 with <>tj, 1>2j vanishing in a neighbourhood of I\, r u u rK(a), respec-
tively, and such that
Then
llrfi- <~'illt,n = IIP- Pillt,n -4 o, i - oo.
Let us denote dj = dist{ supp 1>2j' r u u r K( a)} and let io be fixed. As a j::::a in
[a, b], then there exists no = n(jo) such that the graph of the function an 0 does not
meet supp <>2j 0 As
and
tP2(Xt,X2) ~ -X2 V(xt,x2) En'
(as follows from the definition of '1f2) we immediately get
Hence
272 J. Haslinger
LEMMA 5.2. Let an=! a in [a,b] and let Un E K(an) be the solution ofP(an), i.e. 1
(r(un),c:(z- Un))n(an)
(5.8)
~ (F, z- Un)o,r!(an) + (P, z- Un)o,rp Vz E K(an) .
Then there exists a subsequence of {Un}, denoted again by {Un} such that
Un _. U
for any integer m, with Gm = {(x1, x2) ER2 I x1 E (a, b), a( xi)+ ~ < X2 < r },
where u E K(a) is a solution of (P(a)).
PROOF: As F E (L 2(Q)) 2 , P E (L 2(rp )) 2 , from (5.8) and Korn's inequality it
follows that 2
Vn. (5.9)
Let m be fixed and let Gm be given as above. As an=!a in [a, b], there exists no( m)
such that
Gm c fl(an) Vn ~ no(m).
From this and (5.9) it follows
(5.10)
Vn ~ no(m + 1) .
in Gm.
1 We assume that FE [ 2 (0)]2, P E [ 2 (80)]2
(P;,vi)o,rp
and (F,v)o,O(a) = =
(F;,v;)o,O(ar) (P,v)o,rp
Proceeding in this way for any integer k, one can construct a subsequence {unJ C
{unk_J such that
for any j < k + m - 1. Let {u!;} be a diagonal sequence determined by {Unk}. From
the above analysis it follows that
(5.11)
(5.12)
({is the Calderon extension of~ on 0). The existence of such a sequence is ensured
by Lemma 5.1. Let Un; = u(an;) be the corresponding solution of (P(ani )):
(5.13)
(r(un;),t:(~j- Un;))!l(an.)
J
+ (r(t1n;),c(~;))!1(a)\Gm .
274 J. Haslinger
Similarly,
(F,~j- unJo,fl(<>n)
J
Finally,
is 1/m (see Figure 5.1) (this consideration can be omitted if dist(fp, rK(a)) > 0).
Then
.lim inf (P, ~j- UnJ ) 0 ' r p
J--+00
(5.16)
2 (P,~- u)o,rp\Mm- C(IIPIIo,M"' + ll~llo,M"')
Combining (5.14), (5.15) and (5.16) we have
(r(u),c:(e- u))o(a)
(5.17)
2 (F,~- u)o,O(a) + (P,~- u)o,rp V~ E I<(a),
q= inf E(a)
aEUAtl
q = lim E(an) .
n-+oo
Using the compactness of Uad, we can extract a s~bsequence {an;} C {an} such
that
in [a, b] . (5.18)
Clearly a*. E Uad Let Un;(an;) E K(an;) be solutions of (P(an; )). From Lemma
5.2 it follows immediately that there exists a subsequence of {Un; (an;)} (deno~ed
again by {u 11; (an;)}) such that
(5.19)
and u(a*) E K(a*) is the solution of (P(a*)). From this it follows that
E(a*);?: q . (5.20)
where
1
Eam(a)(an;) =2 (r(un; ),e(Un; ))Gm(a)
- (F, unJo,Gm(a) - (P, Un; )o,rp \ Mm
and
1
En(an;)\Gm(a)(an;) = 2 (r(un;),e(Un;))n(an)\Gm(a)
- (F, unJo,O(an;) \ Gm(a) - (P, unJo,Mm
where the one-dimensional Lebesgue measure of Mm is 1/m (see Figure 5.1) (with
eventual modification if dist(rP,rK(a)) > 0). Then
2: J-00
.lim inf Eam(a)(anJ +.lim inf En(an.)\Gm(a)(an j)
J-00 1
(5.21)
2: Eam(a)(a*) + i~~ inf (- (F, un;)0,!1(anj )\ Gm(a) - (P, Unj )O,Mm)
2: Eam(a)(a*)- C (11FIIo,!1(a)\ Gm(a) + IIPIIo,Mm)
holds for any m. Here
The lower weak semicontinuity of Eam(a) (5.19), and (5.10) have been used. Let-
ting m-+ oo, we have from (5.21):
REFERENCES:
1. Ekeland, I. and R. Temam, "Analyse convexe et problemes variationnels,"
Dunod, Gauthier-Villars, Paris-Bruxelles-Montreal, 1974.
2. Haslinger, J ., Mixed formulation of variational inequalitie8 and it8 approxima-
tion, Apl. Mat. 26, 462-4 75.
3. Necas, J. and I. Hlavacek, "Mathematical theory of elastic and elasto-plastic
bodies: an introduction," Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam-
Oxford-New York, 1981.
4. Necas, J., J. Jarusek and J. Haslinger, On the 8olution of the variational equality
to the Signorini problem with 8mall friction, Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. (5) 17-B,
796-811.
5. Nitzsche, J.A., Uber ein Variation8prinzip zur Lo8ung von Dirichlet-Problemen
bei Verwendung von Teilraumen, die keinen Randbedingungen unterworfen sind,
Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 36, 9-15.
6. Fix G. and G. Strang, "An analysis of the finite element method," Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs.
7. Hlavacek, I. and J. Lovi'sek, A finite element analy8i8 for the Signorini problem
in plane ela8to8tatic8, Apl. Mat. 22 (1977), 215-228.
8. Haslinger, J. and I. Hlavacek, Approximation of the Signorini problem with
friction by a mixed finite element method, JMAA, No 1 86 (1982), 99-121.
Approximation of Contact Problems 277
P.M. Suquet
Universite des Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc:,
Montepellier, France
280 P.M. Suquet
1. INTRODUCTION
The guide line of these lectures is that Plasticity and spatial dis-
continuities are two companion phenomena :
a) on the one hand displacements (or displacement rates) solutions
of Plasticity problems are naturally discontinuous. This conclusion is
easily drawn from the asymptotically linear growth of the functionals
arising in the variational formulation of Plasticity problems :
detailled proofs are often omitted, but conjectures and theorems are, as
far as possible, distinguished. The author's personal contribution in
theoretical developments is most of the time rather limited, but the
goal is to attract readers to a m~cha~L[cal app~oach of TEMAM's or
ATTOUCH' s books [2] [3] , to BOUCHITTE' s thesis [4l , or to recent works
of the Italian School. The background necessary to follow the text inclu-
des a basic knowledge of convex analysis, of measure theory and of clas-
sical functional analysis, and can be found, together with numerous other
subjects, in PANAGIOTOPOULOS [9] .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Several discussions with Guy BOUCHITTE and numerous uses of his re-
sults are gratefully acknowledged.
282 P.M. Suquet
2. LIMIT ANALYSIS
--
- Figure 2. I -
Throughout the text we shall assume that the following assumption is met
(I) is cl
ro and r I are closed in a~ ,
}
a~
r
o
n r
I
= 0 , ro u rl = a~ ( 2. 1)
( 2) f E 1 00 (~) 3 g E L""(rl)3
Assumption (I) can be weakened but we do not seak here for minimal hy-
pothesis.
In this section the only information used on the constitutive law
of ~ is its strength capacft) defined, at every particle x of ~ ,
through a set P(x) in ~ s9 + delimiting allowable stress tensors o(x)
( +) 9
~ 3 x 3 symmetric tensors
s
Discontinuities and Plasticity 283
0 0
Ductile Brittle
Two ck66eJten;t ma.J:e!U._a.!.> (duc..tile and b!U.Ute) wah the .6ame .6-tfteng:th c.apa-
c.ily illM.:llta):ed by :the ultima-te .6tlteM o
0
Figure 2.2
( 2. 7)
J TT(x,E(u))dx
~
i.e.
IT ( u)
Inf (2.10)
uEV jL(u) I
Noting that IT is positively homogeneous of degree I (consequence of the
same property valid for TT) and that IT is even (consequence of assump-
tion (2K3)) we obtain an alternative definition of the ~~emati~al imit
load A
Ak = 0 lnf{IT(u) , u E V , L(u) = 1}. (2.11)
( 2. 13)
G(p) = fn
1T(p)dx .
With these notations (P) is exactly (2.11) . It can be checked that(+)
x
- A if 3 A E 1R such that -p E S(Af , !.g) ,
F*cr..xp*)
{ +"" otherwise,
x
p (x) E p a.e.
0 if X ~n Q'
Gx(p*) = { +"" otherwise.
Therefore (Px) reads as
or equivalently [2]
N
luiBD(n) = r(u) + L: IE .. (u) I 1 (2.19)
i' j = 1 1J M (~)
BD(~) (2.20)
Therefore it can be endowed with a weak x topology for which bounded sets
are relatively compact.
Jn u.~ . . . dx + Jn ~ .. dE .. ( u) J +
y 5 (u). ~- .n.ds
(+)
1 1J .J 1J 1J s 1 1J J
(2.22)
u an I = r ( u)
Figure 2.3 -
Let us note that Green's formula (2.21) plays an essential role in the
defiTiition of the trace operator y Indeed we shall point out that
V(S'i")"~ ~ n.o:t devtJ.>e in BD(Q) for the topology defined by (2.19) .
Therefore the usual linear trace operator defined on V(IT)N can be ex-
tended to BD(IG) in infinitely many operators. However only one of these
possible continuations satisfies (2.21) .
Another worth noting result is that elements of BD(IG) might admit
discontinuities on arbitrary surfaces included in ~ A simple formula
relates discontinuities of u and a mass of E(u) on a surface S .
By difference between the two members of (2.22) we obtain
where the symmetry of '{I has been used in the last equality, and where
[ u] = u + - u- , ( q n) . . = I I 2 ( q. n. + q. n.) ( 2. 24)
. s 1J 1 J J 1
As a simple consequenc~ if u E C(~ ) 3 U C(~ ) 3 (with different traces
on S), then u E BD(IG) with - +
K = K1 n K2 K1 = {u E BD(n) u 0 on r }
0
K2 = {u E BD(n) L(u) 1}
Indeed neither K1 nor K2 are closed sets for the weak x topology
since the trace map y , although continuous for the strong topologies
of BD(n) and L1(an) , is not. continuous for the weak x to~ologies of
these spaces. This is readily seen in dimension 1 n = 1 L, consi-. Jo,
der the sequence :
u (x) = 1 if x ~ 1/n u (x) = nx if 0 ~ x ~
n n n
Then u (0) = 0 and lu IB ~ 2 . From this last estimate we deduce that
u con~erges in BD(n) ~ea~ x to u = 1 the trace of which at x = 0
i~ 1 and not 0 . This example proves that K1 is not closed but it
also proves that the linear form
u E BD(n) guds
----+- ~
1
is not continuous on BD(n) endowed with the weak x topology. Therefore
K2 is not closed either. Consequently 4> +IK is not a l.s.c. functional
on X, and we have to compute its l.s.c. hull, also called~ cto~une
defined as the largest l.s.c. function minorizing 4> + IK ,
IT(u, u )
A +
=f 1r((u) )dx + J b +
1T (u - u)ds (2.28)
n an
where 1Tb(x,A) = 1T(A ~ n(x))(+) (2.29)
s
(+) It should be noted that, even if 1T does not depend on the space
variable x , 1Tb may depend on X through the normal unit vector
n(x) .
Discontinuities and Plasticity 291
+
=
A
-
. PI:t + "f
d lV ' 0
:t :t
p3 = PIn )..g on ri
(2.32)
:t :t
PIn p2 on r 0
b) :t :t :t
F (J\ p ) = + oo
P~oo6. By definition
vE V L(v) =I
Sup J :t r :t r:t+
p 1 E(u)dx + lr p 2 u ds + 1' p 3 (u - u)ds (2.33)
(u,u+) E V f2 o I
+
=
A
L(u,u )
+ +
Let (u ,u ) be an element of V such that L(u ,u ) I . For every
0 0
( u,u +) o.1n0 V we d e f'1ne
--+ + + +
(u,u) = (u,u) + (I- L(u,u ))(u ,u)
A
0 0
- )..(1-L(u,u+)) A J (2.34)
where )..=-Jn
p:ti(u)dx-r p:t
o "r 2 uds-r
o
p:t (u+-u)ds
1' 1 3 o o
I~ a first step the sup in (~.34) is lim1ted to u in V(n) 3 and
u = 0 , and we obtain
Discontinuities and Plasticity 293
J (p~ E( u) + Afu) dx
~
The last supremum is +co except if
*
- di v pI + A f = 0 (2.35)
+~ (p~.n-p;)uds]
I
+ .
u Ir ' u Ir ' u l r I can be choosen ~ndependently and the above supremum
is 0 + co elce~t ~f all the conditions (2.32) are satisfied, in which
case F*(A*p ) = - A This completes the proof of lemma I To end the
proof of theorem 3 we have to compute G*(p*) , but this computation
is standard (and rather technical for G~ and and we obtain : c;)
pI* (x) E P
{
0 if a.e. x ~n ~
* =
GI* (pI) (2.36)
+co otherwise,
where
Equality between the infimum in (2.42) and (2.43) results from equa-
lity of the dual problems. However it should be noted that the constraint
L(u) = 1 in (2.43) is not closed.
Re~k. (2.30), introduced in BOUCHITTE & SUQUET [20] seems to be
original (to the author's knowledge), although the heuristic argument
leading to (2.30) was already exposed in SUQUET [21] [22] . However
the simplified form (2.41) bears a strong resemblance with the relaxed
problem introduced by DEMENGEL [23] .
2.5 RELAXED PROBLEM II, FUNCTION OF A MEASURE
We argued in section 2.3 that displacement rates naturally live in
BD(!1) and it is readily seen that u+ should be taken el~ment of
M1(r 1)3 . Consequently we need to extend the definition of II to elements
of these spaces. The case of an homogeneous material satisfying (2.4)
offers no difficulty 'since
(J A
0
> O)(j bE L1 (n)) j(x,z) ~ A lzl - b(x).
0
(2.46)
We wish to extend the definition of ] to all ~ in 1 (n)m , through
the l.s.c. closure of J for the weak * topology of M (n)m . For this
purpose we need additional notations
i) j"" is the p!U..n.upal paM of j
I6 mMeove~
296 P.M. Suquet
I
;I/2n 0 if lxl :;: 2n
u (x) = { 1
n
n if lxl ~
2n
Then ](u ) is finite and
n
J ( u ) = _!_ j ( n) which tends to n(l)
n n
Therefore
J(o ) = n(l)
0
b) J is oytained as the hi-conjugate function of J (J = Jxx) in the
duality (M (rl)m, C0 (rl)m)
c
}(lJ) = Sup [<lJ,<P> - J (2.53)
rl
cpEc 0 (rl)m
This duality relaion explains the role played by c.ontin.uoU-6 functions
in the definition of h We give an example (taken from BOUCHITTE [ 4])
which illustrates this point :
j(x, z) = k(x) lzl = n(x,z) where k(x) E L00 (rl) , k :;: 0
J(u) J k(x)luldx u E L 1 (rl)
rl
Then [4]
"'k(x) lim J
1
k(y)dy
p+O IB(x,p)l B(x,p)
(B(x, P) is the ball centered in X with radius p) Indeed
E = {~ E C0 (n) , l~(x)
c
I ~ k(x) for every x in ~} (2.56)
{ 1
j(E~))dx in
u E H 1 (~)) , u 0 on
J(u) = ~
+ otheJtW~e
Then the elo~~e o6 J in L 1 (~) 3 ~
298 P.M. Suquet
J(E:(u)) + J rr(-u 0
s
n)ds u E BD(rl)
J(u) Clrl
+"" o.:the/WJ~e.
3. ELASTO-PLASTICITY
.
2
E2
Material Haterial 2
Figure 3.1
But (2.6) does not account for the limitation of strains ~n both phases
M M M
E:i = 2 ~ Inf(1 '2) = 1
Therefore the maximal stress which can be reached by phase 2 , (as long
as phase I ~s unbroken), is
M
a2 E2 I
and the resulting maximal load (two phases unbroken) is
M M M M
A= a 1 + E2 1 < a 1 + a 2
However a higher load could be reached if phase breaks
M
A= a 2 (phase broken : a 1 = 0)
In conclusion the maximal value of A which can be associated with a phy-
sical state of the material (both a and satisfying equilibrium equa-
tions and constitutive law) is
,Max M M M s
1\ = Sup(a 2 , a 1 + E2 1) < A
This example shows that the limit load determined in section 2 ove~
eo~mateo the strength capacity of a brittle structure. However in case of
elasto-plastic constituents the limit load is exact, in the sense that
with every A < As we can associate at least one physical state (a , E:)
of the structure satisfying all the requirements of equilibrium and cons-
titutive laws.
3,1 TWO MODELLINGS OF ELASTO-PLASTIC BEHAVIOR
The typical stress-strain curve of an elasto-plastic material is plot-
ted on Figure 2.2 and two constitutive laws modelling this behavior have
been proposed.
g~g~~y~~-~~~! The total strain splits into an elastic part and a
plastic part ,
(3. 3)
e p
(u) = + (3.4)
(an over dot stands for time derivative). The elastic part depends linear-
ly on the stress rate
e
A a (3.5)
(3.6)
The main difference between these two models is that Hencky's law is
a model of (physically) nonlinear elasticity rather than a model of plasti-
city, and therefore does not account for the irreversible character of
yielding, while Prandtl-Reuss' law really accounts for the difference of
behavior between loading or unloading paths.
-- --
a a
loading loading
K---------~
Hencky Prandtl-Reuss
Figure 3.2
-
(3. 3) ~ aE p ( T E P) (p '[ - a) ~ 0 (3. 7)
div a + A.f = 0 in n
E(u) = Aa + EP EP E arP(a)
Y~!i~!i~g~!-~~!~~!~!i~g-~~--i~~2l __ ig_!~!~~-~~-~!!~~~~~ [ ~
The stress analysis of (3.9) is classical (cf DUVAUT-LIONS 30J).
We assume that P(x) is constant on borelian subsets of n and we set :
ll' = {T E ILZ (Q) , T(x) E P(x) a.e. x E Q}
where throughout the text we denote as previously
ILP (n) = Lp(n): ,
and recalling the space of statically admissible stress fields
S(Af' A.g) ={TEIL 2 (n) 'div T +Af = 0 a.e. in n, T.n = Ag a.e r1}
we set
KA ll' n S(Af , A.g)
Choosing T in KA , we obtain by Green's formula
where
u E H 112 (r ) 3
0 0
A is coercive, symmetric, bounded :
(3 2
a.> 0) (:V E;, E JR 9 ) (a.e. xE Q) Aijkh (x) E;,ij E;,kh ~alE;, llR9
s
s (3. 13)
Aijkh = Ajikh = ~hij
Aijkh is measurable and
(j f3 > O)(a.e. X En) (:V ijkh) I (Aijkh(x) I ~ f3
Discontinuities and Plasticity 303
~ J~ j(x,E(u))dx
J(u) (3.15)
~ + 00 otherwise
(3. 18)
S
c = { T E TI.. 00 (rl) ,
d~v t E L (rl)
3 3 , T .n E C0 (f.) 3 }
I
The proposed mixed variational formulation is
-- --~-(:~~;--= +
Regularization Define
I T - II ( ) T 1 2 9
ll ll Px 1R
s
V = {u E H 1 (rl) 3 u = uo on r }
ad 0
o -- n->.la
2n o
I oo
(Recall that W contains 0 as an intericr point).
Then taking a~ - X as trial function in (3.20) , we obtain
(3. 22)
0 ~ <I> (a].J) = <I> (a~) - <I> (x) ~ In()~ (a~) (a]..l- x)dx ~ c (3.25)
].J ].J ].J " ].J
I
I a~ (a].J) I 1 =5 Sup In ~ (a~) .T du (3. 26)
~ (n) IT Ii" {n) ~ 0
~
1L
But
(3.27)
The first integral of the right hand side of (3.27) is non positive : by
the safety assumption x + T E W , by ~~' s definition ~ (x + T) = 0
and the result follows from the monotonicity of ()~ The cgnjunction
of (3.26)(3.27) yields ].J
~~~~~~8-~~-fh~-l~~~~--~-~-2 .
Fro~ (3.2f) and (3.28) we d~duce that there exists
(a , u , u ) E IL (n) x BD(n) x M1(r 1) such that (for a subsequence)
aJ.J - - 4 a in IL 2 (n) weak ,
(3.32)
Moreover
308 P.M. Suquet
div a + :U= 0 in rl
Note that (3.33) is now an ~vo~ution p~ob~~m for a and therefore re-
quires data of f..f, f..g , u on a time interval [O,Tj , and initial
conditions for a , while 0 u interfers in (3.33) by its time-derivative
u only, which is the kinematical unknown. For simplicity only,we assume
that ,>. is a function of t , while f and g are function of x only
,>..(.) E w1 "'co,T)
The initial stress state a is assumed to obey
0
(3.34)
a ES(,>..(O)f,f..(O)g)niP
0
Moreover
u E WI '"' ( 0, T ; HI / 2 ( r ) 3 ) , me s ( r ) > 0
0 0 0
Stress formulation
-----si~c~--A--Is-now a function of time, the set of plastically and
statically admissible stress fields is a moving closed convex set in ~ 2 (rl)
K(t) = S(f..(t)f, f..(t)g) n IP .
Following a parallel path to that which led to (3.11) we can formulate
(3.33) in terms of stresses only,
I
Find a(t) E K(t) -6 u.c.h .that &o~ a.~. t -i..n Jo,T[
( T E K(t)) A(a, T- a) ~ i(T- a) (3.35)
a (0) a
0
Let us show how (3.35) can be given the form of a "sweeping problem".
Define on 11 2 (rl) on new scalar product
a(O) = a
0
on r
0
} (3.39)
-ll
response of ll to the loading ( H , /..g , u ) . Then cr 0 ll _ 0e ~s
;-ll + B( t , cr ll) h ( t) in S ( 0, 0)
}
=
(3. 40)
-ll e
(J (0) = (J - (J (0) '
0
where the Lipschitz operator B(t, .) on S(O,O) , and the second member
h in S(O,O) are defined, with the help of Riescz theorem, by
((B(t,cr),T)) = frl ~ ll (a+ cre(t))T dx
((h(t),T)) = -fn" Acre, dx + Jr u
o
T.n ds
0
(3.40) is a usual differential equation, with a Lip~chitz oferator, and
admits a unique solution. We define an element of L (O,T;~ (rl)) by
e(t) = A all
(crll) - E(ue) + ~
ll
which satisfies for almost every t in Jo,T[
Jrl e ( t) T dx = 0 V T E S(O,O)
Lemma 3.2 , the p2oof of whih is left to the reader, implies the ex~s-
tence of ull in L (O,T;HI(rl) ) such that
.!.ll ....:..ll
e = E(u ) u 0 on r
0
and we set ull = ~ll + lie (all, ull) satisfy ( 3. 39) .
Lemma 3. 2 Le:t e -<.n ~ 2 (rl) be Mc.h :that .Jr2 e T dv "' 0 6ofL e_ve_fLu T
-<.n S(O,O) The.n :th eJr..e. e_xi!.,V., a un,i.que v --LYt H 1 (rl) 3 ~.>uc.h :that ~
e = E(v) v = o on r 0
~-2EiEi-~~!i~!~~--l Multiplying (3.39) by crll - X (where X satis-
fies the safety assumption (3.36)) yields with the help of Grornwall
lemma
co 2
is bounded ~n L (O,T; ~ (rl)) (3.4I)
I
In <1P (crll) (crll -x)dx
ll
is bounded in L (O,T), and by lemma 3. I,
Ifr~ ll
E( u ) (a
ll .
- X) dx I = IJnr ( ue ) ( "ll (J -
. I ll
X) dx I ~ c a - XI 2 '
~ (n)
(3.46)
(+) if X' is the topolo~ical dual of a Banach space X ~ then the dual
of 12(0, T ; X) is 1{(0, T ; X') which is equal to L (0, T;X') only
if X is reflexive. Applying this result to X' BD(n) and
X' M1(r 1)3 successively explains the previous functional spaces.
312 P.M. Suquet
f
T
-1
cT
Fi~nre 3.3
(+)
This example is an academic one and is not relevant from a physical
point of view. However it is relevant in the discussion of the mathe-
matical equations of plasticity.
Discontinuities and Plasticity 313
+
(l 1/3 (l 1/3
However we see from (A.3) that
u-(O,t) = lim u(x, t) = 1/3 u+(o,t) = lim u(x, t) -1/3
x<O x>O
x-+0 X -+0
~ (T) = l (j(T))p
p p
Instead of (3.39) consider the elastic visco-plastic material
AoP + a~ (oP) = (liP) .
p
Evolution problems for such materials are studied in DJAOUA & SUQUET
[67] , and similar constitutive equations are considered in BLANCHARD &
LE TALLEC [68] .
Plasticity with hardening is dealt with in JOHNSON [46l and NGUYEN
QUOC SON [47] .
4. Numerical approximations of elasto-plastic problems by mixed finite
eleme~ts do not seem so popular. Let us mention JOHNSON [48] , NGUYEN
DANG HUNG [31] , and DJAOUA [49] (viscoplasticity). They should be more
developped since they provide a good approximation of a
Discontinuities and Plasticity 315
4. THIN LAYERS
~0 0
{xE ~ > -}
~ 2
~6 ~0 u ~0
+
Bo 0
{x E ~ ; lxNI <-}
2
Bo B0 n ~
so {x E ~ +i}
~ -2
s {x E 5I 0}
~
Pip:ure 4.1
For the sake of simplicity we have assumed that the layer develops
in the vicinity of the plane xN = 0 . Extension to curved interfaces
seems possible but technical arguments have not yet been completed by the
author.
316 P.M. Suquet
I
a
0
= a du 0 ) ~n. ~
+
u ~
0 0
div a + f = 0 ~n. ~ ' u 0 on. d~
0
on s a > p-I (4.5)
a .n 0 ~6
a .n
0
K j' ([uoj) on. s ~6 a = P- I
p
The. pote.n:tlat jp ~ de.Mn.e.d on. s M
J~ u ~ a ( v) dx + J~ f v dx = - JS a. n[v]ds (4.6)
+
0 0
We turn back to the study of (a , u ) .
0
~-EEiEi_~~!i~~!~~ Multiply ( 4. I) by u and integrate over ~ to
obtain
(+)
aj 2 A.n. + A.n.
_P(,\) 1 p- < ~ l l ~) since >... appears in
Note that l;x. n 2 nj
();\.. s ~
~
( 4. I 0)
implies :
p-1/p I IS I c (4 .12)
o E(u ) n,P(B ~ ~
(4.14)
On the other hand for ~very n > 0 we deduce from (4.11) and the
boundary conditions that u N is bounded in Hl(nn)N , and therefore
that u0 belongs to Hl(nn) for every n > 0 with
lu 0 IHI(nn)N ~ C (4.15)
u tS ~
__ . , o
u
1n L I ( Q)N strong (4.17)
IS
We deduce from (4.11) that a is a bounded sequence in n. 2 (n 0 ) , and
Discontinuities and Plasticity 319
J 0 Ia 0 jP I
dx =
I
fo Kp opldu )jPdx
0
~ c 0
B B
Since p 1 = _: 1 ~ 2 we obtain that a 0 is bounded in n. 2 (n), with a
weakly conveFg1ng subsequence (without loss of generality we can assume
that it converges 0 for the same subsequence of o than the subsequence
extracted from u ) , and we denote by a0 its limit. It is straight-
forward to check that a0 and u0 are related by
a0 E TI.. 2
+
(n) , div a0
n u n
-
- f = 0 1n n
}
and the only remaining point concerns the behavior o~ a 0 and u0 on S.
u0 may admit discontinuities on S , while a0 .n is uniquely defined
in H-1/2(s)N (by virtue of the equilibrium equations). For this purpose
an intermediate result 2 will be usefull : note that for a "smooth" stress
field T (in w 1 00 (n)~ for instance) we have
= - fn di v T u0 dx - ~ U n T
0
E(u )dx J,
s
T .n[u~ ds
+
which proves (4.18) .
f~~!~!_1~~ It remains to prove that a0 .n and [u~ are related by
the contact law (4.5) . For this purpos~ according to the maximal mo-
notonicity of the operator j 1 (z) = lziP z , it is sufficient to prove
p
l 0 (a 0 - k
0
I{) 1 ( d v 0) ) , d u 0) - 0
e:( v ) ) dx ~ 0 (4.20)
B p
0
applied to a suitable approximation v of v in V which we further
describe.
Let v be an element of V .N By a density argument we can clearly
assume that v is regular (C 00 (n+) x C00 (n-)N) ~n n and n and that
its support is compact in n . +
320 P.M. Suquet
0
v
v
o/2
0
We approximate v by a more regular vector field v continuous
across S :
lxl > i2
0
v (x) =
V~(x)) + X: [v] 0 (x) if
x -- v <~x,-+ i)
0
wh ere v+o(~) 2 and [vi(x) = v 6 (x)
+ v~ (x) v exhibits
the following properties : N
i) v 0 tends to v in L2 (n) strong.
ii) Trace operator on a surface xN = o/2 ~s a continuous function of
the surface. Therefore
lim [v]0 (x) = [v] (x) in H112 (S)N(hence L2 (s)N) strong (4.21)
o+O
and consequently, for every r E [1, 2]
i and j IN
o I o o ~;:( .. (v o)- .. (v o)) (4.23)
, .(v) =-2 ( .. (v )+ .. (v ))+-
~J ~J + ~J
2
- 0 u ~i + ~J 0- 0
i .1. N J. 0 I 0 0 I av+N <lv_N XN av+N av_N
r N iN(v) =u(v+i -v-i)+t;(~+----ax.-)+21(----ax.------ax.-)
~ ~ ~ ~
Consequently
KJI(v]~ n pds=Kjj'([v])[v]ds(4.26)
s s p
Therefore
= -J f v dx - J
iJ iJ UiJ
+
which proves iii)
By lower sem1 continuity we obtain
}
0
a0 = a E(u 0) in i:l 0 a 1n
0
div o 0 + f = 0 in iJ u 0 on ai:l
2. Again a more physically relevant problem should include incompressi-
bility of the layer
div u 0 = 0 in B0 a 8 =- p:U:d + k 0 ldu 0 )ip-Z E(})
It follows from this constraint that [u0].n = 0 on S , and the resul-
Discontinuities and Plasticity 323
Inf
A ( 5. I)
n
x E X
We define the T epi-limits inf and sup of as follows
x E X lnf (5. 2)
T
x--+x n -+ + co
n
( +) . .
a general and complete exposure on ep1-convergence, together w1th
numerous applications and references can be found in ATTOUCH [3]
Discontinuities and Plasticity 325
A = Min
J(x) = lim A (5.4)
x EX x-++oo n
A very simple corollary of theorem 5.2 will be useful 1n the study of
limit analysis problems :
CaftailMy 5. 2 In add-i.tian to the. M~umptia~ a6 the.O!tem 5. 2 let L
be a c.antmua~ UneM 601tm an (X, T) and c.a~-i.deft the va!t-i.atianal
pftable.m
n
A = Inf{J (x), L(x) =I} (5.5)
n
n
and let x be ~uc.h that L(Xu) = I. J (x ) ~ A + 1/n Then 6oft
evefty T ganveftg-i.ng ~ub~equenc.e X ( UM-u: X) n We have
nk
J(x) = Inf{J(x),L(x) = I} lim A~= lim J~(x ) (5.6)
k -+ + 00 k-+ + 00 ~
,...y
' ..
lJ
center M.
lJ
cell Y .
lJ
Figure 5. I
(5.14)
and obtain
Jn(u)=l Jn kl[t.illlds
+cor oth erw1se
.
-;---.,..------~
J(u) (5.18)
.
PJtoo 01 (++) Th e boundary term 1n is obviously a relaxation term ( 5. 18)
due to the boundary condition u = 0 in the definition of Jn This
term, which is not our main point of interest, complicates the analysis,
and we prove a weaker (but essential) form of theorem 5.3 which does
not account for the boundary conditions.
Let Jn be de6~ned ao
fnkl[u]lds ~tl u=p .. on Y .. ,uEH 1 (rJ*) 2
r lJ lJ
otheJWJM e + oo
The result is attained with the help of the above described criterion
(5.7)(5.8) for epi-convergence.
First step Let u be a sequence 1n L 1 (~) 2 converging to u and such
th~t--ii~- inf ]n(un) < + oo u 1s piecewise smooth and belongs to
BD(rl) (cf(2.25)) wlfth n
ldun)IMI(~)4 ~
s
fr ![uJ!ds ~ k Jn(u)
n n
< C (5.19)
a~ auJL
1/2 ( - - - )
axJI, a~
(~ote that w11 = w22 = 0, Define a rigid
d1splacement p on Y
1J
ij ij ij
pl (x) =u 1 (Mij) -w 21 (Mij)(x 2 -x 2 ), p 2 (x)
ij -
where ~ - ~(M .. ) . 1 2
Finally we pfJpose to approximate u in L (n) strong by
u (x) = pij(x) xE Y if
n 1J
The following (easy) inequality ensures the convergence of u towards
u in 1l (n) 2 strong n
1
1 u - u 1 00 2 ~ - I grad u I 00 4
A n L (Q) n L (Q)
Jn(u) is the sum of elementary integrals on r~. and r~. (see nota-
tionR on figure 5. 1) 1J 1J
*
n
,
L_f""i 7 !')~
,
, I', -
/J # I Enlargment
fl
' I
-~
I I I I
I! I I I I I
L, ..,..
, , I 'I
I I I
I I ""
~~
I! , I
,,7
~
, If
I I I
I I I I I / I
-Y
, , , ~17
I I I
, I''T
I I / width 1/n
~
,..._
I -I\
{:
I I
I I if y E y]
'-~..t...
- ,.....,.
P(y)
if y E y2
Figure 5.2
Main notations of the problem are displayed on figure 5.2 . Material pro-
perties ar~ defined on the unit cell Y = 0, I [3 and extended by periodi- J
city to JR. We assume for simplicity that P(y) is simply defined by
a ball of radius k(y) (assumption (2.4)) and that k(y) takes two (non
vanishing) values on two borelian sets Y1 and Y2
,\
n
(5.28)
~ + oo otherwise
In TI
hom (E(u)) + Jr (n hom ) b (-u)ds ..i.6 uEBD(n)
IT hom(u) )
(5. 32)
+"" otheJWJ-i..-6e. o
Mo!te.ove.Jt
hom
lim A = A = Inf{IT (u) , L(u) = I} (5.33)
n
n-++oo
Comme.n.t.Theorem 5.4 states that when heterogeneities'size becomes
small (I/n-+ 0) , the limit load computed on the nonhomogeneous material
is well approximated by the limit load gf a fictitious homogenized mate-
rial the strength domain of which is P om (5.29) .
5.4 ASSEMBLY OF MATERIALS WITH LIMITED STRENGTH. LOADS ON THE
BOUNDARY
When the assumption r =an ' ri 0 is abandonned, new interesting
problems arise. Indeed the ~inear form L is no more continuous on BD(n)
(as we already noticed in section 2.5) , because of its boundary term
Figure 5.3
0
div E0 =0 , E .n(x) = g(x) :v x E r1
and therefore that An ~ I In this example lim sup A. and can-
n
not be equal.
The correct limit to the sequence (A. ) is provided by corollary 5.4
below. In order to understand it we recallnthat we introduced in section
2.5 an appropriate relaxed form of the limit analysis problem, for loaded
boundaries (cf(2.30)~
- + - +
A. Inf {!In(u,u ) , L(u,u )
n +
u,u
1T
nb ( -u) ds +Jr 1T
nb ( u + - u) ds
I
n n +
II ( u) + J ( u - u).
Although the epi-limit of a sum is not the sum of epi limits,it can be
useful to compute separately the epilimifis of nn (this isdone in
theorem 5.4), and Jn. We note that Tin (x,.) is the support function
of set cn(x) previously defined cf (2.40) , or in other terms that
Jn (I in the duality M1 (r ) 3 - C0 (r ) 3
en )x I c I
,n {~ E C0 (r 1) 3 , ~(x) E Cn(x) a.e. x E r 1}
By duality we have now to determine the limit of ~n It is given by
the following result due to G. BOUCHITTE [4J _._ LeA: U6 de.Mne.
nn1 = {x En Pn (x) = P1} An = r 1 n nn1
We. ~~urne. ~hat (2.3) is met and that(+)
= 0 , int(An) ~A, int(r 1 \A)~ B
H2 (aAn)
The.n I~n e.p~-eanv~g~ ~n C0 (r 1) 3 ~tnang ~a I~
0 3
~ = {~ E c (r) , ~ (x) E C (x) xEr 1}
G:(x) =PI n(x) ~6 x E A \B C(x) = P2 n(x) X E B \A
t(x) = P1 n(x) n P 2 n(x) ~6 x E An B
Let Tir (x,.) denote the support f~nction of t(x) which can be extended
in a fudction of measure on Ml(r 1) , and set
J(~) = fr Tir (x,~)
I I
Then a duality result (ATTOUCH [3]) asserts that Jn epi-converges
(sequentially) in MI(r )3 weak x to J . We are now in a position to
state a precise result ~BOUCHITTE & SUQUET [20J) .
The011.em 5.5
weak x ;to
irhom<u,u+) = rrhom<u) +fr 1Thomb <-u)ds + Ir 1Tr <u+ -uds) (5.36)
0 1 1 3
Co~olt~y 5.4 A~~um~ ;tha.;t g belong~ ;to C0 (r 1) Then A conve~-
gu ;to Ah om whe~e : n
+ 1 3
i) Ahom = I n f + {Tlhom(u,u+) ' L-( u,u +) = 1 ' u,u EBD(rl) xM (r 1) }
u,u
ii) A = Inf (A,., , A ) (5. 37)
hom "
,&., given by
inf{a E lR I ag(x) E chom(x) () C(x) VxEr 1} (5.38)
REFERENCES
I9. HADHRI T. "Fonction convexe d'une mesure", C.R. Ac.ad. Sc.. Pa!UJ.J,
I, 30I, I985, p. 687-690.
20. BOUCHITTE G., SUQUET P. "Charges limites, plasticite et homo-
geneisatiofl: le cas d'un bard charge", C.R. Ac.ad. Sc.. Pa!UJ.J, I, 305,
I 98 7, p. 44 I -444 .
21. SUQUET P. "Existence and regularity of solutions for Plasticity
problems" in va!Ua:tton.at MeA.:hod6 -<-n. :the Mec.haMCJ, o t] Soud6, Ed
S. NEMAT-NASSER, Pergamon Press, Oxford, I980, p. 304-309.
22. SUQUET P. "Sur les equations de la Plasticite : existence et re-
gularite des solutions". J. de ,IAec.aMque, 2d, 198I, p .. 3-39.
23. DEHENGEL F. "Espaces de fonctions a derivees mesures et applica-
tion a. l'analyse limite en pla.sticite", C.R. Ac.ad. Sc.. P~, I, 302,
1986, p. 179-182.
24. HADHRI T. "Sur ~e glissement a l'interface de deux milieux homo-
genes constituant un solide de Hencky", C.R. Ac.ad. Sc.. Pa!UJ.J, II, 302,
1986, p. 1181-1184. .
25. DAL MASO G. "Integral representation on BV(S"l) of r-1imit of
variational integrals", Man.w.,c.JUp:ta Ma:th., 30, 1980; p. 387-416.
26. BOUCHITTE G. ''Convergence-et relaxation de fonctionnelles du
calcul. des variations a croissance lineaire. Application a l'homogenei-
sation en plasticite", Ann.. Fac.. Sc.. Toulow.,e., 8, 1986-1987, -p. 7-36.
27. HERCIER B. "Une methode pour resoudre le probleme des charges
limites", J. Mec.a.,16, 1977.
28. FREMOND M., FRIAA A. .. "Les methodes statique et cinematique en
calcula la rupture et en analyse limite", J. Mec.a. Th. Appl., 1,
1982, p. 881-905.
29. JOHNSON C. "Error estimates for some finite element methods for
a model problem in perfect plasticity", Meeting "Problemi matematici
della meccanica dei continui", Trento, Italy, 1981.
30. CHRISTIANSEN E. "Computation of limit loads", In.:t. ]. Num. Me:th.
Eng., 17, 1981, p. 1547-1570.
31. NGUYEN DANG HUNG "Sur la plasticite et le calcul des etats limites
par elements finis", These de Doctorat Special. Liege, 1985.
32. GAVARINI C. "Plastic analysis of structures and duality ~n linear
programming", Me.c.c.aMc.a 1, 1966.
33. DUVAUT G., LIONS J.L. Lv., -<_n.equa:Uon.-6 e.n. Mec.aMque e:t en. Phy-6-<_-
que., Dunod, Paris, 1972.
34. NECAS J., HLAVACEK I. Ma:thema:Uc.at :the.o~y ot] elaJ.J;(_:_{_c. and
elaJ.J;(_:_{_c.o-plaJ.J;(_:_{_c. bo~v., :an. -<-~oduc.;t;_on., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1981.
35. KOHN R., TEMAM R. "Dual spaces of stresses and strains with
applications to Hencky Plasticity", Appl. Ma:th. Op;t;_m., 10, 1983, p. 1-35.
36. HADHRI T. "Convex function of a measure and application to a
problem of nonhomogeneous plastic material", Preprint 140, Ecole Poly-
technique, Palaiseau,France, 1986.
37. BEN DHIA H., HADHRI T. "Existence result and discontinuous fini-
te element discretization for a plane stress Hencky problem", Preprint
146, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France, 1986.
38. BEN DHIA H. "Numerical analysis of a bidimensional Hencky problem
approximated by a discontinuous finite element method", Preprint I61,
Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France, 1987.
Discontinuities and Plasticity 339
J.J. Telega
Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
ABS'IRACT
These lectures present selected unilateral boundary and
initial value problems of elasticity and inelasticity.
Particularly, for elastic Signorini's problem with general
subdifferential sliding rule t\~O dual problems are derived
as well as the bidual one. Some historical and modern
views on friction phenomenon are briefly presented. The
next chapter is concerned with unilateral frictionless and
frictional problems for viscoelastic, plastic and visco-
plastic bodies. In the last chapter homogenization of mi-
crofissured elastic solids and plates is studied. It is
assumed that microfissures behave unilaterally.
342 J.J. Telega
1 IN'IRODUCTION
These lectures are focussed on variational approach
to unilateral contact problems for elastic and inelastic
bodies. Non-smooth effects are imposed by unilateral con-
ditions at the boundary. In the case of perfect plasticity
/Chapter 3/ and fissured solids and plates /Chapter 4/
certain functions like displacements and velocities are al-
so non-smooth /discontinuous/.
In my opinion it is covenient to classify contact
problems of solid and structural mechanics as follows.
/ i / External and intern~l contact problems. In the first
case the body considered is in contact with another rigid
or deformable body /elastic or inelastic/, or with a sys-
tem of such bodies. Internal contact problems are posed by
fracture and damage mechanics, see Chapter 4 of these lec-
tures.
/ii/ Contact of bodies made of: inorganic materials, for
instance metal - metal contact;organic materials, for ex-
ample cartilage - cartilage contact in human and animal
joints, see Refs [1,9,10,22,26,27,36,37;38,40,52] and
Fig.1;
bone
artic ular
cartilage
cortical bo ne
[0J spongeous bone
EJ acrylic cement
lllliD polyethylene
D metol
fe mur
F =
a + P~ ' /2.1/
where ~ is the inverse (!) o~ the coe~~icient o~ ~riction~
while a was attributed to adhesion. For Coulomb, however,
adhesion had only a very small ~luence upon ~riction.It
is woth noticing that he was the ~irst to use the two-term
expression /2.1/ ~or ~riction, where the second term is at-
tributed to de~ormation or ploughing action o~ asperities.
Coulomb investigated also kinetic and rolling ~riction.
2.2 On ~riction mechanisms and coe~~icient o~ ~riction
Nowadays it is commonly assumed that ~riction between
sliding sur~aces is caused by three phenomena: 1/ de~ormat
ion o~ sperities, 2/ ploughing by wear particles and hard
sur~aces asperities and, 3/ adhesion; see also Fig.3.
Thus the coe~icient o riction expresses as ~ollows
Jk = F/P = ~ (JLd}J-p}J-a), /2.2/
where ~d' flp and fla denote the asperity de~ormation
346 J.J. Telega
DEFORMED LAYERS
~~ ~
-- --- ---
--- --
A -PRIMARY ADHESION
d2 Fig.J, Typical asperity and
wear particle at a sliding
interface (1 .37]
3 In air - Diamond-Pt
at room
z tempera lure
0
1-
w 2
0:
LL.
LL.
0
0
1-
z
LLJ
w +
"-_Cl..o-0-o--D- Diamond-( u
LL.
LL.
LLJ
-o-
0
w
500 1000
TEMPER A TURE o C
-----TimED SURFACE
---SURFACE RUSHED WITH ALUMINA
t- --ELECTROPOLISHED SURFACE
z
w
u
u..
u.. I
w I
0
u 3 \ c
\ '' _.,------------------a
z
0 .2 \ ' ' .......
''---------~-------------b
_____________ , ,,
1-
u .1
0::
u..
30 IIJ so 60 70 00 90 10
SUCCESSIVE PASSES OVER FRICTION SURFACE
w
.....
0::
0
u..
z
0
1-
u
0::
u..
COMPLETE SEIZURE
......
u
0::
u...
u...
0
......
z
LLJ
u 1.5
u...
u...
LLJ
0
u ---IRON
-------~PERCENT
SILICON -IRON
/2.4/
z 0
0
i=
u
0::
u...
u...
0
Sn-Cu
I-
z
UJ
L.J
u... 0
u...
UJ
0 h o S n-A l
u Tin crystal
trnnsformation 13(
;.. l l l
~150 -100 -so o so 100 1so
TEMPERATURE o C
0.5
~~.
<>~ [l....Q.....Q._D-c-o-c
~ <>~----<>
04
:::L
c:
03
:~~-
51 ( """ 'b
0 + (a l
:;::: 38( ......... "o
--
u 0 +
;: <> + 18 ( "'--.!'
02 4 - 8 (
0 0 -41 (
...... v-72(
c:
0.1
-
<U
;:;
;;::::
~
w
-4 -3 -2 -1 0
log v
0.4
~
c:
0 0.3 ( b)
......u
--
;:
0
0.2
......
c:
0.1
--
<U
u
<U
0
w
-4 -3 -2 -1 0
log v
z
0
"
>=
u
fE
~
0
'L
C"
>-
z
w
u --~-~
zo
~ ~~t::
~ 8
;JJOO 'IJOO 1!100 llJOO 10000 zoo 400 600 800 1000
(aI ( bI
45 45
40 40
0 606 N ~ 35
::1.
:z 3.0 :z
0
0
E 25 0 25
f
cr
~ 2 0 ..--- 1 52 N ~ LL
LL
20
~;~c~
~ 15~ t
!
i:J 10 212 N
II1J 'jX)
: ==t' '
'==:1,:K:ri:::4 ~
600 700 !lXl 900 1000
SPEED , RPM SPEED. RPM
I al Ib l
RPM =rev/ mm RPM = rev I m1n
P =0,606 N P =2,12 N
45
40
::t
35 35
1-
;:, 3 0
21'1lRPM f+445RPM f-960RPM f+ ZIBRPM
u
E
w
25
8 20
~ 15
I-
!:! 1 0
a:
LL
05
oo~~~~~--~~~~ oo~~~~~~~~~~.
20 25 J) 35 40 20 25 30 35 1.0
TIME , MINS TIME, MINS
(a)
( b)
O.OJ ~
0.08
~
0.07 1~:----o
o.~ \ ,.._____A~------
~ 0.(15
~ --=-------------0------
~------ t:r-_
0.04
0.03
0.02
Q01
(a l
LOAD
(bl
z
0
I-
~ Q02
~
I-
~ 0.01
9u.
u.
w
~ 0.00 +------'.lL.:...._..,.---=:Jc:.__--+J
0.0 1.0 2.0(MN/m2)
NORMAL STRESS
Fig.15, /a/ Experimenta1 configuration, /b/ variation
o~ ~riction coe~~icient ~or articular cartilage with
load
Dawson et al. (94) reported the results o~ an experiment in
which a severely damaged rheumatoid hip was investigated
at loads up to 1500 N. The coe~~icient o~ ~riction was as
high as o.4, thus indicating a ~i~teen-~old increase over
the average value o~ 0,025 recorded ~or healthy hip joints.
2.3 Phenomenological ~riction conditions andsliding rules
Physical considerations like those pres~ted in the
preceding section are very important in our understanding
o~ ~riotion phenomenon yet are insu~~ioient ~or the study
o~ boundary and initial value problems. For instance, ~riot
ion laws or sliding conditions do not ollow ~rom such con-
siderations, so they must be postulated.
A broad class o~ sliding rules can be obtained from
the corresponding constitutive equations o~ the mechanics
356 ].]. Telega
n.lS
Fig.16
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 357
--
Under the f'ollowing correspondences
e e + ep u e + up
. == . == -
-
e u
--
!.
e P
.!! + .!. u ue + uP
t = devt + P.! s = ~!!. + !.T ,
various sliding rules can readily be f'ormulated; the super-
scripts "e" and "p" mean "elastic", "plastic" /or generally
inelastic/, respectively. Here u is the displacement vector
of' M and u
its velocity. -
For suf'ficiently small loads the material element M
def'orms elastically, thus ~p =
o. Then we can assume
u;; = ~ uToe = E.,c j s 1
= ksN, T /2.10/
in the linear case. Here k> 0 , ! =! and
/2.14/
where ~ is the indicator function of K
I!.T I - fL I~ I ~ 0 ) I 2. 16/
we obtain U: = - A sgn sN = >.,~ )'/ 0 since ). )1 0 and
358 J.J. Telega
sN ~ 0 /non-physica1 situation/.
If instead of /2.14/ we take
>
p
l!rrl < p.l~l ~ =0 /2.19/
l!rrl = t- 1~1 ) P
~
= -).. ~T '
~ C) h/o sT , .!T
or
/2.21/
-~ E: o~(sN)(.:!,T) , where K(~)= ti\1.11- fA. I~!~ 0)
Hence the friction 1aw /2.19/ is not associated with
Cou1omb's friction condition /2.16/.
We observe that subdifferentia1 approach to contact ru1es
was initiated by Moreau, see (140).
I pass now to the genera1 case. The s1iding ru1e is as-
sumed in the form
-~ ~ ()~(~) (!.T) 1
/2.22/
which is equiva1ent to
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 359
. - !.TI. . ~
(! );. 0 , /2.23/
Denoting by t the conjugate variable, the support function
d (~,,!*) o:f-the convex set K(~) is given by
j
p) d:f (
( ~~ = P)
d ~-!:!:f = !tr (-~
P)
. /2.27/
The :function j is the friction dissipation density. We ob-
serve that due to the nonassociated character o:f the :fric-
tion law /2.22/ or /2.29/, the :friction dissifation defends
exnlioitlv on normal stresse&-a;a-not-only-on -;p_____ ----
--~------'-------------------
By using Rocka:fellar's Th.1'Je5 we get
~ .
j (sN'~) = ~).. g*( ~- )\- 1 ~) ,:for il;#O. /2.28/
Obviously, :for ~=0 we have J(~,o) = 0
I:f K(~) is closed but nonoonvex then the friction law
/2.28/ remains valid, provided that d ~(~) (!fr) stands
:for ~~! subdifferential in the sense o:f Clarke [85] or ra-
th~lrookafellar. Unfortunately, in the nonconvex case the
definition o:f the subdi:fferential is more complicated, par-
ticularly in the case of :functions which are not locally
Lipsohitzian, see also the lectures by Panagiotopoulos.
360 J.J. Telega
/2.30/
Hence we obtain
/2.31/
where
-~=-ANs
A=
- -T
(1>1 o( , u.r
P aC P p )
ll;f
"
i/2
")/ 0 ,
~~ =
N-1
/2.35/
/2.36/
(2H (sN)) 1/ 2
provided that N is invertible.
The friction dTssipation density is expressed as follows
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 361
.( . p)
J sN'.!:.i' /2.37/
/2.)9/
/2.41/
/2.42/
where, for instance~
362 J.J. Telega
t
q 2 ( t) = q 2 (0) + Sf ~ ~ l dt , t - time ~
0
and a stands or adhesion.
The sliding rule /2.4o/ gives
/2.49/
Here 2 and [ stand for the body forces and surface traction,
respective1y. The e1asticity tensor {aijk1 ) possesses the
usua1 symmetry properties: aijk1 = ak1 ij = ajikl J moreover
/2.59/
where
v = { y = (vi) 1 y = o /2.61/
ParticuJ.arJ.y, we can assume that
The choice of the space of dispJ.acements V is discussed in
Section 2. 7.
Let us put
Kd = t :!I ;y: <:: v , vN ~ 0 on s 2 ~ , /2.62/
a(~,y) = ~ aijkJ. eij(\!r.)ek1 (;y:)d.x ; ~,;y: E: V, /2.6'J/
;st.
/2.64/
/2.65/
a(~,;y:-~) + SC-.!T)(;y:T-Sr)dS =
s2
+ 5 sN (vN-~)dS /2.67/
s2
The subdifferential friction J.aw /2.52/ is equivaJ.ent to
where
Vs = t.i = (tijJ' HsJtij,j +bi=O, in 2 ;tijnj = F. ~
on s 1 ). /2.69/
The function spaces are introduced in Section 2.7.
Let us mu1tip1y the constitutive equation
bijkl.skl.- eij(:!;!) = 0 by (!-.!.), .!.! E: Ks\~) ,
and integrate over 51
We readil.y obtain
.k
where
b \.!, 1 ,!) = b ijkl. s ij tkl. dx ; !.!. (: Hs /2. 71/
We know that u:O on S Taking account of /2.57/ we infer
I
-
that the integral. 0
over s 2 is non-negative. Thus we can
formul.ate
K:
Probl.em P
Find .!. & (.sN) such that
b (.!, 1 ,!-.!,) /; 0 ,i Ks (.sN). /2.72/
We observe that if ~ = ~ on S 0 then /2.70/ yiel.ds
-, \Au, u \1
.or + ~o*r
,- \Au 1 u't'i =,/ u * , u '1 = /2.78/
is satisfied.
Before proving this theorem I first recall some indis-
pensab~e notions of the convex analysis [97,131 1 157,158,22~.
By r (
V) we denote the set of _proper ~ower semi-con-
t~uous coftvex functions on v, _or 1' 0 (V): f'lf':V-+Ru +{..o), f
f"/i + o 0 , - convex and l.s.c.J. Now several useful lemmas
are formu~ated.
Lemma 2. 1 Let f' E: r
0 ( v) The following properties are
equiva~ent
/i/ f(u) + f*(u*) = (u*,u) ,
/ii/ u* E "a f'(.u) ,
/iii/ u E: j):f* (.u*)
Lemma 2.2. Let f 1 ,f 2 t r
0 (v). Suppose that there exists
a point v 0 V such that f 1 and f 2 take finite values at
this point and one of them is continuous at v 0
Then
'd(f' 1 +f 2 )(v) =
of 1 (v)+ df' 2 (v), vf;V. /2.79/
f101 ,14Jl. In this case the problems P and P* have the fol-
lowing form, respectively
(P) I u E: DlN) : (N C..u) ,v-u) ); ~ (u)- ~ (v), v G V, /2.90/
(r}')j u* E:D(N'): <N'(u*) ,v*-u~)~~*(u*)-1* (_v*), V'vilf:-...l /2.91/
provided that D(N) is the domain of N and
N '= -N-1- :v*--.. -.A.-1 ( -v*) , D {N ') = range ( N), while '- is
convex and l.s.c.
Problem /2.91/ results directly from equivalences
(P)( )t
u (;- DlN) : -N (u) (: "d ~ (u) )( )\_ u*f: D(N ') : -N '(u) E:'d'fj-( u* )~
Mosco (142] has also generalized such theory of duali-
ty to the case when N is a multivalued mapping.
It is worth noticing that Mosco's theory of duality
and more generally, M-CD-M theory, apply to problems invol-
ving non-potential operators for l'fhich extremum principles
are not available. Problems described by potential opera-
tors are certainly easier, see for instance [136].
2.6. Application of l1-CD-H theory of duality to Signorini's
problem with friction
In the present section, by using H-CD-H theory of dua-
lity problems P~ and P: liill be derived. It will also be
shown that =
(P:) (PdJ and (P!*) (Pd). =
Let us pass to the derivation of the problem P~ .ife set
g(u,w) = a(~,~-~) - L(~-~) , /2.92/
~(A~,w) = J(~,~) + ~ (~) , /2.93/
d
where A:V~N(~); Vis defined 21;~2.61/.
Thus space Y coincides with H (S 2) in the general ca-
se or is equal to L 2 (s 2), see the next section.
The assumptions (H 1) -(H 4 ) being obviously verified we pass
to proving (H~ Let us first find conjugate functionals.
The following elementary lemma is useful for the derivation
of 'f*'(Av,~.
Lemma 2.5; If V is a reflexive Banach space and C c V a clo-
sedconvex cone such that 0 E: c, then
f o, if __ ,
-w* = Bv-L
= a(:!,:!) L'v) + /2.105/
"- L +o() , otherwise
where !: =(b ,[).
The Giteaux derivative D2 g expresses as follows
(D 2g(:!t:!!)h) = a(:!t!:!) - L(h)= (By-!: 1!:!). /2.106/
lienee l'le have
and
D 2 g(~ 1 ~) = B~-!: , or B~ = !: + D 2 g(~,~), /2.107/
where
~ = tz:vNjz~ o, z =(!.!)1 5 , ,!ev) /2.96/
2
and 'l is the trace opera tor; wN= N (.!.) = C't .!,) N t
We can assume that VN=H 1/2(5 21\ If sNE: H-1/2 , then (sN,vN)
is to be under~tood in the sense of duality. On the other
hand, if ~'= L (5 2} then
<'!:.* ,G'!:.~) )1
c 3u,!trv*
where c 2 and c 3 are positive constants. The linear operator
G is nothing else as the Green's operator for the mixed
boundary value problem of the elastostatics.
Let us put i =(si .n.}, on s 2 Now we can write, see
[146 ,p.1J5] J J
uk(x) = [G(~,:.,1.)1
k = ( bi(y)Gik(x,y)d S(Y) +
~ /2.10.3/
+J
51
Fi{Y)Gik(x,y) dS(y) + ( L i(Y)Gik(x,y)dS (Y).
2
Due to the linearity gf G we can write
u = G(~,E) + G(~) = ~ + G(~) , /2.104/
where "
u = G(~t[)
Taking account of /2.92/ and /2.101/ we obtain
t/(y,:!!*) = supt<!!* t:!!) - a(y,:!!-y)+ L(:!!-Y)) ~ f V = 1
= a(:!Y) - L(y) + sup t <~* :!!) - a(:!:,:!!) + L(~l :!! E: v)=
376 J.J. Telega
Thus t*
l+ oD otherwise
,
is the strain tensor.
12.1171
where
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 377
+
Now we set u = -'U and v =
on the form- - -
find ~ ~ Kd such that
{!>!)
-L(~) + J(!!.t!!.) + a(!!.t!!.)t- Lt:Y)+ J(!!.t:Y)+
+ a(:y,!!.), V' y E- Kd , /2.123/
where J(!!_rY) = J(sNL!!.)r -!T) , see also /2.64/. Thus we
see that (P:) = (Pd)
The extremality condition /2.78/ takes now the form
-L(!!.) + J(~r~) = - (!.r!.(!!.)) = -b(!.t!.). /2.124/
Fig.17
provided that(~) stands for the duality operation.
378 J.J. Telega
and,Cor inatance
:J1> (t>) = J
~1.1
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 379
where )
V = V Y.V :Uvl1 1 v~)l v{c()f:V_ v("')= 0 on s~\ /2.1-lO/
f 2 I.,_ - I I - <:4 J - 0 J J
and
.!:! E [ H 2 (u) ) 3
Existence problems for elastic bodies in the presence
of viscous sliding rules /parabolic problem/, but without
Signorini 's conditions have been studied in (96, 1 33]
Problem Pd 2 for both linear elastic and viscoelastic
bodies is investigated by Boucher [183,279) , see also [192,
220) However, :friction is negl.ected, but Q 2 is a hal.:f
space, see Remark 2.5. The space v 2 is a Barros-Neto space
[278) , equival.ently de:fined as :follows
Let the initial gap beh1een the body and the foundation
r 4 .,
be g ); 0 along S 2 According to the paper L1 7) , the con-
tact conditions are:
/i/ normal interface response
sN = -~t~-g}+n
, 'm
on S
2 /2.136/
/ii/ friction conditions
'-'N ~ g - ) ~T =0
(I.:!TI ~ cT ( u,r-g) :
I o
=>~~I.!TI < cT(~-g)+l- -~~ = T,
.D1-
~)g /2.137/
m.r 3'
o
1.!TI = CT (~-g) + ~ ).qO, ~-T = - A .!T
o
where cn,cT,mn and~ are material parameters, and T is
the tangential velocity of the subgrade with which s 2 comes
in contact; (~-g)+ stands for the positive part of (~-g).
rie observe that Coulomb's friction law is recovered if
m 11=~; then ~=c~cn is the usual coefficient of friction.
Oden-1-Iartins formulae imply that the friction condit-
ion is given by
f(sN'.!T'u;) = l.!TI - fl(u;) I sNI 1 2 13 8/
where p. ( u;) mT m
= cT( ~-g)+ /en ( "'N-g) +n is the coefficient
of :friction, \which depends on the normal displacement ~
In the case considered
on the form
U:=o,
~=0 The sliding rule takes
where
Yt-r = llT
o
- T , and
/ii/ 5
f.\Jh(r)dy = S~h(r)dx = 1
r<;.h r<.h
Let us put
Jh(!!!:) = 5 J(s;(!!)YT)ds /2.144/
s2
Instead of' the probl.em Pd we consider the f'ol.l.owing one
f'ind :!;!_ f Kd such that
( phd) a(!!_,y-!!_) + Jh(!!_,y)-Jh(!:!.!:!.)~ L(!:-!!)' y E: Kd
Now let us recall a general existence result [14J], here
formulated f'or ref'l.exive spaces only.
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 383
almost all X f. e ,
t
/ii/ F(x,.,.) :ll 5 xilt-+I~v +oe)(nu{-c:.o}) is continuous for
/iii/ F(x ,z,.): H t - H v { + oo) (R u L- ..o)) is convex /concave/
for almost all x E. 9 and all z E. H. s
Let z(n),z :R 5 __.,. n v t +CXl) (n v .{_-oo))be measurable function,.f
such that z(n)_. z D.lmost everyt.rhere and let vc.nhv in
[L 1(e)]t as n--.oe. Suppose further that there exists
f E. J}\Er) such that
l'(x,z(n)(x) ,vl.11\x)) ~ f(x) , F (x,z(x) ,v(x~~ f(x) ,
(} (x ,z (n)(x) ,vtn\xl) ~ f(X), F(x,z (_x) ,v \x)) ~ f(x),
for all n and almost all x ~ e-. Then
/b/ in strongly.
2- E.
Jh ( :!:,~ ) ~ c (~)II :!: II v ' t '> 0 , :!: ~ v, /2.150/
provided that ~ t V is held f'ixcd. In the case of Coulomb
friction ~ = 1
The function g(y,. ) defined by /2.149/ is obviously
convex.
The functional g(. ,w) is weakly u.s.c. for each '' : Kd.
To corroborate this statement we observe that a(:!:,y) Is
weakly l.s.c., hence -a(y,y) is weakly u.s.c. Further, the
functionals a(.,y) and L(.) are linear and continuous on v.
To prove that Jh(y_,y) is weakly l.s.c., ;re emply Th.2.7
w1d Lemma 2.6. The latter liuplies that at least for a sub-
sequ~ncc, still denoted by{~~' s~(;;!.11)_. s~(!::_) almost eve-
ry,vhere. Since Jh(:!:,~) represents the 1.vork of the frictional
stresses, hence it is reasonable to assume that d(.x,z,y)71 f(X)
x E s 2 , or even that f (x):: o. Thus >ve see that Jh(;;!, 1 ;;!,) is
l.s c., and -Jh(;;!,,;;!,) u.s.c. Now we need the upper semicon-
tinuity of Jh(.,:!!), which results from our assumptions and
the "concavity part" of Th.2.7.
Thus the condition /c/ of Th.2.6 is satisfied. It is >vorth
noticing that, apart from other rather classical properties,
all we need to prove the condition /c/ is the sequentially
weak continuity of Jh(,~)
To prove the condition / d/, let us take :!!a E Kd and de-
fine B by ,. 1 1
B = \_:!:f;Kdl g(y,:!!o) ), 0 J
The set B is bounded. In order to prove i t let us suppose
that D is unbounded. Then a sequence { y C Kd 3
exists,
II ~II V--+ oO as n---. ao , such tha
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 385
/2.151/
for all n.
Consider the functional -g(v ,w). By using Korn's in-
-n -o
equality, /2.150/ ~~d knowing that Jh(~,~ is bounded from
below we arrive at
-g(~~) '>t c111 ~II; - c(~) ll Ynll ~-E - c2\l 'Ln II v + c3 '
where c,c 1 ,c 2 ~~d c 3 are const~~ts and c 1 ~o. Hence,
-g(v ,w ) ----+oo or g(v
-n-o ,w ) --. - oo ; a contradiction with
-n-o
/2.151/.
Thus Th. 2. 6 yields finally the existence of .!! E: Kd sol-
ving the nonlocal frictional problem P~.
Such a solution is unique under additional assumptions,
see [86,Th.J.1).
Let R be a real Hilbert space, C c H a non-empty closed
convex subset and let V:C-+H be an operator, such that
(B(u) - Btv) ,u-v) ~ m llu-v 112, u,v,w E:C /2.152/
(B lu) - B (v) ,w) ~ H II u-v 1111 l i Jl ,
where m and M are positive constants, (,. ,) stands for the
inner product on H and II 11 2 =(,., ),
In our case the operator B is defined by /2.101/ and
then /2.152/ certainly holds.
Theorem 2.8. Let us assume that /2.152/ is satisfied and let
J: CXC -+R u {. + oo} be a proper functional such that J( v,.) is
convex and l.s.c. on C. Let L be a linear and continuous
functional. on li and suppose that J sati.s:fi.es the :fol.l.owi.ng
inequal.ity
IJ(u 1 ,v1.)+J (u 2 ,v 1) -J (u 1 ,v 1) -J(u 2 ,v2 )1 ~ c1Ju 1-u 2 1111v 1-v 2 11
u 1 ,u 2 ,v 1 ,v 2 6 C, /2.153/
where c > 0 is a constant, m~ c.
(P )I
Then there exists a unique solution of the foll.owing problem
B
find u f C such that
(n(u) ,v-u)+J(u,v)-J(u,u)~ L(v-u) v(: C. /2.154/
h
To apply Th.2.8 to the Problem Pd, I assume that the functio-
nal Jh satisfies /2.153/ and the requirements of this theo-
h
rem. Then .!! E: Kd solving the problem P d is unique.
In the case of Coulomb's friction uniqueness is implied
by a 11 smallness" of p. [86 ,92), provided that JA-'= LoO(S 2 ) and
386 J.J. Telega
l+u(l,t)
Fig.18
u ); 0 , R>--- 0 , /J.J/
ru1d are equivalent to
u )1 o , R (v-u)'>,o lf t K . /J.4/
The convex set K of kinematically admissible displace-
mcnts for the lower section is defined by
t ={w(t) = w(o,t)J lf(t)~ o , tE: (o,Tn.
Obviously, ii(t) stands for the virtual displacement of the
lo;ver section of the rod and l'lill be precised in the sequel.
From the vie;.-point of the existence theory and numerUc\1.
calculations it is convenient to replace the rigid obstacle
by a deformable one /penalty method/.
Elastic obstacle. Denoti~ b U+ ,u- the positive and nega-
gative parts of -u (u =
u+ -u-} ' l'l"e have
if U)/ 0
~ -kU,
0 , ,
R. = kU- <~) k = /J.6/
if U ~ 0 >
where k stands for the rigidity of the obstacle. The rigid
case is recovered in the limit as k - oO
Hore general obstacle behaviour can be described as
follows. For instance, we may take a nonlinear dependence
R = R(u-) 1 /J.7/
where I{ is a continuous and non-decreasing function, not
necessarily differentiable, see Fig.19. In such a case the
function
388 J.J. Telega
1.)-
1
=Sb f: ( u) : l v) dx
0
Integrating /3.4/ an.d /3.12/ over the time interval, next
taking account of /J.1/ and /3.11/ ,.,.e readily obtain the
variational formulation of the impact problem considered.
Problem P
Find a function u(t), tE:.(O,T}, such that
T
~ (-(il\t),v(t) +a(u~t) ,v(t~ +b(~(t) ,v(t~) dt-(u 1 ,v(o)) =
Ib T . . .
= SHf(t),vtt)) +R(t)V\t))dt , Vv, vlT)=O /J.15/
0
U(t) = ulo,t) 'q 0 , /3.16/
T
~ Il ( t) ( w(t) - u ( t )) d t >/ 0 Vii E K ,
0
u(O) = u 0
As one can see, Problem P consists of the variational equat-
ion /J.15/ and the V.I. /3.17/. The latter involves only
displacements whereas the former both displacements and ve-
locities.
Substituting /39/ into /3.12/ we obtain the penalized prob-
lem, provided that k') 0 and ll )/ 0 are given.
Problem P 1
Find a function u(t), t f [o,T], such that
('U(.t) ,v) + a(u(t) ,v) + b(u\t) ,v) = (f (t) ,v) +
+ kU-(t)V + yU-(t)V, Vv,
and which satisfies /3.11/.
Let us pass to discussion of results concerning exis-
tence and uniqueness. The case )I =0 is studied.
Theorem J.1. Let k> o, T> o, u E: H 1(0,l), u 1 ~ L 2 (o,l)
2 ') 0
and f : L ( 0, T; L"'" ( 0, 1)) Then there exists a unique function
uk ,.,.hich satisfies /3.19/ ()I =0) for almost every t~(o,T)
and every v f H 1 ( 0, 1) and such that
ukE L<:oe(o,T;H\o,l )) , uk~ LoO(o,T;L 2 (o,l))nL 2 (o,T;H 1 (o,l))
/J.20/
390 J.J. Telega
oel\ z ll
2
~ c J0t \1 z II 2 ds ,
where c is a positive constant. Applyincr Gronwall's lemma
we conclude that z:O. Hence, the solution is unique.
Existence is proved by using the Faedo-Galerkin method anu
compacity arguments. For details, the reader should refer
to (190).
The results for the original problem P are the follow-
ing.
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 391
Hence
-( W- ut~'\1 ~ 0 ,
Uk on ,
[ o, T .J ,
T
S kU~ (w-uk)ctt >; o
0
If k--+-oe, then by taking account of' /J. 32/~re arrive at
/3.31/.
Remark 3.1. Do [189] has formulated a theorem similar to
Th.J.2 above, yet for )I>/ 0. During the p<:o.ssage with k to
infinity Y is held fixed. Obviously, then u depends on v
i.e. u=uJ'. According to [189] such uv also satisfies /J.24/-
-/J.J1/. This result, given by Do ldthout proof, is not
clear.
\:'e also observe that u solving the problem P is not ne-
cessarily U.."'1.ique, or at least uniqueness remains, as far as
I ~"'1.ow, an open problem.
3.2. General variational formulations for a class of inelas-
tic bodies
The model problem P of the previous section can be ge-
neralized in such a way that the flow la\\' type sliding rule
is readily included.
Let g. c. n 3 be a sufficiently regular domain while Q
represents an undeformed configuration of a not necessarily
elastic body. The equations of motion are
2
o ui
9 (l t2 = sij,j + bi ' in 5). /J.JJ/
Now all functions may depends on xEQ. and t ~(o,T),t -time.
The initial conditions are
.!!(x,o) = !!o(x) , ~(x,o) =!:!. (:~). 13 341
1
In the quasi-static case the dynamic term in /J.JJ/ and
/3.34/ 2 must be omitted. Suppose that the boundary condit-
ions on s 2 are given by /2.22/, /2.55/-/2.57/. Due to /2.55/,
i!=O on s 2 Hul tiplying /J.JJ/ by :!-i (t) , where :! is a vir-
tual fieid, and integrating >'le arrive at
Sl ~
+ ) ,!T (t) (:!T-~T) dS +L(:!-i:_ (t)) , t t [ 0, T] , vf:V, /J.J5/
s2
where V is a space of virtual fields
=
V l:! = (vi) ( :! = 0 on S 0 "\ /J.J6/
It is assumed that all integrals make sense.
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 393
*
s ij ( t) s ( t)
ij 5 =
2G(t+p(x))' s*(t) = E(t+p{x))
The functions p,G,E,R 1 and R2 are given.
Such constitutive equations describe the ~o called ageing
isotropic materials. Viscoelastic materials constitute a
394 J.J. Telega
/J.J9/
Let us consider the quasi-static formulation. I recall that
time dependent functions are treated as vector functions
mapping the time interval into a Banach space. Therefore I
write ~(t) 1 I(t), _!(t), etc. The convex set Kd of kinemati-
cally admissible displacements is given by /2.62/.
The constitutive relation is assumed in the following form
~in= 1 (~,~in)
' ~in (o) = ~ ' /3.40/
where e is a given function of x ~ Q
-o
For instance, in the case of Maxwell model of viscoelastic
behaviour of isotropic materials we have [233]
iin= !,~ = ~ -1.! = "l. -1!:(~-~v) , 13 411
where .2; = aijkl stands for the isotropic tensor;aiikl=O
since div!V = 0.
In the case of elastic perfectly-plastic materials
/J.40/ is written in the form
~in= !p t t>~(.!)= d ~[.2:(~-~p>] ) /3.42/
where K denotes the so called elasticity convex determined
by the yield locus. The inelastic part ein of the'strain
tensor may also stand for viscoplastic deformation.
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 395
I
Problem P 2 .
Find ~ {t) (:. Kd and !_1 n (t~ , t f: (o ,T) such that
fa(~ (t) ,:!-~ tt)) - J aijkl e;~ (t) eij (:!-~ (t)) dx +
32.
+ J(~(t) ,:!)- J(~lt) ,~(t)) ~ L(:Y-~(t~ , \r(;Kd > /3.43/
~
in
=CL(
:r !_,~in) , /3.#4/
where fr=G; 1 /G~ 1 , while 'rr (r=1, ,n) are relaxation ti-
396 J.J. Telega
11n
Fig.21
5
see also [239] 010
0
where u (x) is the instantaneous elastic displacement. This
elasticedisplacement is given by the Boussinesq equation
( )
ue x
1 - )/
21t O:D
J Jx-yJ
1' ( y)
dy ' /3.49
R2
398 ].]. Telega
Au= ( 1 n
2 'f()
r L
) I~ m
ak ~ku (~)e-i(x, ~) dtr = r
lk I ~
akDku (x).
m
Rn
Thus A is then the differential operator.
Comparing /'J-57/ with /'3.61/ we conclude that B is the
pseudodifferential operator.
The symbol B (~) of B is
400 J.J. Telega
/3.62/
/3.72/
t
-
=
T n
- -o
T
13.96/
The vector t can be
decomposed Into the
normal and tangent-
ia~ parts in the fo~
~owing way
t
n=t
-- n =
=t J ~ Jini' 13-971
~
n, !m=
t =tn- - ...
= t-t -~
A good presentation
of .the kinematics of
finite deformations
as well as of stress
measures is given
in the book (285)
Fig.23
/3.102/
Let us also introduce a special velocity - motion space
vH = \.~ = vail!. tv) ' I 3. 10 3/
and
Kl-1 =t!~ vMI! =ve&, i(: K) /3.104/
where ve. =
("'-l"de~ 1 ,~ 2 , Ca.) () 9 x 3). The vector',!~ VM seems
to be artificial since its second component has the dimen-
sion of a displacement whereas the first and third of sped.
Therefore it lrould be better to present the problem at the
very begining in a non-dimensional form to avoid such am-
biguity.
It is convenient to introduce a collection of nonli-
near forms:
A(!,~)=~ tr[t .(X, Vi, v 2i, c..>) V"!,.ldSl. 0 ' /3.105/
- -y_),
5-
and
~~ B(,tt-!)+ L(~
-
.:!f'i(:Vad , /3.109/
l
Examples of functions satis-
fying these properties are
1 , if I:!T I'> ~ ,
(a)
.J
'
(lw o- /J.114/
-T - jl!TI /(,,if ll!TI!-'
and
I AI f (ll!TI) = tanhQ~I j /3.115/
IBl___.>"''r, Instead of J we take the re-
gularized functional J~ de-
-f: f fined by
JE (i_, '_!) =
s (tn,fEQ~~sJ
= d t">O /J.116/
s2
provided that the density d
(b) depends on t and w"' As
n - ...
previously, t depends on
n
Fig.24, /a/ Classical Cou-
lomb's friction law;/b/ re- v!, .f! and cu
gularized Coulomb's friction
law
IA(iE'~)-i c.iB(i~,~)
The discrete form of the problem Pl is the following
problem: h _h
h) find ~ v-- such that
~E. +D (i~,~)+J~(i~,~) = /3.120/
= L(~) z E;V~
Formulations such as (P), (P~) and (p~) characterize
compressible materials. Incompressibility can be handled by
the method of Lagrange multipliers [234)
Numerical results presented in [234) concern the rol-
ling cylinder '\Y"hich is in a state of plane strain;R 1 =1 in.
and R =2 in. The elastic term G{1)in the constitutiv~ equat-
ion ig characterized by Mooney::"Rivlin law 1dth coefficients
of the stored elastic energy function of C 1 =80 psi and c 2 =
=20 psi. I recall that the Hooney-Rivlin strain energy
function W is expressed by /incompressible material/
w(I 1 ,I 2) = c 1 (I 1-3) + c 2 (I 2 -3),
where I 1 ,I 2 are the principal invariants of the tensor Cor
I 1 =tr. , I 2 = (tr.) 2/2 - (tr.2)/2 , 2
since for 4ncompressible materials I~= (det[) =1, cf.[285).
Further data are: c.> = 1 0 rad/ s , IJISP=R -H=O. 2 in, v =
0 0
:c.>H, c n =105, mn =1, r-
.u..:O.J /coefficient of friction/,
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 411
Fig.25
.j::>.
......
N
z z 1-0 t----r-------.-----..---.
< C1=80 C.a=20 DISP=.2 W=10Vo=18 ~ C,=~ C2.=~ DISP=.2 W=10 Vo=18
~ 1.0 VIS= 0 FRIC=.3
a: ~ VIS.: 0 FRI(=.3
" VIS= 0 FRIC =-0 & VIS= 0 FRIC=.O
+ V1S=100 FRIC=-3
0.5
VI VI +VIS =100 FRIC =.3
> >
+
.... +
u .!} o.o
+ o.o +
u u
:::: -0.5
VI
'
VI VI
w v1
a: w
~
VI -1.0
g: -1.0
Vl
u.. LL
u.. LL
0
::c ~ -1.5
::c
u ::c
u
a: a:
:..:: S2
-2.0 I
-2.0
< <(
_J
0 -'
0
0:: 0:: - 2 .5
D D
z z
N N
<-...;
Radial stress near bonded Circumferential stress near ~
surface bonded surface >-3
("!)
Fig.26 (D
~
Q-3
]
"'0
::t
c::::
::t
t=:.
0.4 r-----,-----r---~---. P>
.,.
(I)
11= 80 (720 DISP=.2 W=10 Yo= 18 C1=1Kl Cz= 20 DISP= . 2 W=10 Vo=10 ....
z e:...
:5 VIS= 0 FRIC=.3 eVIS::.Q FRIC=.3
~ 2.0
A VIS= 0 FRIC=-0 .a. VIS= 0 FRI C-= - 0 g
.,.
+ V IS=100 FRIC=-3 + VIS=1Xl FRI C= .3
VI 0.3 .,.~
>+ ::,0
0
s 1.0
+ f
.s i3
0.2 "'
VI
VI
LLJ 0.0
IX
1-
VI
-z
c(
u.. Cl 0.1
u.. <(
0 Q;
c:::t: -1.0 -
IX
z
<(
~
I
IX
1-
c( Ill
....J
0
a: -2.0 z
LLJ
Cl .....
z
..... IX
1.::1
100.0 150D 50.0 100.0
DEGREE DEGREE
/3.131/
mk( J.
.) E.0ydS+ ~ ydx , m 1?_o.~dS+ ~~ ~dx
5 1
s1 Q s2
for D(.!(!J) and D(.!(~~' respectively. Thus we readily arri-
J sp_~ydS JsN~NdS
ve at
mk l?.C?.dS ~ m +
s1 s1 s2
Since sNVN)..-: 0 and the relation /3.139/ holds, \ve finally
obtain 13.146/.
Upper and lower bound theorem remain valid if,instead
of the relation /J.141/, the following definition of the
kinematic load multiplier is assumed~
1(! .! (i':) -: )cix - ~ vNdS J
m~(:!)
- J
- 9. 2 /3.149/
p_'!y_dS
s1
lvhere! E. d de(.~()). The formula /3.149/ results directly
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 419
/3.152/
For this purpose Christiansen's min-max theorem (184]
will be applied.
Theorem 35 Assume that X and Y are normed real veotor spa
ces with a continuous bilinear form a (. , ) on X1. Y. Let B c. X
a."'ld C c Y be convex sets such that B has nonempty interior,
and C is closed. Assume the following conditions:
/i/ If 'Y*E Y* satisf'ies sup{yif(Y) l y (:. C )<oD, then there exists
x G X such that yl'{y) = a (x ,y) f'or each y ~ Y.
/ii./ ~f' xli ~xJt satisf'ies 0
inf't~(x)l x E: B)) -~ and
a(x,y) =0 "fyE: Y=)x*{x)=O
then there exists y 0 E: Y0 such that
x~(x)= a(x,y) xEX.
Under these 0011.di tions
inf' sup a(x,y) = max inf a(x,y),
xf:ByE:C y(:.CxfB
provided that the left hand side is finite.
(3x0 EB : sup a(x0 ,Y)< +oo; we can take x 0 =0; B= interior
of' B) Y = c
The detailed proof' is given in [184].
To apply Th.3.5 we first define the bilinear form
a~.,.) and spaces X,Y. Let us confine to incompressible ma-
terials . In this case the yield locus is ~nbo~nded.
We set
420 J.J. Telega
/3.156/
which satisfy the condition that the map defined for
t ~ w 1 ,p (Q.) by
s
J
ij
! -.- )(v!) :tSl + (E; !}:Y: 1 /3.157/
~ s1
is continuous with respect to the m~~imum norm on ! I re-
call that BD (Sl) c (Lll11 (Q.))n , rt':n/ (n-1) in the general case,
and 11 1 ,p (.Q,)cC(.Q.) . .Horeover, the trace of a function
.:!;!, E BD(S't) belongs to [L
1 (s)] 3 Under our assumptions, /3.157/
is li'ell defined.
U is the normed space /though incomplete/ in the norm
Sl. s1
'1;!-llu = D~ llnn(S).) +II:!;! 11~ 1 - (1/r) ,p (s~*. /J.158/
To simplify notations we put .:!;!_=.:!;!,~, .:!;!,=~ a.."1.d ~=(.:!;!_, 1.:!;!,)
1
Thus u t U if and only if there is a symmetric tensor of mea-
sure~,#-:E'; M(~ ,JI>ts (R],
such that for all ! E: c 1 ,IMs (R)) (Sl
we have
~,!) = - ) ('Y.E).:!;!, + j (E; 1). 1.:!;!,
.2 s1
The principle of virtual velocities is defined in the follow-
ing way
a.~1!!)= ) tijeiJ(!!)- J~~= - ~ (v~.:!;!, + J(E;!)1.:!;!.=L(~) /J.159/
st. s2 ~ s1
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 421
here
L (f:!.) = (E.~ + 5 I2.0 1~ ' I 3. 160/
JS2. s1
and t E. ~ , ~ 6 U.
By definition, the limit load multiplier m1 is the ma-
ximal value of load multipliers for which there exists a
stress field !! E': K~=Kp II [ ! ~ L \~ '- 0 on S 2) , which is in
equilibrium with (m 1 ,m 1 p_0 ):
spvdS
o.
1
/,3.170/
s1- -
where J(sN,y) stands for the total power of frictional
forceso
A counterpart of the upper bound theorem is formulated
a minimization problem
~nf mk (sN ,y) /.3.171/
VE:K
- v
Obviously, we have m~ (sN,.)~ mk.(sN,i:) ,y E-Kv
It seems reasonable to define a.limi t load multiplier m
in the general case of friction, as follows:
mk. (sN ,y).
m=m~ {sN ,~) = /,3.1 ?2/
where~ is a solution of /.3.171/.
As one can see, the kinematical approach is now coup-
led with the static approach. Such conclusion is not sur-
prising since the dissipation produced by friction forces
depends not only on the tangential component of a velocity
vector but also explicit~y on S~ From the viewpoint
of applications, the method of the construction of a static
field~ is not effective. However, an iterative procedure
overcomes f~s drawback.. For this purpose let us take '~~)
function t;i l defined over s 2 and such that ~)~ 0 and K ~ "N
makes sense. In the next step we solve the convex problem
sup m~ (:t.). /.3.17.3/
!EK8 (~l)
A solut;!.on J1) of /.3.17.3/ yields 4!-)
on s 2 and hence also on
s 2 In this manner we obtain a sequence ot: maximization
problems
424 J.J. Telega
n:1,2,
s 0
in 52. t .. n .=m p. ,
~J J n ~
I ~sfind f! Eo K
ij (!!) e ij
such that
(y -~) dx~ L (y-~) y E: K ,
tihere 52.
li) = (1:, i vi dx j Fi vidS
-h
L + /3.186/
s1
Such an approach al~ows to inclu~e the fol~owing sli-
ding rule
.!T =
G (sN ~~~~SrJ ,
/3.187/
where q are internal pa~ameters describing the process of
friction. For instance, we can consider the sliding rule of
the form
!T = -G(sN,g_'!!T)~ /3.188/
The variationa~ formu~ation of the problem /3.179/-
-/3.184/ reads:
426 J.J. Telega
bya(u,y) = -kAijkl(r,~)
eij (B) ek1(v) dx /'].189/
Assuming that the following inequality ~s satisfied
Aijkl eijekl~ o 0 eijeij , ~= (eij) E: 1'1-Is (R) , /3.190/
we can construct the Green's operator G similar'ly as in
Section 2.6. The variational inequality holds provided that
instead of s}. ,tN'~r we take their rates.
In the ~ase o~ geometrically nonlinear problems vario-
us formulations are possible due to a flexibility in the
choice of stress and strain measures and inor~nental pro-
cedures, see [207,242,243,247,248]. Consider a two-body
frictionless unilateral contact problem [207]. One of them
may be rigid. The times at the starting and finishing poin-
ts in a load increment are denoted by t and t+ At, respec-
tively. iie assume that me~ssl 2)>0 while st1>=fl/ is not ex-
cluded. The motions of the boRies are oongidered in a fixed
Cartesian coordinate system in which all kinematic and sta-
tio variables are defined. Body forces are neglected. A
vector (qi) i=1,2,'J describes the unknown increment in the
rigid body displacement of 51 from time t to t+ At. A su-
perscript ~ is used to desiknate quantities associated
with the body~ {oc=1 ,2). Comma denotes differentiation
t
with respect to the space coordinates x . The coordinates
J t
of a point of the body at time t are ( x.) while at time
t+ At \ .1
t+ At we denote them by ( XiJ The J.norements in the
displacements from time t to t+ At are defined by
au = t+ A.tx-"t;x /3.191/
Obviously, the configuration of the bodies at time t+ At
is not known. Therefore the quantities are referred to a
known configuration at time t.
The Cartesian compo11ents of the Cauchy stress tensor
t+ At
at time t+ At are denoted by s and those of the se-
cond Piola-Kirohhoff stress tensor corresponding to the
configuration at time t+ At but measured in configuration
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 427
at time t between
/3.192/
/3.193/
t t
since .= ... Here A. is the /second/ Piola-Kirchhof 'f'
stress increment tensor.
The Green-Lagrru~ge strain tensor constructed f'rom Ay
has the :form 1J1 (
s
lD
Fihij t+AtdS: ~ poeij t+Atn~
~
t+btdS ' /3.196/
~1 52
\~here hij ar;d ceij represent rigid body displ.aoements o:f a
point on s} )
and s 2 , respectively, in the i-th coordinate
direction due to a unit displacement in the j-th rigid body
degree o:f :freedom. They are determined only by kinematic
relations o:f the body 1. F i are the components of' the sur-
:face traction at time t+ At and t+btdS ~tands :for a,surf'ace
element at time t+ 4t.
Internal equilibrium equations for each body are
(Asij), j + [(A ui) ,J t+hs jkJ,k = o /3.197/
t
since sij,j:O.
The f'ollowing constitutive relations are assumed f'or
each body
s
ij= c:j~1Ekl' I 3198/
where Ce-p is the elasto-plastic matrix at time t and is
ijrs
428 J.J. Telega
BALL
1~~--------------------------,
II SIMll.ATION
z
.X 0 EXPERIMENT
1.1:10
....,
1..1
a:
0
u.. Fig.29, Load vs ra-
dius of indentati on
~ 5 or ball indentati on
1-
z problem
~
z
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 429
8
SIMULATION
z "
-"' HERTZ 9JlJTION
6 (ELASTIC)
w
u
a:
0
u..
4
.. Fig.JO, Load vs ba11
l.J
z
disp1acement for ba11
I- " indentation prob1em
z
w 2
Cl "
~
0 "
0.0 0.05 0.10 0.15
BALL DISPLACEMENT (mm)
2500 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
o F= 100 N
~ F= SOON
F= 2000N
~ F= 6272N
::;)
Vl
Fig.J1, Contact pres-
Vl
w sure distribution
a: for ba11 indentation
a..
prob1em
1-
u
<(
1-
z
0
u
0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~
0 10 15 28
ANGLE FROM AXIS ( CIGREES)
430 J.J. Telega
r /R
Fig.J2, Enlarged
vie1.r of displacement
profiles for diffe-
rent load levels
w /R
Fig.JJ, Plastic
enclaves at various
loads
0.6
z/R
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 431
t+~t t+bt ~) ~)
sij nj = Fi on s1 /J.200/
p .>,. 0 , ~ ~0 , ~p = 0 on S 2 , /J.201/
/3.202/
/3.203/
/3.204/
/3.205/
r/R
\ \ \ \
"\ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\
\
y2
n
t fj 03 Fig.J6
't
\
,[
" ...... ....
o, n t r, 02 y
Further we set sl
= ,9. \F(. The space of Y-periodic funct-
ions 1 1
I
Hper (YF) = tY= (v;i) vi 6 H (YF) , v takes equal values
at the opposite sides of
is of fundamental i.mportf]ce.
/4.2/ YJ
The Sobolev space H (YF) may be defined in two equiva-
lent manners [263]
=
H 1 ( YF) tv E: L 2 (YF)I u . 6 L 2 ( YF) \
.,1
=
=tVb H 1 (Y 1)u H 1 (Yk on t\F~ > /4.3/ I 't1 lv)= t J_v)
where~ (~=1,2) is the trace operator for functions defi-
ned on~ Clearly, the choice o f t is arbitrary1 not ne-
cessarily such as represented in Fig.J6.
For v E H 1 (YF) we define the jump across F in the fol-
lOloJ'ing way
[v] = t 2 (v)- f 1 lv) , on F, /4.4/
lie assume that on FE the Signorini's conditions are
satisfied
f.
~T=O , [~~~ 0 , s~~ 0 , s~[~B =0 on Ff. , /4.5/
where
s~ = s~ I 1 on F'
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 435
'\".'e put
a ~(;:,y) = aijkl eij (B) ekl (Y) dx; !!,Y f [ H 1(Q~)] 3' /4.6/
where a. "kl : Loa lQ). One could also assume that the elasti-
cities !ijkl are Y-periodic.
~;e assume that there exists constants c 0 ,c 1 such that
.. e.j~
c 0 e ~J ~
a.jkle
~
.. ekl~ c 1 e.je.j
1J 1 ~
~e~lf-:1
- s (R).
Let us introduce the closed and convex sets of con-
straints
I
KE=he [H\S"t)] 3 y=O on ':)2, [vN]~ o on Jf~. /4.8/
Then the equilibrium problem of the fissured body SG may
be formulated as the minimization problem
(~) I
find gf. E K such that
a E (E ,y-,ld)'~, L(Y.-B) -y E: K E ' /4.10/
where
L(y)= (gydx, /4.11/
)52.~
Hence we infer that the problem ~ represents an internal
Signorini's problem.In the homogenization we are interested
in a passage >vi th t to zero. One can prove the following
results.
Theorem 4. 1. Let u'i solves (P) and s~j=aijkl ekl (.). Then we
have strongly in L 2(.Q. ,R3) ,
u-u
J-
~ weakly in L 2 (&1 ,Jlvi tR~ ,
where !!. is the minimizer of the total pot~ntial energy of
the homogenized solid
F = F c F-rz Y =Y, u Y2 uL Y, n Y2 = fi
F = F~ u F~ u ( L n F-rz )
F; = F"l n Y~ I ex = 1 2
I
Fig.J7
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 437
where 1 1
Kper :lwE:Ii
t- per lYF) _ 1
[wN.~]) 0onFJ, /4.15/
and : Ns (H)
Horeover
s = 'd 1.,11I -a 'i
J
and
a (u. ,.l)---. ~. h 'e (.1.1)) dx /4.17/
51 .w.h
The next theorem characterizes !h~ potential
Theorem 4.2. The elastic potential 11 is of class c1, posi-
tive, strictly convex and satisfies the following proper-
ties
/i/ c 2 e.je .. ~ 1:h(e)~ c 1 e ~J
~ ~J -
.. e .. ,
~J
~t IMslR),
for some c 2 ) O.
/ ii/ For each ~ E: ~~is lR) '\..re have
~ = d .rh/'0 ~
The proofs of the above theorems are lengthy. Therefo-
re I shall only sketch the main points. The scalar case is
studied in [253]. The proof of Th. 4. 2. is given in [2721.
The convergence in the vector case is implied by the resul-
ts obtained in [277] for Reissner-like plates /two-dimensio-
nal case/.
The proof of Th.4.1 is divided into several steps:
1/ the construction of an extension operator ~~ 2j bounded-
nes of the sequence tgE~ , 3/ localization, 4/ identificat-
ion of . and .ll
1fe observe that the domain St: depends on Accor-
ding to the approach of Attouch and 1-iurat [253) we must con-
struct an extension operator crf
such that (Q ~ E: [ H~($6)] 3.
For this purpose we "enlarge" the fissure F to a hole F"l'
see Fig.37.
The parameter f12.> 0 is kept fixed, nz = nz and F c F~
The boundary of F~ is sufficiently smooth. To 0 construct
the operator~' we proceed as follows.
\;e shall first construct the extension operator~.
Lenuna 4.1. There exists an extension operator
1P: [H 1 (Y\F"l))3-..[H 1 (Y)) 3 such that
I a/ ll1P Y II 0 y~ c II Y II 0 Y\ F
' ' oz.
/b/ i~jlleijtiJ> C~))llo,Y~ c l;jlleij(Y)II o,Y\Ftrz.~ cll~(i)ll o,YF
438 ].]. Telega
11'2~~ o~
0 , ,J[, c\1~\1 0 , S2.'
u~(~r{~) ll 0 ,Sb ~ ell~(~) ll 0 ,.9. '
IIQf. ~ - ~11 0 ,.9. ~ c E I\~(~)\\ 0 , S?.l ,
y2
b)
y2 N F
b
y1 l1
a y1
Fig.j8
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 441
(a)
(b)
Fig.39
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 443
REFERENCES
IN'IRODUCTION
Armstrong, G.C., V.C.Mow: Biomechanics of Normal and
Osteoarthrotic Articular Cartilage, in: Clinical Trends
in Orthopaedics /Ed. P.D.Wilson and L.R.Straub/,
Tbieme-Stratton, New York 1982, 189-197
2. Atkinson, J.R., D.Dowson, G.H.Isaac and B.M.Wroblewski:
Laboratory wear tests and clinical observations of the
penetration of femoral heads into acetabular cups in
total replacement hip joints. II: A microscopical stu-
dy of the surfaces of Charnley polyethylene acetabular
sockets. IIIt The measurement of internal volume chan-
ges in explanted Charnley sockets after 2-16 years in
vivo and determination of wear factors, Wear, 104/198.5/,
217-224, 22.5-244. .
Baiocchi, c. and A.Capelo: Variational and Quasivaria-
tional Inequalities: Applications to Free-Boundary
Problems, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester 1984.
4. Bayada, G. and M.Chambat: On the Various Aspects of
the Thin Film Equation in Hydrodynamic Lubrication
when the Proughness Occurs, in: Application of Multi-
ple Scaling in Mechanics /Ed. P.G.Ciarlet and E.San-
chez-Palencia/, Masson, Paris 1987.
Bensoussan, A. and J.L.Lionsi Application d~Inequat
ions Variationelles et Controle Stochastique, Dunod,
Paris 1978.
6. Bernadou, M., P.Cbristel and Y.M.Crolet: Simulation
Numerique des Contraintes aux Interfaces Prothese de
Hanbhe-Os, in: Computing Methods in Applied Soienoes
and Engineering VI /Ed. R.Glowinski and J .L.Lions/,
Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland 1984, 381-
4oo.
Boesavit, A., A.Damlamian and M.Fremond /Eds/: Free
Boundary Problems: Applications and Theory, Vol.III,
and IV, Pitman, London 198,5.
s. Brezis, H.: Probl~es unilateraux, J.Math.Pures Appl.,
.51 /1972/, 1-168.
Brow.n, T.D. and A.M.Gigioia III: A contact-coupled
finite element analysis of the natural adult hip,
J.Biomechanics, 17/1984/, 437-448.
10. Chand, R., E.Haug and K.Rim: Stresses in the human
knee joint, J.Biomechanics, 9/1976/, 417-422.
11 Chipot, M.: Variational Inequalities and Flow in Porous
Media, Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin 1984.
12 Clech, J.P., L.M.Keer and J.L.Lewis: A model of tension
and compression cracks with cohesive zone at a bone-
cement interface, J.Biomechanical Eng., 107/198.5/, 17.5-
182.
Topics on Unilateral Contact Problems 445
sterdam 1987.
47. Rvachev, V.L. and V.S.Protzenko: Contact Problems of
the Theory of Elasticity for Non-Classical Domains,
Naukova Dumka, Kiev 1977. /in Russian/
48. Saho, s. and S.Pal: Improvement of mechanical proper-
ties of acrylic bone cement by fibre reinforcement, J.
Biomechanics, 17/1984/, 467-478.
49. Santare, M.H., L.M.Keer and J.L.Lewis: Cracks emanating
from a fluid filled void loaded in compression: appli-
cation to the bone-~plant interface, J.Biomech.Eng.
109/1987/, 55-59
50. Selvadurai, A.P.s. and G.Z.Voyiadjis /Eds/: Mechanics
of Material Interfaces, Elsevier, Amsterdam 1986.
51 Seymov, V.M.: Dynamic Contact Problems, Naukova Dumka,
Kiev 1976. /in Russian/
52. Stormont, T.J., K.N.An, B.F.Morrey and E.Y.Chao:Elbow
joint contact study: comparison of techniques, J.Bio-
mechanics,18/1985/, 329-336.
53 Strozzi, A.: An assessment of the numerical solution
of the elastohydrodynamic problem for soft contacts,
Wear 115/1987/, 53-61.
54. Sdsskind, c.: Heinrich Hertz: Man and Scientist, inl
Contact Mechanics and Wear of Rail / Wheel Systems,
Proc.of the Int.Symp. held at University of British
Columbia, July 6-9,1982,/Eds J.Kolousek, J.Dukkipat
and G.M.L.Gladwell/, University of Waterloo Press 1983,
149-157.
55 Telega, J.J.: Variational methods in contact problems
of mechanics, Uspekhi Mekhaniki Adv. in Mechanics,
in print /in Russian/.
56. Tribology - Friction, Lubrication and Wear. Fifty Years
On, Vol.I and II, International Conference, 1-3 July
1987, London, Published for the Institution of Mechani-
cal Engineers by Mechanical Engineering Publications
Ltd, London 1987.
57 Yang, R.J., K.K.Choi, R.D.Crowninshield and R.A.Brand:
Design sensitivity analysis: a new method for inplant
design and a comparison with parametric finite element
analysis, J.Biomechanics, 17/1984/, 849-854.
CHAPER 2
58. Akagaki, T. and K.Kato: Plastic flow process of surface
layers in flow wear under boundary lubricated conditions,
Wear, 117/1987/, 179-196.
59 Aleksandrovich, A.I., B.S.Vekshin and I.N.Potapov: Ten-
sor of friction coefficients of anisotropic surfaces,
Treii,Ye i Iznos, 6/1985/, 996-1004 /in Russian/.
6o. Antoniou, s.s., A.Cameron and C.R.Gentle: The friction-
-speed relation from stick-slip data, Wear, 36/1976/,
235-254.
448 ].]. Telega
1-13
76. Blok, H.: Thermo-Tribology-Fifty Years On: in:Tribolo-
gy-Friction, Lubrication and Wear, Fifty Years On, Vol.
I, Int.Conference, 1-3 July 1987, Proc.of the Institut-
ion of Mechanical Engineers, Mechanical Engineering
Publications Ltd, London 1987, 1-8.
77 Bowden, E.P. and D.Tabor: Friction and Lubrication of
Sol~ds, Vol.I Clarendon, Oxford 1950, Vol.II. 1964.
78. Buckley, D.H.: Surface Effects in Adhesion, Friction,
Wear and Lubrication, Elsevier Scientific Publ.Co.,
Amsterdam 1981.
79. Burton, R.A.: Thermal deformation in frictionally heat-
ed contact, Wear, 59/1980/, 1-20.
80. Buttazzo, G.: Semicontinuity,relaxation and integral
representation problems in the calculus of variations,
Textos e Notas 34, CMAF Universidades de Lisboa 1986.
81. Campos, L.T., J.T.Oden and N.Kikuchi: A numerical ana-
lysis of a class of contact problems with friction in
elastostatics~ Comp.Meth.Appl.Mech.Eng. 34/19~2/,
821-845. .
82. Capuzzo Dolcetta, I. and M.Matzeu: Duality for implicit
variational problems and numerical applications, Uni-
versita degli Studi, Roma, Istituto Matematico "G.Cas-
telnuovo" 6 marzo 1980, 13-49.
83. Challen, J.M. and P.L.B.Oxley: An explanation of the
different regimes of friction and wear using asperity
deformation models, Wear, 53/1979/, 229-243.
84. Ciarlet, P.G. and J.Necas: Unilateral problems in non-
linear three-dimensional elasticity, ARMA 87/1985/,
319-338.
85. Clarke, F.H.: Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis,
John Wiley and Sons, New York 1983.
86. Cocu, M.: Existence of solutions of Signorini problems
with friction, Int.J.Eng.Sci., 22/1984/, 567-575
87. Cocu, M. and A.R.Radoslovescu: Regularity properties
for the solutions of a class of variational inequalit-
ies, Nonlinear Analysis, Theory, Methods and Appl.
11/1987/, 221-230.
88. Curnier, A.: A theory of friction, Int.J.Solids Struct.,
20/1984/, 637-647.
89. Curnier, A.R. and R.L.Taylor: A thermomechanical formu-
lation and solution of lubricated contacts between de-
formable solids, Trans. ASME, J.Lubric. Technology
104/1982/ t 109-117
90. De Celis, B.: Theoretical analysis of dry friction in
brittle and ductile materials, Wear, 116/1987/,287-298.
91 Demkowicz, L.: On some results concerning the reciprocal
formulation for the Signorini's problem, Comp.and Math.
with Appl., 8/1982/, 57-74.
92. Demkowicz, L. and J.T.Oden: On some existence and
450 J.J. Telega
-Ver1ag 1980.
273. Sanchez-Pa1encia, E.: Homogenization Method for the
Study of Composite Media, in: Asymptotic Analysis,
Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vo1.985, Springer-Ver1ag,
Ber1in 1983, 192-214.
274. Sanchez-Palencia, E. and A.Zaoni /Eds/: Homogenization
Techniques for Composite Media, Lecture Notes in Phy-
sics, 272, Springer-Verlag 1987.
275. Suquet, P.M.: Approach by Homogenization of Some Li-
near and Non1inear Prob1ems in Solid Mechanics, in:
P1astic Behaviour of Anisotropic So1ids /Ed.J.-P.
Boeh1er/, Editions du ~~s, Paris 1985, 77-117.
276. Te1ega, J.J.: Homogenization of fissured solids in
the presence of unilatera1 conditions and friction,
in preparation.
277. Te1ega, J.J. and T.Lewi.D.ski: Homogenization of fissur-
ed Reissner-like p1ates. Part 2. Convergence, Arch.
Mech. 40/1988/, in print. Part 1 and 3 see Ref. 269
SUPPLEMENT
278. Barros-Neto, J.: Inhomogeneous boundary va1ue prob1ems
in a ha1f space, Anna1i del1a Scuola Norma1e Superiore
di Pisa, Serie III, 19/1965/,331-365.
279 Boucher, H.: Prob1eme de Si~norini dans l'hypotheso
d'un support deformab1e, These J-eme cycle, Universi-
te de Paris VI, 1973
Bouchitte, G' Convergence et re1axation de fonction-
nelles du calcu1 des variations a croissance lineaire.
Application a 1'homogEmeisation en plasticit~ 1 Publi
cations AVAMAC, Universite de Perpignan 85-10.
281. Bouchitte, Ga: Representation integrale de fonctionne-
1les convexes sur un es~ace de mesures - I, Publica-
tions AVAMAC, Universite de Perpignan, 86-11.
282. Castaing, c. and Valadier 1-1.: Convex Ana1ysis and
Heasurable Mu1tifunctions, Springer-Ver1ag, Berlin-
Heidelberg-New York 1977
Harau:x:, A.: Non1inear Evolution Equations- Global
Behavior of So1utions, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Hei-
de1berg-New York 1981.
284. Bouchitte, G.: Homogeneisation sur BV{.Q.) de fonction-
ne1les integrales a croissance 1ineaire. Ap~1ication
a un prob1eme d 1 ana1yse 1imite en plasticite, C.R.
Acad.Sc.Paris, Serie I, 301/1985/, 785-788.
285. Ogden, R. ~~. : Non-Linear Blastic Deformations, B11is
HorliOOd Limited Publishers,Chicheste r 198l~.
286. Da1 Haso, G. and L.Hodica: A genera1 theory of varia-
tional functionals, in:Topics in Fw1.ctional Analysis,
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Pisa 1982, 149-221.
K1arbring,A. ,Milce1ic A.and Shi11or M. :On friction pro-
b1ems with norma1 compliance,Nonlinear Anal.Theory
Meth.App1., submitted.