Accepted Manuscript

A master-surface to master-surface formulation for beam to beam

contact, Part I: Frictionless interaction

Alfredo Gay Neto, Paulo M. Pimenta, Peter Wriggers

PII: S0045-7825(16)30027-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2016.02.005
Reference: CMA 10837

To appear in: Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.

Please cite this article as: A.G. Neto, P.M. Pimenta, P. Wriggers, A master-surface to
master-surface formulation for beam to beam contact, Part I: Frictionless interaction, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2016.02.005

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a
service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript
will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in
its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
*Manuscript
Click here to download Manuscript: Contact_Gay_Neto_review_4.docx Click here to view linked Referenc

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 A MASTER-SURFACE TO MASTER-SURFACE FORMULATION FOR BEAM TO
9 BEAM CONTACT. PART I: FRICTIONLESS INTERACTION
10 Alfredo Gay Neto1 *, Paulo M. Pimenta1 & Peter Wriggers2
1
11 Polytechnic School at University of So Paulo
2
12 Leibniz Universitt Hannover
*
13 Corresponding author - email: alfredo.gay@usp.br
14
15
16 ABSTRACT
17 In this paper a surface to surface frictionless contact formulation is presented, which is appropriate to the
18 analysis of beam to beam contact. Parameterized surfaces are assumed to represent the boundaries of the
19 bodies that are candidate to contact. The material points of each surface are described using convective
20 coordinates. No master-slave distinctions are made, once both bodies are parameterized and no slave points
21 are elected. We assume a single point contact interaction, in which the contact point can move along different
22 material points of the surfaces. On the other hand, these surfaces can change since the bodies experience
23 large deformation. To determine the candidate material points to contact, we solve the minimum distance
24 problem between the two surfaces. The equations for obtaining the mechanical contact interaction and the
25 consistent linearization are herewith derived. The proposed formulation can be applied disregarding the
26 nature of the model degrees of freedom. Subsequently one has established the surface parameterizations, the
27 contact formulation can be directly used. As an illustration of the power of our formulation, we present an
28 application for beams with superelliptical cross sections.
29
30 Keywords: contact, surface-to-surface, beam, superellipse
31
32 1. INTRODUCTION
33 Many practical engineering applications require the modeling of contact, such as: stresses analysis of
34 gear system parts, simulation of manufacturing processes such as sheet metal forming, analysis of the
35 interaction between tires and the road pavement, analysis of the interaction between layers of a composite
36 structure and many other examples. The nature of contact phenomenon is complex. It involves many
37 disciplines, and a multiphysics treatment is necessary. It encompasses the mechanical interaction
38 (forces/moments transferring between bodies), heat transfer, chemical reactions, electricity conduction, wear
39 and other phenomena. In contact modeling for engineering purposes, depending on the level of analysis,
40 different physical details have to be included. As a consequence, simplifications are necessary.
41 With focus on the mechanical interaction, the establishment of the boundary value problem for
42 frictionless contact can be found in [1]. After establishing a weak form by introducing virtual displacements,
43 one obtains a variational inequality, which leads to a nonlinear problem, even if linear elasticity is assumed
44 for contacting bodies [2]. Then, a considerable modeling challenge emerges. The contact can be regarded as a
45
constraint to the bodies, which depends on their displacements (and sometimes more variables). The
46
computational modeling of contact has gained popularity in engineering practice. Even after a big effort by
47
many researchers on such subject, the large nonlinearities present in contact models and the large number of
48
degrees of freedom (DOFs) sometimes needed to represent the bodies in contact still constitutes a practical
49
limitation. Today we cannot see a best method for establishing contact with the aid of computers. There are
50
many possible approaches, depending on the modeling nature (see many examples and historical backgrounds
51
in [2] and [3]).
52
The finite element method (FEM) has become the most used discretization technique to solve
53
54 computational mechanics problems. It can be addressed together with contact models. Other numerical
55 methods applied to computational mechanics also require contact modeling, such as the discrete element
56 method (DEM) see [4] for the basis of the method and [5] for a compendium of works. In this case, the
57 number of contact interactions can be huge and require even more care in developing quick-solving
58 techniques, able to be parallelized-processed (such as shown in [6]).
59 Aiming at the finite element method, we can appoint some possibilities of contact modeling techniques:
60
61
62
63
64 1
65
 1
2
3
4 Node to node formulations. This is the simplest approach, in which the contact is established between
5 nodes. A gap function is defined, measuring the distance between the nodes. In case of penetration, one
6 can include contact contribution terms in the model weak form and derive the tangent operator. The main
7 limitation is that the nodes, which are candidates to contact-interact, have to be pre-established. In case
8 of large deformation, the initial pair of contacting nodes assumed may have changed during the problem
9 evolution, which is not captured by this method. See [7] and [8] for some of the basis of this approach.
10 Node to surface formulations. This is a classical approach in which one defines a slave point and a
11 master surface. Then, assuming a pointwise interaction, the contact force can change in case of large
12 deformation. The contacting point in the master surface has to be detected by a minimum distance
13 optimization problem. This augments the numerical cost, when compared to node to node formulations.
14 However, such technique can handle large deformation contact. The practical limitation is the necessity
15 of representing a surface by many slave points. For each slave point a distinct contact problem is solved.
16 See [9], [10], [11] and [12] for the basis of these methods.
17
Surface to surface formulations. Here the contact constraint is imposed directly in the weak form. It is
18
integrated on the contact interface area. The constraint can be enforced by usage of the Lagrange
19
multipliers. In this context, we can appoint the Mortar Method (see the works [13] and [14]). In [15] a
20
2D formulation is developed, establishing a mortar and a non-mortar surface, in a contact pair. The
21
22 mortar surface is defined similarly to a master surface. The non-mortar surface contains integration
23 points, in which the weak form integration is performed. Then, for each integration point the minimum
24 distance local problem is solved, projecting the point in mortar surface. Afterwards, through a
25 discretization assumption for Lagrange multipliers, one includes contact contributions in problem weak
26 form and tangent operator, resulting from the integration of the contact traction field in the interface.
27 This technique has shown a superior numerical performance when compared to the node to surface
28 formulation (see [2]). It is more elaborated than the previous, since imposes the constraint in the weak
29 form, and not directly in points.
30 Contact involving beams elements. When addressing the interaction involving beam elements, one has
31 specific formulations. Wriggers and Zavarise [16] presented the basis of a pointwise contact between
32 circular cross section beams with no master-slave distinction. Both beams axes are parameterized as 3D
33 curves. Then, the minimum distance point between the curves is evaluated, such as the gap function. The
34 technique was generalized for frictional contact in [17], and applied for square cross section beams in
35 [18]. Recently, beam to beam contact was applied together with structural formulations handling large
36 twisting in self-contact scenario (see [19] and [20]). In [21] the contact between curves was visited by
37 using a Frenet coordinate system to describe the kinematics, including a term in the weak form related to
38 relative torsion between the curves. The same authors present in [3] a collection of many contact
39 formulations, with the aid of a robust mathematical framework. The inclusion of rotational DOFs in
40 contact formulation of beams was addressed by [22] in a beam to flat surface interaction. The moment
41 induced by friction is included in the formulation. It was applied to study offshore riser structures
42 interacting with the seabed in [23] and drilling operations modeled with beams in [24]. This model,
43 however, is limited for circular cross section beams.
44
45 The present work proposes a new approach for a surface-to-surface contact description. No distinction
46 between master and slave is made. Both surfaces, that are candidate to contact, have the same treatment. They
47 are parameterized using convective coordinates, such as done in master-surfaces, in node to surface contact
48 formulations. For that reason, we named this formulation a master-surface to master-surface approach. We
49 assume a single point interaction between the surfaces. To find the contact point we have to solve a minimum
50 distance problem. After this solution, the gap has to be evaluated and, in case of penetration, contact is
51 enforced using Lagrange multiplier or the penalty method.
52 The main difference between our approach and the classical node to surface formulations is that we do
53 not elect any slave points, from the beginning. The contact material points at both surfaces are the result of the
54 minimum distance problem. These contact points can change along simulation evolution. The main difficulty
55 of the proposed approach is to handle with the local optimization problem, i.e., finding the material points of
56 the two surfaces that present the minimum distance. This local problem is much more difficult than the
57 projection of a point in a surface and depends on the nature of the parameterizations constructed. Similar
58 approaches to find the minimum distance between particles in space were already used in DEM (see e.g. [6]
59 for superellipsoids contact interaction). In spite of this difficulty, there is one important advantage: for each
60 pair of surfaces, that are candidate to contact, only a single gap value has to be evaluated. This minimizes the
61
62
63
64 2
65
 1
2
3
4 computational effort when compared to other methods already mentioned, which needs multiple points gap
5 evaluations. When facing models with many DOFs, the number of contacting interactions can be huge and
6 this computational time saving in each contact pair infer a significant solution time decrease for the full
7 problem.
8 The most important approximation made in our approach is to represent a distributed load (contact
9 action) by a pointwise mechanical equivalent load. If we want to spread the contact action, a solution for
10 that would be to discretize the contacting surfaces in more surface pairs. Then, more pointwise interactions
11 would be created, leading to a better representation of the actual interfacial pressure field. However, the way
12 to perform such discretization is far from trivial and depends on the nature of the surfaces candidate to
13 contact. If one handles with parallel planes, for instance, many possible approaches can be used to choose a
14 discretization of multiple pointwise contact actions. Then, the proposed technique still requires future
15 enhancements to make possible its application to a general contact scenario. This includes dealing with non-
16 convexity of the minimum distance problem, which may be the major difficulty. Even the simple case of
17 parallel beams, for instance, could not be solved directly by the herein proposed approach. Improvements are
18 needed to deal with the non-convexity of the minimum distance problem. We think, however, that our method
19 is a promising approach that can be improved to handle that.
20 The proposed contact model does not claim any special nature of the used DOFs. The only necessary
21 input is a pair of parameterized surfaces, written as a function of convective coordinates and the DOFs of the
22 underlying mesh. In a FEM context, the herein proposed approach can be applied theoretically to contacting
23 solids, shells and beams. However, the difficulties faced in such tries would require extra developments to
24 handle with an eventual non-convexity of the minimum distance problem and non-pointwise contact cases, as
25
previously mentioned. By the moment, and aiming only at the present paper, we present here an example of
26
beam to beam contact formulation, assuming a superellipse cross section for the beams. The contacting
27
surface is parameterized using translational and rotational DOFs of a beam element. Subsequently, the
28
formulation is employed to enforce contact and to evaluate forces and moments that are induced by the
29
contact mechanical interaction on beam external surfaces.
30
In this paper we use the following notation: bold lowercase letters represent vectors (e.g. , ); bold
31
32 uppercase letters represent second order tensors (e.g. , ) and bold cursive letters represent third order
33 tensors (e.g. ). Column matrices (referenced also as vectors) are also represented by bold lowercase
34 letters (e.g.: ) and, matrices with more than one column are represented by bold uppercase letters (e.g.: ).
35
36 2. THE CONTACT MODEL
37 This section describes the contact model, including the strategy to define the gap function, such as the
38 development to derive expressions to calculate the contact generalized forces and the tangent operator. The
39 contact formulation is here presented as an interaction between two bodies. Alternatively, one can model self-
40 contact in a body. Such a distinction has to be made in a global search for contact possibilities, which is not
41 the aim of the present work. The global search procedure returns a set of surface pairs, candidate to contact.
42 Each pair has to be addressed separately. The Figure 1 shows two bodies and , candidate to contact.
43 Each pair of generic surfaces already determined during the global search proximity check are named and
44 , shown in Figure 1.
45 Let us define the convective coordinates, which will be used to map material points in surface , by the
46 vector . Analogously, for surface , we can define . To organize and make
47 the formulation more compact, it is convenient to define a 4-dimensional vector of convective coordinates
48
49
50
51 . (1)
52
53
54 The surfaces and represent the boundaries of the bodies in contact 1. They are dependent of each
55 body deformation. For describing it we will define two generalized displacement vectors and , for both
56
57
58 1
In case of self-contact, and will represent different regions of the boundary of the same body. Such a distinction is not done
59 from this point on in the text. Everything will be treated as the contact between two distinct bodies. One can always, however, keep in
60 mind that the usage of all equations and theory here shown is perfectly possible for self-contact. The difficulty on that will appear on the
global searching for contact pairs.
61
62
63
64 3
65
 1
2
3
4 2
bodies and . The generalized displacements of both bodies can be grouped in a vector named , such
5 that
6
7
8 . (2)
9
10 We assume that the bodies and exhibit any movement in space. Then, their boundaries can move
11 as a rigid body or present strain deformation. The surface parameterization, then, is dependent not only on the
12 convective coordinates, which maps material points. It is also dependent on the underlying body current
13 position in space. This information can be extracted from the generalized displacements vector. Generically,
14 one can say that the surfaces and are dependent on their respective convective coordinates vector and
15 generalized displacements vector. Using the circumflex accent to represent the functions and one can
16 write
17
18
19 (3)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41 Figure 1 Bodies and candidate to contact interaction. For each body a subset of the boundary is
42 parameterized: the surfaces and
43
44 To measure the distance between two generic points located in and , one can define the vector gap
45 . It is a function of convective coordinates and generalized displacements of both bodies. The Figure 1
46 shows the gap vector
47
48 . (4)
49
50 The contact interaction experienced by bodies A and B requires, firstly, their physical approximation.
51 Secondly, once contact occurs, one will have a surface contained in , named in contact with another
52 surface , contained in . The Figure 2 shows these surfaces. An alternative to simplify this treatment is to
53 represent the actual surfaces and in contact by two points. Then, two representative material points
54 have to be chosen in both surfaces and . These points are located by convective coordinates in
55
56 and in , as shown in Figure 3. They may change along the problems evolution. It is always
57
58 2
Here we use the nomenclature generalized displacements to describe the degrees of freedom solved during the model evolution.
59 It can refer not only to displacements, but include rotations (as in the case of beams and shells representing the bodies in contact).
60 Furthermore, it can also include other nature of degrees of freedom, such as temperature, warping, or any generalized coordinate which
could somehow affect the surface parameterization of the surfaces candidate to contact.
61
62
63
64 4
65
 1
2
3
4 possible to chose a material point to represent and at each instant. This treatment is usually refered as
5 pointwise contact3.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 (b)
16
17
18 (a)
19
20
21
22
23
24 (c)
25
26 Figure 2 (a) Contact interaction between surfaces and (b) Surface (c) Surface
27
28
29
30 (a) (b)
31 Figure 3 Pointwise approach for contact. (a) Surface and its pointwise representation (b) Surface
32 and its pointwise representation
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 3
The pointwise contact approximation is equivalent to represent a distributed loading on a surface by a single force. This will be a
49 reasonable model or not depending on the size of the surface and the required precision on the calculation. However, the single force can
50 be constructed to be mechanically equivalent to the distributed loading.
51 The reader can think at a first moment that the choice of pointwise contact treatment is a drawback, mainly when facing a situation
in which the contact surfaces are large. Actually, to remedy this situation one can model such a scenario using multiple neighbor surface
52 pairs. Each pair will lead to a distinct pointwise contact interaction. The more surface pairs created, the larger will be the number of
53 pointwise interactions. Achieving such limit, one obtains the distributed loading over the whole contacting area.
54 Furthermore, when using finite element models, always the distributed loadings are transformed into nodal loads. Then, the
55 pointwise approach will generate an equivalent set of nodal forces/moments which is mechanically equivalent to the pointwise calculated
56 contact interaction. The Figure 4 shows a situation of multiple neighbor surfaces. The idea here is to spread the contact interaction in the
model. For that, in this situation each body surface was divided in four regions. Then, four contact pairs are addressed and the real
57 distributed contact interaction is modeled by four pointwise pair of forces. Here we emphasize that, even possible, such strategy of
58 dividing a surface in regions and finding local minima for each pair of surfaces, is not trivial. An extra effort is still necessary for a
59 general methodology. Furthermore, the handling of a possible non-uniqueness of the minimum distance problem would require a strategy
60 to choose one solution. These challenges will be the object of a future work.
61
62
63
64 5
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Figure 4 Surfaces in contact between the bodies and the pointwise approach
20
21 The criterium used to determine the points in and which will represent the actual contact surfaces
22 is the result from a minimum distance problem. The smallest distance between and will lead to two
23
material points, in bodies and , described by . Depending on the
24
nature of the considered surfaces, one can have more than one solution point, or even infinite solutions (as in
25
the case of parallel plane surfaces). It will be assumed that when this occurs, one of the possible solutions can
26
27 be chosen using another criterion 4. To solve the minimum distance problem, both surfaces are considered
28 fixed in space, that is, the generalized displacements are considered constant. Then, the minimum distance
29 point has to obey the so-called orthogonality conditions (a necessary condition for the minimum), given by
30
31
32
33 . (5)
34
35
36
37 where a null column matrix (vector) with dimension is represented by and partial derivatives are
38
represented by a comma , (e.g.: ). The equations (5) are a necessary condition for the minimum
39
40 distance when one has smooth surfaces that are candidate to contact. In case of non-smooth surfaces, one
41 should care and possibly create two simultaneous contact candidate pairs: a surface to surface (as here
42 proposed) and a classical point to surface, to handle the cases when the minimum distance occurs exactly at
43 the non-smooth point of the surface. In this case, slave points would have to be created at the singularity
44 points of the surfaces.
45 The vector is defined as a residual function. For this problem the generalized displacements are fixed.
46 The vector varies only due to changes in convective coordinates vector . To solve such a problem one can
47 make use of any optimization algorithm. If one wants to use the Newton-Raphson Method to find the solution
48 of (5), it is possible to write
49
50
,
51 (6)
52
53 where k is iteration number and is the increment for convective variables, calculated in each iteration.
54 The process is done until the convergence of is achieved, with a given precision. This leads to an
55 approximation to .
56
57
58 4
This criterion can be related to the geometry of the problem, related to physics, when there is clearly one solution of interest and
59 other(s) which is non-physical. Depending on the surfaces parameterizations used one has to establish different criteria, using physical or
60 mathematical insights. Some discussions on the non-uniqueness of this solution can be found in [2]. Here we emphasize that handling
such situations is far from trivial for a generic contact scenario.
61
62
63
64 6
65
 1
2
3
4 We now define the matrix : a Jacobian matrix of (5), which contains the derivatives to be used in the
5 Newton-Raphson method: . It is given by
6
7
8
9
10 , (7)
11
12
13
14
15 with the detailed terms in expression (72), in the Appendix A.
16 Alternatively, one can formulate the minimum distance problem using an optimization framework. This
17 can be more adequate to find . Again the relations (5) are necessary conditions, but not sufficient to find the
18 root we are interested in5. See an example of optimization method to determine the minimum distance
19 between two superellipsoids in [25]. The same ideas can be applied to the present formulation.
20 Since this local minimum problem is solved, we can also define the scalar gap function and the
21 normal vector . These are functions of and . However, its evaluation will be done at , which explains the
22 name normal, since the vector is orthogonal to both and , as shown below
23
24 (8)
25
26
(9)
27
28
29 Note that the normal vector is defined such that it naturally inverts its direction when penetration of
30 occurs in . So, it is different from the classical normal vector definitions, which usually points always
31 outwards the master surface. Furthermore, the scalar gap is always positive or null, both for situations
32 when there is penetration or not between and . This is different from the classical definition of normal
33 gap function, which changes the sign when penetration occurs. To detect contact, one has to define another
34 normal vector, calculated at or , pointing outwards the underlying body. Choosing , for instance, leads
35 to a vector . Then, the sign of or can be used to detect the contact. It will be
36 positive when there is no penetration, and negative when penetration occurs. The vectors (or ) and have
37
38 to be evaluated at 6. The vector is given by 7
39
40 . (10)
41
42
43 The contact potential and the weak form
44
45 To develop the contact weak form contribution one can start from a contact potential (here
46 frictionless interaction is assumed). Depending on the chosen approach to impose the contact constraint,
47 can present different expressions. Here we will show these expressions for Lagrange multiplier method (
48 and penalty method (
49
50 and
51 (11)
52 ,
53
54
5
55 The orthogonality conditions (5) are obeyed at intersection points between the contact surfaces, once with this condition .
Then, when one has overlapping surfaces, many roots may appear as solutions of Newton Raphson method in (6). One has to establish
56 criteria to choose the desired root in such cases, eventually using more elaborated optimization techniques.
57 6
The choice of to evaluate contact detection does not represent that is the master surface and is a slave surface. Actually
58 one can evaluate a vector pointing outwards and test contact occurrence using the sign of . The only difference will be in the
59 interpretation of the sign, which will be opposite from the presented using .
7
60 The reader should here care that the direction of has to point outwards . This depends on how the convective coordinates are
defined in surface .
61
62
63
64 7
65
 1
2
3
4 where is the Lagrange multiplier and is the penalty parameter. The desired equilibrium solution is proven
5 to be a stationarity point of the total potential (see e.g. [2] or [26]). The potential will include, for the whole
6 model, the internal forces, external forces and the contact contributions. Then, one can impose the stationarity
7 condition for the whole system. The contact potential variation is given by
8
9 and
10 (12)
.
11
12
The equations (12)1,2 represent the contact contribution to the weak form of the problem. Now it is
13
14 necessary to derive an expression to evaluate . We aim to write the weak form as a
15 function of the variations of the generalized displacements (problem degrees of freedom). One can calculate:
16
17 . (13)
18
19 Then:
20
21 and
(14)
22 .
23
24 The evaluation of has to be done using the total variation of , which leads to a contribution due to
25 variation along the convective coordinates vector and the generalized displacements vector . It is possible
26 to write
27
28 . (15)
29
30
The derivative will be a matrix, given by
31
32
33 . (16)
34
35 Now we name the dimension of the vector . This is the number of degrees of freedom which will
36 be used to describe the contact surfaces from both bodies. The derivative is a matrix with columns,
37 given by
38
39 . (17)
40
41 It is possible to find a relation between the vector and the vector by calcutating the total
42 linearization of the orthogonality conditions (5). Since , . Then, it is possible to write
43
44 . (18)
45
46 Then:
47
48 (19)
,
49
50
51 which defines the operator by:
52
53 (20)
54
55 with
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 8
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 (21)
7
8
9
10
and
11
12
13
14
15 (22)
16
17
18
19 and
20
21
22
23 . (23)
24
25
26
27 Using the previous definitions one can re-write equation (15) by
28
29
. (24)
30
31
32 Finally, the equations (14)1,2 can be written solely as function of the problem degrees of freedom by
33
34 and
(25)
35 .
36
37 The equations (25)1,2 can be re-written in a clearer way, straightforward to implement in a nonlinear
38 FEM algorithm
39
40
and
41 (26)
42 .
43
44 The equations (26)1,2 can be simplified, since some terms are zero due to orthogonality conditions (5),
45 leading to
46
47
48 and
(27)
49 .
50
51 However, for the tangent operator derivation, these simplifications cannot be assumed. This is because a
52 null-valued function can present non-null linearization.
53
54 The contact tangent operator
55
56 In order to solve a global nonlinear problem involving contact interactions, the Newton-Raphson method
57 is usually employed. Thus, one needs not only the weak form contribution, developed previously in equation
58 (26) for both Lagrange multiplier and penalty methods, but it is also necessary to perform the linearization of
59 the weak form to obtain the tangent operator. After the problem discretization, this represents the contact
60
contribution to the system stiffness matrix.
61
62
63
64 9
65
 1
2
3
4 It is possible to linearize equation (14)1, leading to the tangent operator for the Lagrange multiplier
5 method by
6
7 . (28)
8
9 For the penalty method, one can similarly obtain the linearization of equation (14)2 as follows
10
11
(29)
12
13
14 or
15
16 . (30)
17
18 To evaluate the tangent operator one needs to calculate the linearizations: , , and . Some
19 have the form similar to the variations already developed. The linearizations are shown next:
20
21 (31)
22
23 (32)
24
25
26 (33)
27
28 (34)
29
30
The term appears in equations (28), (29) and (30), always scalar-multiplied by a vector ( or ).
31
Then, to develop this linearization in the most straightforward way, we now will develop the expression
32
33 v, where v is a generic vector representing or , depending on the equation to be used. From
34 equation (34) it is possible to write
35
36 (35)
37
38 where
39
40
41 and
42 (36)
.
43
44
45 One can create a clear notation to represent these derivatives, taking the vector as a constant. For that,
46 we can define the operator 8.
47
48 Then, one can use the equation (19) to relate and , such as used to relate and . Using
49 equation (36) in (35), with the aid of relation (19) leads to
50
51 . (37)
52
53 Note that in expression (37) some third-order tensors appear, as a result of second order tensors
54 derivatives with respect to vector components. The contraction with the vector directly decreases their
55
56
57 8
Alternatively we can interpret the derivative , where we used the operator to
58
59 represent the contraction of a third order tensor and a vector . Using summation convention over repeated indices, one can write
60 .
61
62
63
64 10
65
 1
2
3
4 order, leading again to second order tensors. A clearer visualization of each of these contractions is sketched
5 in the Appendix A equations (73)-(75).
6 If we assume the commutativity between the mixed second derivatives, it is possible to establish
7 .
8 Using the expressions (31)-(37) in (28) leads to tangent operator for the Lagrange multiplier method. It
9 is written as a function of the model degrees of freedom:
10
11
12
13
14 (38)
15
16 .
17
18
The same can be done for the penalty method tangent operator, in equations (29) and (30), leading to
19
two different expressions to the tangent operator. Both are written as a function only of the model degrees of
20
freedom:
21
22
23
24 (39)
25
26
27 and
28
29 (40)
30 .
31
32 The reader can easily note that the expression (39) is exactly the same as (40). Some simplifications can
33 be done in the tangent operator expressions, due to orthogonality conditions (5). Then, we can express in
34 following equations the more-compact tangent operator formulae to Lagrange multiplier and penalty methods.
35 The equation (38) was simplified to (41). Note that, for penalty method, the equation (40) did not undergo
36 simplifications. The equation (39) was simplified to (42), as follows
37
38
39
40 (41)
41
42
43
44
45 and
46
47
48 (42)
49
50
51 The reader can note analyzing equations (41) and (42) that the tangent operator for the developed
52 formulation is symmetric, since we assume the commutativity between mixed second derivatives.
53
54 3. APPLICATION FOR BEAM TO BEAM CONTACT
55 The model developed in section 2 is now applied to beam-to-beam contact. The aim is to establish the
56 contact formulation for a pair of beam elements in contact. This can be used together with a structural FEM.
57 It is necessary to establish a parameterization for the beam external surface. Only the beam mesh,
58 however, does not have all the necessary information. This is because such a mesh is usually described by a
59
60
61
62
63
64 11
65
 1
2
3
4 3D curve geometry 9. Then, only the information about the beam axis is included in the mesh. The beam cross
5 section description and its orientation at each position along beam span can be used to establish the required
6 external surface parameterization.
7 The structural beam element chosen to be used together with the present formulation is from [19]. This
8 element can handle large displacements and finite rotations. The kinematic assumptions are basically the same
9 from the classical Timoshenko beam. Each cross section movement is described by a displacement vector and
10 a Rodrigues rotation vector (see [27], [28]). An updated Lagrangian framework was adopted, which lets the
11 model handle large rotation scenarios. Beam finite elements following such strategy were used for offshore
12 structural analysis in [19] and for studies involving beams self-contact in [20]. The details of the beam theory
13 and formulation can be found in previously cited references. For self-consistence of present work, some
14 information about Rodrigues rotation parameters is now presented. We emphasize that any other rotation
15 parameter could be used, once the present proposed contact formulation does not imply any particular choice.
16 Let the Euler rotation vector be described by , with the magnitude of the rotation and the
17 rotation axis direction. The rotation can be simply faced as a linear transformation between two vectors,
18 named and , such that . The rotation tensor can be calculated using a rotation vector , by
19 adopting the well-known Euler-Rodrigues formula (see e.g. [29]):
20
21 (43)
22 ,
23
24
10
25 in which: and is the identity tensor.
26 On the other hand, one can define other rotation vector parameters, instead of using . For example,
27 the Rodrigues rotation vector , which has a magnitude . The direction of is the same as
28 Eulers rotation vector . Then: . With that, it is possible to derive the formula ([27]-[29]):
29
30 (44)
,
31
32
33 in which one has and .
34 This is a very convenient expression, simpler than the Euler-Rodrigues formula (43). Furthermore, the
35 equation (44) has no trigonometric functions.
36 When addressing the FEM, many choices can be made on discretization and on interpolation used for
37 degrees of freedom (DOFs). For beam elements, a common and convenient choice is to assume linear
38 interpolation for displacements and rotations and define a two-node beam element (see Figure 5a). The nodes
39 A and B represent beam cross sections, which movement are described by the displacement vectors and
40 and the rotation vectors and . If one chooses a three-node beam interpolation (see Figure 5b) a
41 similar nomenclature can be used to refer to the extreme nodes degrees of freedom.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 (a) (b)
52 Figure 5 Examples of beam element interpolation. (a) Two-node beam element and (b) Three-node
53
beam element
54
55
56
9
57 In the case of solids FEM: the geometry of the mesh naturally includes all the information about the external surface description.
In case of an isoparametric approach, for example, it would be possible to use the assumed shape functions to interpolate the nodes
58 coordinates, establishing expressions for the elements surfaces. These can be used to establish surface parameterizations, which naturally
59 moves according to the updated nodes positioning.
60 10
We make use of the skew operator applied to a vector, defined by the relation skew v x v x , x .
61
62
63
64 12
65
 1
2
3
4 To establish a surface to surface contact between beams, as previously discussed, one needs to
5 parameterize the beam external surface. This has to be done as a function of underlying structure DOFs and
6 established convective coordinates. The convective coordinates are used to map the material points along the
7 surface. Independently of the interpolation assumed for the structural internal forces evaluation, we here will
8 use information only from the extreme nodes DOFs, that is: , , and 11. Then, for the contact
9 surface parameterization, a linear interpolation is assumed for kinematic variables along the beam length.
10 Now we propose a general form to the external surface parameterization of a generic beam, given
11 by
12
13 (45)
,
14
15
where the convective coordinate describes material points along beam span and describes material points
16
along the cross section perimeter, at a given length position (see Figure 6).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Figure 6 Generic cross section and convective coordinate definition
28
29 The vector describes the beam axis. Since we assumed linear interpolation, it is given by
30
31 , (46)
32
33 where the linear shape functions assumed for nodes A and B are the Lagrange polynomials:
34
35 (47)
36 and
37 ,
38
39
40 and the vectors and give the current position of nodes A and B, respectively. They can be calculated as
41 functions of the last converged positions and and the current displacements and (in an updated
42 Lagrangian description):
43
44 (48)
45 .
46
47 The vector describes the positions of material points along the beam surface, at a given . It
48 contains not only information about the cross section shape, but also about the cross section current
49 orientation, which depends on the previously occurred rotation. It is possible to write it by:
50
51 . (49)
52
53 In this proposed multiplicative decomposition of , the tensor describes the rotation as a
54 function of the beam span. Here we assumed the same linear interpolation for displacements and rotations.
55 One can, then, write:
56
57
58 11
This choice does not imply in usage of present beam to beam contact formulation only together with beams such as shown in
59 Figure 5a. A high order interpolation beam can be also used (such as in Figure 5b). The limitation is that the calculated contact action will
60 not be distributed along all the beam nodes, but only in the extreme nodes. Alternatively, one can use a parameterization scheme similar
to the here presented, but proposing higher order shape functions. The base idea, however, keeps exactly the same.
61
62
63
64 13
65
 1
2
3
4 . (50)
5
6 Note that we are interpolating the rotation tensors directly, and not the rotation vectors and .
7 Alternatively, one could also interpolate . Then, evaluate the rotation tensor at .
8 Our assumption here, however, looks simpler, once independently of the rotation parameter choice, the
9 rotation tensor will be the same.
10 Finally, the vector contains information about the assumed beam cross section. It is given by a 2D
11 parameterization of a curve, describing the desired cross section. No assumptions about this cross section
12 have to be made a priori. It could also be a non-rigid cross section. For simplicity, in this work we will
13 assume a rigid cross section.
14 Note that it is convenient to define in a 2D coordinate system. Then, one should care for the
15 beam elements positioning in space. A coordinate transformation can be necessary, if the beam axis reference
16 configuration is not aligned with direction z. This can be straightforwardly solved by including in the rotation
17 tensor and a first transformation, prior to the actual rotations which occur during the model time
18
evolution. For that, one can decompose the rotation tensor in successive rotations, including the coordinate
19
transformation:
20
21
, (51)
22
23
24 in which we decomposed in three rotations, namely:
25
26 : coordinate transformation between , assumed in plane, to the actual reference
27 configuration cross section orientation 12.
28 : rotation tensor mapping the transformation from the reference configuration to the last converged
29 configuration (in an updated Lagrangian framework).
30 : rotation tensor mapping the transformation from the last converged configuration to the current
31 configuration (still not converged).
32
33 It is important to mention that, once working in updated Lagrangian framework, the simulation may be
34 done in many steps. At the end of each step, a new reference is constructed for rotations and displacements.
35 Then, the rotation generalized coordinates to be solved in each step affects only the tensor . The other
36 components of multiplicative rotation decomposition (51) are constant during a given step.
37 Finally, using (46), (49) and (50) in (45), leads to a convenient expression for the parameterization of the
38 beam external surface:
39
40 . (52)
41
42 It is necessary to choose a curve shape to parameterize the cross section of the beam, i.e.: . Here
43 we made a choice of a superellipse
44
45 (53)
46 .
47
48 In equation (53): is the superellipse semi-axis along x, is the superellipse semi-axis along y, and is
49 the exponent which changes the curve shape. This is a convenient cross section parameterization, since the
50 exponent and semi-axes adopted can be varied, recovering circular, elliptical or even almost rectangular cross
51 sections. Furthermore, the superellipse curve is smooth along the whole cross section perimeter for .
52 This represents an advantage for contact description, once avoids singularities in normal direction definition,
53 which would occur for a non-smooth curve. The Figure 7 shows some examples of superellipses.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 12
It will be the identity matrix if the beam reference configuration is aligned with direction z.
61
62
63
64 14
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 (a) (b) (c)
10
11 Figure 7 Superellipses examples with parameters a=2b and (a) n=2 (b) n=4 (c) n=15
12
13 There are many options of parameterizations to be used to describe . Here we constructed the
14 transformations of variables:
15
16 (54)
,
17
18
19 where is defined as a positive function to be determined. Then, using (54) in (53) it is possible to obtain
20
21 . (55)
22
23
24 Using these definitions, it is possible to write the following parameterization for the superelliptical cross
25 section
26
27 . (56)
28
29 This proposition of parameterization is convenient for our purpose. When dealing with usual exponents
30 to represent the desired cross sections, larger or equal to , there are no singularities. Furthermore, the
31 derivatives in and are oscilating, but are always defined. An example of and its derivatives behavior
32
33 is shown in Figure 8 (calculated using symbolic evaluation with the software Mathematica ).
34
35 d
1.30
36 d
37 1.25 0.6
38
39 1.20 0.4
40 1.15 0.2
41
42 1.10 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.2
43 1.05
44 0.4
45 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.6
46
(a) (b)
47
d2
48
49 d 2 y
50
51
52 1 2 3 4 5 6
53 2
54
55 4 x
56
57 6
58
59
60 (c) (d)
61
62
63
64 15
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Figure 8 An example of and its derivatives for . (a) (b) (c) (d) The
8 parameterized cross section for
9
10 Using the cross section parameterization (56) in the surface parameterization (52), it is possible to
11 establish the required superelliptical cross section beam external surface. This will be used in the following to
12 develop the contact formulation. The Figure 9 shows an example of the external beam parameterization. The
13 Figure 10 shows two connected beams surfaces, showing that the proposed approach does not ensure
14 continuity at the beams surfaces connections, but only continuity 13.
15
16 Table 1 Parameters used for beam external surfaces examples
17
18 Cross section data Nodes data
19
20 0.05 Node A 0
21
22
23 0.025 Node B
24
25
26 4 Node C =
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 Figure 9 Example of external surface of a superelliptical cross section beam, connecting nodes A and
47 B. Numerical data are presented in Table 1.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 13
To achieve a full continuity, both the derivatives and would have to be continuous. From equations (45) and (49)
56 one has the general description for the points at the beam external surface: .
57 The derivatives with respect to convective coordinates are calculated by: and .
58
Then, the derivative has to be continuous (this occurs for the superellipse here proposed). The derivatives and also
59
60 have to be continuous. The proposed linear interpolation for and does not ensure continuity along . To achieve that, some
additional information about the displacements and rotations from neighboring elements could be used. This is the aim of future works.
61
62
63
64 16
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Figure 10 Example of connection between external surfaces of superelliptical cross section beams. The
22
first element is constructed between nodes A and B. The second element is constructed between nodes B
23
and C. Numerical data are presented in Table 1.
24
25
26 The beam-to-beam frictionless contact formulation
27
28 To establish the contact formulation, first we define two surfaces describing the bodies candidate to
29 contact. We assume, as already discussed, a pointwise contact interaction. The Figure 11 shows the two
30 surfaces and . These represent the external boundary of the two beams named: Beam A and Beam
31 B. Both are parameterized using the information from DOFs of each beam tip nodes. The material points at
32 each beam surface are located with the usage of two convective coordinates, based on equation (52):
33
34 and (57)
35
36 . (58)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 Figure 11 Beam-to-beam contact surfaces
60
61
62
63
64 17
65
 1
2
3
4 The nomenclature adopted in parameterizations (57) and (58) and in Figure 11 is: is the current
5 position of node A of Beam A, a function of displacement ; is the current position of node B of
6 Beam A, a function of displacement ; is the rotation tensor of node A of Beam A, a function of
7 rotation ; is the rotation tensor of node B of Beam A, a function of rotation ; is the current
8 position of node A of Beam B, a function of displacement ; is the current position of node B of
9 Beam B, a function of displacement ; is the rotation tensor of node A of Beam B, a function of
10 rotation ; is the rotation tensor of node B of Beam B, a function of rotation ; is the 2D
11 parameterization of the superelliptical cross section of Beam A and is the 2D parameterization of
12 the superelliptical cross section of Beam B.
13 For each beam, as mentioned for the parameterization (52): the nodal positions and the rotation tensors
14 are a function of the previously acumulated displacements/rotations. They have to be evaluated at the current
15
configuration. We mention, again, that we are always working in an updated Lagrangian framework. Then,
16
taking general indexes in which and can assume A or B, for the previously defined
17
variables describing the parameterizations (57) and (58), one can write the updating equations:
18
19
and (59)
20
21
22 . (60)
23
24 The equation (59) shows that the displacements are acumulated by an additive decomposition. For
25 rotations, however, the equation (60) shows a multiplicative decomposition. The current rotation tensor
26 can be calculated with the aid of equation (44), by using the corresponding rotation vector .
27 Finally, in order to organize the contact equations, we now present the generalized displacements vector
28 . It contains information regarding both beams DOFs. It can be viewed as an application of equation (2) for
29 the beam-to-beam contact:
30
31 (61)
32
33
34 The contact formulation requires the evaluation of many derivatives to calculate the orthogonality
35 relations (5). These have to be used in the searching procedure for the minimum distance between the beam
36 surfaces.
37 To obtain the matrix , it is necessary to evaluate the derivatives: , , , , ,
38 , , , , , and . Some simplifications can be done, such as
39 and 14
. All these derivatives expressions are evaluated assuming constant
40
nodal positions and rotations, that is, for a fixed vector . Then, the parameterizations (57) and (58) can be
41
differentiated by doing a large effort handwork. However, we suggest the reader interested in reproducing
42
such derivatives to develop it by using a symbolic evaluation software. We did that using Mathematica and
43
AceGen (see [30]-[31]) 15.
44
We assume from now on that, at a given iteration of the Newton-Raphson method, the convective
45
46 coordinates of the minimum distance point are known, and given by: , , and . All the contributions
47 to the weak form and tangent operator have to be evaluated using these values of convective coordinates.
48 It is also necessary to evaluate the gap function derivatives with respect to both convective and
49 generalized displacement vectors. Some important expressions to compose the weak form and tangent
50 operator are shown in the sequence.
51 We start with and :
52
53 (62)
54
55 (63)
56
57
58 14
We assume here the commutativity between the mixed second derivatives.
15
59 All these derivatives justifies the effort in the usage of the proposed superellipse parameterization given in equation (54). A not
60 well-behavored parameterization would lead to complicated or non-convenient singularities in and its derivatives. This would lead
to numerical problems when solving the contact models.
61
62
63
64 18
65
 1
2
3
4 From parameterizations (57) and (58), it is possible to obtain:
5
6 (64)
7
8 With some algebraic work it is possible to obtain the derivatives with respect to the rotations:
9
10
11 (65)
12
13 In expressions (65) we have used the operator , which depends on the rotation parameters adopted.
14 Basically, it expresses the relation between the time-derivative of the rotation vector and the angular velocity
15 vector . Its derivation is described in [27] for Rodrigues rotation parameters. It is given in
16 equation (66):
17
18
19 (66)
20
21 where and .
22 To evaluate the operator , it is necessary to obtain some derivatives, described below:
23
24 (67)
25
26
27 (68)
28
29 (69)
30
31
32 , (70)
33
34 where a null square matrix with dimension is represented by .
35 Similarly to equations (64) and (65), it is possible to derive each contribution to be used in (67)-(70):
36
37
38
39 (71)
40
41
42
43
44 where is the identity matrix of order n.
45 Finally, we can write the remaining terms for the evaluation of the tangent operator, derived in equations
46 (73), (74) and (75) in the Appendix A. These are shown in equations (76)-(83).
47
48 4. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
49 This section presents the numerical examples of beam to beam contact formulation, detailed in section 3.
50 The model was implemented in the code GIRAFFE (Generic Interface Readily Accessible for Finite
51 Elements), under continuous development at University of So Paulo [32]. The beam elements used in
52 simulations are from reference [19]. They can handle large deformation and finite rotations, described using
53 Rodrigues parameters. All simulations here performed are static and geometrically nonlinear. The material
54 model in all the cases is linearly elastic. To track the evolution of the loading during each analysis, a time
55 parameter is created, describing each simulation load-step. The contact implementation was done using the
56 penalty method.
57 For visualization purposes, the beam elements in the examples are always shown rendered as solids. This
58 permits a clear visualization of the external beam surface, where the contact takes place. This post-processing
59 style is used in Figure 12, Figure 16, Figure 19, Figure 21 and Figure 23. Note that the polygons shown in the
60 rendered images do not reflect the mesh refinement, but are solely due to the 3D visualization.
61
62
63
64 19
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Cantilever beams in contact case 1
8
9 In this example, two cantilever beams AC and BD were considered. The Figure 12(a) shows the initial
10 configuration of the beams, such as the location of the beams extreme material points A, B, C and D. The
11 material points A, B, C and D are located at the centroids of the beam cross sections.
12 Some relevant characteristics of the model are shown in Table 2.
13
14 Table 2 Model data: cantilever beams in contact cases 1 and 2
15 Extreme points coordinates [m] A (0.0,2.5,0.0) B (2.5,0.0,0.3) C (3.0,2.5,0.0) D (2.5,3.0,0.3)
16 Beam elements length 0.2 m (corresponding to 15 elements along AC and BD)
17
Superellipse cross section data a = 0.2 m; b = 0.1 m; n = 2
18
Penalty parameter for the contact model16
19
20 Beam material Young Modulus Pa
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
(a) (b)
42
Figure 12 Cantilever beams in contact case 1 (a) initial configuration (time = 0.0) (b) configuration
43
44 at time = 2.0
45
46 Two load steps were considered, as follows:
47 Time 0-1: The node A is fixed and the node B is subject to a displacement (0.0,0.0,-0.3). This creates
48 a contact interaction between the beams. The initial gap is completely closed and both beams present
49 bending deformation. This load-step was divided in 20 uniform sub-steps increments.
50 Time 1-2: The node A is subject to a displacement (1.5,0.0,0.0). The node B is subject to a
51 displacement (0.0,1.5,0.0). This causes the contact loading changing in position, direction and
52 magnitude along simulation evolution. The final configuration at the end of this second load-step is
53 shown in Figure 12(b). This load-step was divided in 40 uniform sub-steps increments.
54 Two plots are shown in Figure 13. They relate the time evolution of components of displacements for
55 points C and D. In this example the maximum penetration experienced in the contact (at the end-time) is
56 around 0.01 m, which is a high value, due to the very large contact forces experience in bending. A complete
57
58 16
The magnitude of the penalty parameter was chosen with basis in the classical Hertz contact theory, for all numerical examples.
59 This can be done assuming an idealized scenario of two spheres in contact, made of the same material of the beams, and assuming their
60 radii equal to one of the superellipse semi-axes, it is possible to estimate the expected contact stiffness (assuming elasticity), and thus the
penalty stiffness parameter.
61
62
63
64 20
65
 1
2
3
4 convergence report for all the increments can found it in the Appendix B. In this report, L-error should be
5 read as the unbalanced load (residual) error, and D-error as the displacement error. Both are evaluated at
6 each Newton-Raphson iteration.
7
8 2.0 1.6

9 1.4

10 1.5 1.2

11 1.0

Displacement at D (m)
Displacement at C (m)

12 1.0 0.8

13 0.6

14 0.5 0.4

15 0.2

16 0.0 0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
17 -0.2

18 -0.5 -0.4
time time
19
(a) Ux Uy Uz
(b) Ux Uy Uz

20
21 Figure 13 Disp. at points C and D for numerical example Cantilever beams in contact case 1
22
23 Cantilever beams in contact case 2
24
25 This example considers the same initial configuration and properties of previous one, shown in Figure
26 12(a) and Table 2. The load-steps adopted are explained in the sequence:
27 Time 0-1: The node A is fixed and the node B is imposed to displace (0.0,0.0,-0.05). This diminishes
28 the initial gap between the beams, but does not close it. The contact interaction, then, does not play a
29 role during this step. Rigid body translation of the beam BD is observed. This load-step was solved
30 using a single sub-step increment.
31 Time 1-2: The node A remains fixed. The node B is imposed to rotate rad in y direction. This
32 causes an alternating contact scenario. We can observe a periodic contact loading and periodic
33 induced displacements on beam structures. During some time of each cycle, the gap is fully opened
34 and the contact interaction is switched off. The Figure 14 shows the displacements of points C and
35 D. The Figure 15 shows the forces and moments reactions at point B. This load-step was divided in
36 400 uniform sub-steps increments. The need for more steps was due to the large rotation imposed at
37 node B, which leads to convergence difficulties. Furthermore, to present clear plots in Figure 14-
38 Figure 15, we need enough information, which can be achieved by imposing the required number of
39 sub-steps. In this example the maximum penetration experienced in the contact is around 0.00025 m.
40
0.01 0.02
41
42 0.00
0.01
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
43 0.00
-0.01 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
44
Displacement at D (m)
Displacement at C (m)

-0.01
45 -0.02

46 -0.02

-0.03
47 -0.03

48 -0.04
-0.04
49
-0.05
-0.05
50
51 -0.06
time
-0.06
time
52 (a) Ux Uy Uz
(b) Ux Uy Uz

53 Figure 14 Disp. at points C and D for numerical example Cantilever beams in contact case 2
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 21
65
 1
2
3
4 0.0E+00
1.0E+05

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
5 0.0E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
6 -5.0E+04
-1.0E+05
7

Moment at B (N.m)
-2.0E+05
8
Force at B (N)

-1.0E+05

9 -3.0E+05

10 -1.5E+05 -4.0E+05

11
-5.0E+05
12 -2.0E+05

13 -6.0E+05

14 -2.5E+05
ROT in y direction at B (rad)
-7.0E+05
ROT in y direction at B (rad)
15
(a)
Fx Fy Fz
(b) Mx My Mz

16
Figure 15 Force (a) and moment (b) at point B for numerical example Cantilever beams in contact
17
case 2
18
19
Cantilever beams in contact case 3
20
21
22 The case 3 considers the same initial configuration and properties of previous cases, described in Table 2,
23 except the superellipse exponent, now considered n = 2.5. The load-steps for this example are explained in
24 the sequence:
25 Time 0-1: The node A is fixed and the node B is subject to a displacement (0.0,0.0,-0.05). This
26 diminishes the initial gap between the beams, but does not close it. The contact interaction, then,
27 does not play a role during this step. Rigid body translation of the beam BD is observed. This load-
28 step was solved using a single sub-step increment.
29 Time 1-2: The node A is subjected to a rotation rad in x direction and to a displacement
30 (1.5,0.0,0.0). The node B is subjected to a rotation rad in y direction and to a displacement
31 (0.0,1.5,0.0). As in previous case, an alternating contact action is observed. However, once both
32 beams have rotations and displacements imposed, the contact interaction position changes through a
33 more complex way than the previous example. It is also switched off during some instants of each
34 period. The configuration frames for some time values are shown in Figure 16. The Figure 17 shows
35 the displacements of points C and D during the second load-step. The Figure 18 shows the forces and
36 moments at point B. This load-step was divided initially in 200 sub-steps increments, but we let an
37 automatic time-step scheme make bisections or increases in the sub-step automatically, depending on
38 the difficulties faced along simulation evolution. In this example the maximum penetration
39 experienced in the contact is around 0.02 m, which is a high value, due to large contact forces
40 experienced in the model.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52 (a) (b) (c)
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 22
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 (d) (e) (f)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 (g)
23
24 Figure 16 Cantilever beams in contact case 3 (a) time 1.00 (b) time 1.05 (c) time 1.10 (d) time 1.15 (e)
25 time 1.20 (f) time 1.25 (g) time 2.00
26
1.60 1.60
27
1.40 1.40
28
1.20 1.20
29
30 1.00 1.00
Displacement at D (m)
Displacement at C (m)

31 0.80 0.80

32 0.60 0.60

33 0.40 0.40

34 0.20 0.20

35 0.00
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
0.00
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
36 -0.20 -0.20

37 -0.40
time
-0.40
time
38 (a) Ux Uy Uz
(b) Ux Uy Uz

39 Figure 17 Disp. at points C and D for numerical example Cantilever beams in contact case 3
40
41 5.0E+06 5.0E+06

42
43 0.0E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.0E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25

44
-5.0E+06 -5.0E+06
45
Moment at B (N.m)
Force at B (N)

46 -1.0E+07 -1.0E+07

47
48 -1.5E+07 -1.5E+07

49
-2.0E+07 -2.0E+07
50
51 -2.5E+07 -2.5E+07
ROT in y direction at B (rad) ROT in y direction at B (rad)
52
Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
53 (a) (b)
54 Figure 18 Force (a) and moment (b) at point B for numerical example Cantilever beams in contact
55 case 3
56
57 Cantilever beams in contact case 4
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 23
65
 1
2
3
4 The case 4 considers the same initial configuration and properties of previous cases, described in Table 2,
5 except the superellipse radii and exponent, now considered: a = 0.1, b = 0.1; n = 3.0. The load-steps for this
6 example are explained in the sequence:
7 Time 0-1: The node A is fixed and the node B is subjected to a displacement (0.0,0.0,-0.3). This
8 causes a contact interaction between the beams. The initial gap is completely closed. Both beams
9 present bending. This load-step was divided initially in 20 sub-steps increments, but we let an
10 automatic time-step scheme make bisections or increases in the sub-step automatically, depending on
11 the difficulties faced along simulation evolution.
12 Time 1-2: The node A remains fixed. The node B is subjected to a rotation rad in y direction and
13 to a displacement (0.0,1.5,0.0). Differently from previous cases, in this example the contact
14 occurrence is not switched off periodically, but remains for the whole simulation. Configuration
15 frames for some time values are shown in Figure 19. The forces and moments at point B are plotted
16 in Figure 20. This load-step was divided initially in 200 sub-steps increments, but we let an
17
automatic time-step scheme make bisections or increases in the sub-step automatically, depending on
18
the difficulties faced along simulation evolution. In this example the maximum penetration
19
experienced in the contact is around 0.0008 m.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 (a) (b) (c)
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 (d) (e) (f)
46 Figure 19 Cantilever beams in contact case 4 (a) time 1.00 (b) time 1.20 (c) time 1.40 (d) time 1.60 (e)
47 time 1.80 (f) time 2.00
48 1.E+05 2.E+05

49 0.E+00
50 -1.E+05
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

51 -2.E+05 -2.E+05

52
Moment at B (N.m)

-3.E+05
Force at B (N)

-4.E+05
53
-4.E+05
54 -6.E+05
-5.E+05
55
-6.E+05 -8.E+05
56
-7.E+05
57 -1.E+06
-8.E+05
58
-9.E+05 -1.E+06
59 ROT in y direction at B (rad) ROT in y direction at B (rad)

60 Fx Fy Fz
(a) Mx My Mz
(b)
61
62
63
64 24
65
 1
2
3
4 Figure 20 Force (a) and moment (b) at point for numerical example Cantilever beams in contact
5 case 4
6
7 Contact between fibers twisting behavior
8
9 This example shows the possibilities of the proposed contact model to simulate fibers interaction in
10 fabrics. Each fiber is modeled using beam elements. We assumed a fabric with fibers as shown in Figure
11 21(a). The properties considered to compound the fabric are shown in Table 3.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 (a) (b)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 (c) (d)
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 (e) (f)
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 (g)
45
46 Figure 21 Contact between fibers twisting behavior (a) time 0.00 (b) time 1.00 (c) time 2.00 (d) time
47 2.25 (e) time 2.50 (f) time 2.75 (g) time 3.00
48
49 Three load-steps were solved sequentially in the present model. They are described in the sequence:
50 Time 0-1: the initial configuration is described by all fibers intersecting each other, once they
51 were all meshed in the plane xy. Then, during the first load-step, we imposed to all warp fibers
52 nodes a set of prescribed displacements in z direction. These displacements were chosen in a
53 wave-pattern to induce the shape of the desired fabric. The end of this step can be seen in Figure
54 21(b). Note that an initial opened gap is generated between the warp and weft fibers. This load-
55 step was solved using a single sub-step increment. The Figure 22 shows the imposed
56 displacements pattern which was prescribed in this load-step. A sinusoidal function was used for
57 that, with amplitude and wave length numerical values described in Table 3. A half wave length
58 phase difference is considered in subsequent warp fibers.
59
60
61
62
63
64 25
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Figure 22 Prescribed displacements at warp fibers
13
14 Time 1-2: we released the prescribed displacements imposed during the first load-step. Then,
15 contact takes place in many positions between weft and warp. The result of this step is the fabric
16 configuration, containing the fibers presenting bending and interacting. The extreme points of
17 weft fibers were considered fixed during this step. The extreme points of warp fibers were also
18 fixed, but the rotation in x direction was considered free. This prevents overbending around the
19 boundary of the warp fibers. During this load-step all contact interactions between fibers
20 naturally appear. They can be seen in Figure 21(c). This load-step was solved using a single sub-
21 step increment.
22 Time 2-3: A rotation in x direction with magnitude rad is applied at material point C, shown in
23 Figure 21. Then, one can see a sequence of frames of the fabric internal contact interactions
24 during the induced twisting of the fiber see Figure 21(c-g). During this step all contact points
25 may change, such as the contact forces magnitudes and directions. The final configuration is
26 shown with more details in Figure 23. When the rotation was imposed at point C, we monitored
27 the force and moment reactions at C. These results are shown in Figure 24. This load-step was
28 divided initially in 100 sub-steps increments, but we let an automatic time-step scheme make
29 bisections or increases in the sub-step automatically, depending on the difficulties faced along
30 simulation evolution.
31
32 It is interesting to note that the elliptical shape we assumed for fibers cross sections leads to contact forces
33 which induces non-null moments (the forces are not aligned with the centroid of the ellipse at all instants).
34 Then, even with the frictionless behavior here assumed, the contact forces may induce moments. This would
35 not occur for circular cross sections.
36
37
Table 3 Model data: contact between fibers twisting behavior
38
Weft properties
39
40 Number of fibers 3
41 Superellipse cross section data a = 0.03 m; b = 0.01 m; n = 2
42 Beam material Young Modulus Pa
43 Distance between fibers 0.3333 m
44 Fibers length (Lweft) 1.0 m
45 Mesh refinement along length 15 elements
46 Amplitude of prescribed displacements (A) 0.03 m
47 Wave length of prescribed displacements () 0.667 m
48 Warp properties
49 Number of fibers 5
50 Superellipse cross section data a = 0.02 m; b = 0.005 m; n = 2
51 Beam material Young Modulus Pa
52 Distance between fibers 0.2 m
53
Fibers length 1.0 m
54
Mesh refinement along length 15 elements
55
56 Contact property
57 Penalty parameter 17

58
59
60 17
The penalty parameter, as in the previous examples, was chosen with basis in the classical Hertz contact theory.
61
62
63
64 26
65
 1
2
3
4 In this example the maximum penetration experienced in the contact is around 0.0005 m, which is high
5 when compared to the value of the superellipse semi-axes (10% of the minimum semi-axis). This occurs due
6 to high contact forces involved. Since we estimated the penalty parameter using the Hertz contact theory, one
7 would interpret this physically as threads deformations.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 Figure 23 Contact between fibers twisting behavior: details at time 3.00
36 100 70

37 60
38 50
50
39
40 0 40
Moment at C (N.m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Force at C (N)

41 30
-50
42 20

43 -100 10

44 0
45 -150 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-10
46
-200 -20
47 ROT in x direction at C (rad) ROT in x direction at C (rad)

48 Fx
(a) Fy Fz
(b) Mx My Mz

49 Figure 24 Force (a) and moment (b) at point C. Numerical Example Contact between fibers
50 twisting behavior
51
52 5. CONCLUSIONS
53 In this work we proposed a new approach to model the contact between two surfaces. The contact
54 formulation assumes a single point interaction, which can limit the scope of applications to a class of specific
55 problems. The applications were here restricted to beam to beam contact problems, specifically to those
56 modeled by beams with a superelliptical cross section shape. The numerical examples showed a very good
57 behavior to treat complex contact interactions, including rotations with large sliding scenarios and alternating
58 contact/no contact situations.
59 The presented formulation is advantageous in scenarios in which the contact interaction can be described
60 by single contact points. This is the case of contact between beams with convex cross sections. Since only one
61
62
63
64 27
65
 1
2
3
4 contact pair has to be established for each contact interaction, the computation in implicit time evolution
5 schemes can be very efficient. It remains to extend these ideas to contact between surfaces that involves
6 several points of interaction, such as parallel beams.
7
8 The presented formulation opens other applications possibilities, including contact between solids, shells
9 and beams. Furthermore, it is possible to include in surfaces parameterizations any type of degree of freedom,
10 such as temperature, warping, etc. Then, the presented formulation is applicable to evaluate the mechanical
11 interaction in multiphysics contact models. Once the contact surfaces are parameterized, the weak form and
12 the tangent operator for the mechanical interaction evaluation can be derived from here presented formulae.
13 The natural sequence of the work is to include the friction effect in contact formulation, which is aim of a
14 future publication.
15 As challenges for the extension of the field of applicability, we can highlight the consideration of non-
16 smooth surfaces and non-convexity of the minimum distance problem between the two contacting surfaces,
17 which actually would lead to non-pointwise contact interactions.
18
19 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
20 The first author acknowledges FAPESP (Fundao de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de So Paulo) for
21 the support under the grant 2014/17701-4. The second author acknowledges the support by CNPq (Conselho
22 Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientfico e Tecnolgico) under the grant 303091/2013-4 as well as expresses
23 his gratitude to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for the Georg Forster Research Award that made
24 possible his stay at the University of Duisburg-Essen and the Leibniz University of Hanover.
25
26
7. REFERENCES
27
[1] Signorini, A. Sopra akune questioni di elastostatica. Atti della Societa Italiana per il Progresso delle
28
Scienze (1933).
29
[2] Wriggers, P. Computational contact mechanics. Wiley, West Sussex, p 440., 2002.
30
[3] Konyukhov, A. & Schweizerhof, K. Computational Contact Mechanics. Springer-Verlag Berlin
31
32 Heidelberg, 2013.
33 [4] Cundall, P.A. & Strack, O.D.L. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Gotechnique 29,
34 No. 1, 47-65.
35 [5] Oate, E. & Owen, R. Particle-based Methods. Springer Science+Business Media B.V., 2011.
36 [6] Wellmann, C. & Wriggers, P. A two-scale model of granular materials. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
37 Engrg. 205208, 4658, 2012.
38 [7] Francavilla, A. & Zienkiewicz, O.C. A note on numerical computation of elastic contact problems. Int.
39 J. Numer. Meth. Engng, 9, 913924, 1975.
40 [8] Stadter, J.T. & Weiss, R.O. Analysis of contact through finite element gaps. Computers and Structures,
41 V. 10, 867873, 1979.
42 [9] Wriggers, P., Van, T.V. & Stein, E. Finite-element-formulation of large deformation impact-contact -
43 problems with friction. Computers and Structures, V. 37, 319333, 1990.
44 [10] Simo, J.C., Wriggers, P. & Taylor, R.L. A perturbed Lagrangian formulation for the finite element
45 solution of contact problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., V. 50, 163180, 1985.
46 [11] Bandeira, A.A., Pimenta, P.M. & Wriggers, P., Numerical Derivation of Contact Mechanics Interface
47 Laws using a Finite Element Approach for Large 3D Deformation, International Journal for Numerical
48 Methods in Engineering, V.59, 173-195, 2004.
49 [12] Bathe, K.J. & Chaudhary, A.B. A solution method for planar and axisymmetric contact problems. Int.
50 J. Numer. Meth. Engng., V. 21, 6588, 1985.
51 [13] Puso, M.A. A 3D mortar method for solid mechanics. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng., V. 59(3), 315336,
52 2004.
53 [14] Puso, M.A. & Laursen, T.A. A mortar segment-to-segment contact method for large deformation solid
54 mechanics. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., V. 193:601629, 2004.
55 [15] Fischer, K.A. & Wriggers, P. Frictionless 2d contact formulations for finite deformations based on the
56 mortar method. Comp. Mechanics, V. 36, 226244, 2005.
57 [16] Wriggers P. & Zavarise G.. On contact between three-dimensional beams undergoing large
58 deflections. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering, V. 13, 429-438, 1997.
59 [17] Zavarise, G. & Wriggers, P., Contact with friction between beams in 3-D space. Int. J. Numer. Meth.
60 Engng., V. 49, 977-1006, 2000.
61
62
63
64 28
65
 1
2
3
4 [18] Litewka, P. & Wriggers, P. Friction Contact between 3D beams. Computational Mechanics, V. 28, 26-39,
5 2002.
6 [19] Gay Neto, A.; Martins, C. A. & Pimenta, P. M.. Static analysis of offshore risers with a geometrically-
7 exact 3D beam model subjected to unilateral contact. Comp. Mechanics V. 53, 125-145, 2014.
8 [20] Gay Neto, A. Pimenta, P. M. & Wriggers, P.. Self-contact modeling on beams experiencing loop
9 formation. Comp. Mechanics V. 55(1), 193-208, 2015.
10 [21] Konyukhov, A. & Schweizerhof, K. Geometrically exact covariant approach for contact between
11 curves. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., V. 199, 25102531, 2010.
12 [22] Gay Neto, A. Pimenta, P. M. & Wriggers, P.. Contact between rolling beams and flat surfaces. Int. J.
13 Numer. Meth. Engng, V. 97, 683-706, 2014.
14 [23] Gay Neto, A. Malta, E.R. & Pimenta, P.M.. Catenary Riser Sliding And Rolling On Seabed During
15 Induced Lateral Movement. Marine Structures, 2015.
16 [24] Grbz, C., Gay Neto, A. & Pimenta, P.M.. Offshore Drilling Simulation using a beam to surface
17 contact formulation. Submitted to ICCCM 2015.
18 [25] Wellmann, C., Lillie, C. & Wriggers, P.. A contact detection algorithm for superellipsoids based on the
19 common-normal concept. Engineering Computations: International Journal for Computer-Aided
20 Engineering and Software V. 25 (5), 432-442, 2008.
21 [26] Wriggers, P. Nonlinear Finite Element Methods. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.
22 [27] Pimenta, P.M. & Campello, E.M.B., Geometrically nonlinear analysis of thin-walled space frames.
23 Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computational Mechanics, II ECCM, Krakow,
24 2001.
25
[28] Campello, E.M.B., Pimenta, P.M., Wriggers, P. An exact conserving algorithm for nonlinear dynamics
26
with rotational dofs and general hyperelasticity. Part 2: Shells. Computational Mechanics. , V.48, 195-
27
211, 2011.
28
[29] Pimenta, P.M.; Campello, E.M.B. & Wriggers, P.. An exact conserving algorithm for nonlinear
29
dynamics with rotational dofs and general hyperelasticity. part 1: Rods. Comp. Mechanics. V. 42, 715-
30
732, 2008.
31
[30] Korelc J., Multi-language and Multi-environment Generation of Nonlinear Finite Element Codes.
32
Engineering with Computers V. 18 (4), 312-327, 2002.
33
[31] Korelc, J., Automatic generation of finite-element code by simultaneous optimization of expressions.
34
35 Theoretical Computer Science V. 187, 231-248, 1997.
36 [32] Gay Neto, A., Giraffe Users Manual - Generic Interface Readily Accessible for Finite Elements. So
37 Paulo, 2014. Available at http://sites.poli.usp.br/p/alfredo.gay/.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 29
65
 1
2
3
4 APPENDIX A - EQUATIONS
5
6 This appendix shows some equations, extracted from the main text for a clear and more comfortable
7 reading.
8 For the general master-surface to master-surface contact formulations:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 (72)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 .
29
30
31 (73)
32
33
34
35
36 (74)
37
38
39
40
41 (75)
42
43
44
45 For the application for beam to beam contact:
46
47
48
49 (76)
50
51
52
(77)
53
54
(78)
55
56
57
58
(79)
59
60
61
62
63
64 30
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 (80)
8
9
10
11
12
13 (81)
14
15
16 with:
17
18
19 (82)
20
21
22 (83)
23
24
25 We still have to determine the terms . These are quite complex terms and can be
26 developed after some algebraic work, from the derivative of equation (65).
27
28 (84)
29
30 with , .
31
32
33 The operator , applied to a generic vector , is given by:
34
35 (85)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 31
65
 1
2
3
4 APPENDIX B CONVERGENCE REPORT FROM NUMERICAL EXAMPLE: CANTILEVER
5 BEAMS IN CONTACT CASE 1
6
7 time 0.05 L-error D-error time 0.85 L-error D-error time 1.3 L-error D-error time 1.675 L-error D-error
iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
8 2 6.43E-07 3.92E-13 2 1.27E+05 1.88E-05 2 9.27E+04 4.44E-05 2 1.67E+05 8.23E-05
3 5.71E-07 9.02E-18 3 6.91E-01 3.31E-08 3 1.54E+00 2.72E-08 3 1.27E+01 1.03E-07
9 time 0.1 L-error D-error 4 5.37E-06 3.47E-16 4 8.63E-06 1.66E-15 4 3.87E-05 1.45E-14
10 iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 time 0.9 L-error D-error time 1.325 L-error D-error 5 6.42E-06 1.59E-16
2 5.99E-07 3.92E-13 iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 time 1.7 L-error D-error
11 3 4.34E-07 3.99E-18 2 1.27E+05 1.88E-05 2 1.25E+05 1.74E-04 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
time 0.15 L-error D-error 3 6.44E-01 3.32E-08 3 1.04E+02 3.49E-08 2 1.99E+05 8.25E-05
12 iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 4 4.23E-06 3.02E-16 4 8.73E-06 1.04E-13 3 1.62E+01 1.94E-07
13 2 5.40E-07 3.92E-13 time 0.95 L-error D-error 5 4.71E-06 1.19E-16 4 1.27E-04 8.72E-14
3 4.84E-07 6.42E-18 iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 time 1.35 L-error D-error 5 3.84E-06 5.96E-17
14 time 0.2 L-error D-error 2 1.27E+05 1.88E-05 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 time 1.725 L-error D-error
15 iterations 1
2
9.67E+08
7.05E-07
1.50E-02
3.92E-13
3
4
5.96E-01
6.02E-06
3.33E-08
4.96E-16
2
3
6.57E+04
2.16E+00
5.89E-05
1.99E-08
iterations 1
2
6.28E+09
8.36E+05
3.75E-02
1.06E-03
16 3 4.01E-07 1.35E-17 time 1 L-error D-error 4 5.46E-06 1.48E-15 3 2.32E+03 1.19E-06
time 0.25 L-error D-error iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 time 1.375 L-error D-error 4 6.17E-03 1.44E-10
17 iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 2 1.26E+05 1.88E-05 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 5 5.96E-06 7.92E-17
18 2 5.98E-07 3.92E-13 3 5.48E-01 3.34E-08 2 6.59E+04 5.47E-05 time 1.75 L-error D-error
3 3.58E-07 1.16E-17 4 4.16E-06 5.53E-16 3 2.39E+00 3.87E-09 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
19 time 0.3 L-error D-error time 1.025 L-error D-error 4 7.21E-06 2.68E-16 2 1.27E+05 1.11E-04
20 iterations 1
2
9.67E+08
5.74E-07
1.50E-02
3.92E-13
iterations 1
2
6.28E+09
5.86E+04
3.75E-02
3.24E-05
time
iterations
1.4
1
L-error
6.28E+09
D-error
3.75E-02
3
4
2.45E+01
9.61E-06
3.81E-08
6.72E-15
21 3 2.81E-07 9.90E-18 3 4.25E-01 9.09E-09 2 8.80E+04 5.38E-05 time 1.775 L-error D-error
time 0.35 L-error D-error 4 6.39E-06 2.67E-16 3 2.58E+00 1.50E-08 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
22 iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 time 1.05 L-error D-error 4 6.44E-06 1.15E-15 2 1.75E+05 1.15E-04
23 2 2.50E+06 3.22E-03 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 time 1.425 L-error D-error 3 2.72E+01 9.52E-08
3 1.35E+04 3.95E-04 2 6.11E+04 3.22E-05 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 4 2.47E-05 9.52E-15
24 4 2.14E+02 7.84E-08 3 4.49E-01 6.32E-09 2 1.09E+05 5.32E-05 time 1.8 L-error D-error
25 5
6
1.98E-05
4.39E-06
4.37E-13
6.21E-17 time
4
1.075
6.13E-06
L-error
1.97E-16
D-error
3
4
2.69E+00
6.44E-06
3.64E-08
3.16E-15
iterations 1
2
6.28E+09
2.20E+05
3.75E-02
1.17E-04
26 time 0.4 L-error D-error iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 1.45 L-error D-error 3 2.94E+01 2.87E-07
iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 2 5.53E+04 3.99E-05 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 4 2.39E-04 1.28E-13
27 2 1.26E+05 1.85E-05 3 8.10E-01 1.38E-08 2 7.89E+04 1.42E-04 5 5.33E-06 8.89E-17
28 3 1.12E+00 3.20E-08 4 6.90E-06 4.68E-16 3 3.52E+01 3.77E-08 time 1.825 L-error D-error
4 3.59E-06 1.52E-14 time 1.1 L-error D-error 4 8.41E-06 4.72E-14 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
29 5 3.39E-06 3.90E-17 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 5 6.44E-06 2.71E-16 2 2.62E+05 1.16E-04
time 0.45 L-error D-error 2 4.08E+04 3.90E-05 time 1.475 L-error D-error 3 3.57E+01 5.37E-07
30 iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 3 6.43E-01 6.78E-09 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 4 8.08E-04 9.62E-13
31 2 1.26E+05 1.85E-05 4 8.08E-06 2.47E-16 2 8.33E+04 7.53E-05 5 6.51E-06 2.33E-16
3 9.97E-01 2.59E-08 1.125 L-error D-error 3 4.22E+00 3.26E-08 time 1.85 L-error D-error
32 4 4.09E-06 2.36E-15 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 4 8.03E-06 3.79E-15 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
time 0.5 L-error D-error 2 5.10E+04 3.80E-05 time 1.5 L-error D-error 2 9.45E+05 1.28E-03
33 iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 3 6.92E-01 2.52E-09 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 3 2.75E+03 2.60E-06
34 2 1.26E+05 1.86E-05 4 7.51E-06 9.41E-17 2 7.82E+04 6.81E-05 4 2.41E-02 4.32E-10
3 1.03E+00 3.23E-08 time 1.15 L-error D-error 3 4.76E+00 9.17E-09 5 9.18E-06 9.40E-17
35 4 4.02E-06 6.78E-16 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 4 7.39E-06 9.61E-16 time 1.875 L-error D-error
36 time 0.55 L-error D-error 2 6.59E+04 3.79E-05 time 1.525 L-error D-error iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 3 7.38E-01 1.06E-08 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 2 1.80E+05 1.61E-04
37 2 1.26E+05 1.86E-05 4 7.73E-06 4.61E-16 2 1.06E+05 6.53E-05 3 6.21E+01 8.72E-08
3 9.79E-01 3.24E-08 time 1.175 L-error D-error 3 5.31E+00 1.93E-08 4 2.25E-05 8.48E-15
38 4 5.22E-06 1.03E-15 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 4 6.44E-06 2.09E-15 time 1.9 L-error D-error
39 time 0.6 L-error D-error 2 8.03E+04 3.75E-05 time 1.55 L-error D-error iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 3 9.89E-01 2.10E-08 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 2 2.46E+05 1.67E-04
40 2 1.26E+05 1.86E-05 4 7.18E-06 8.94E-16 2 1.33E+05 6.46E-05 3 6.53E+01 3.49E-07
3 9.32E-01 3.25E-08 time 1.2 L-error D-error 3 5.69E+00 5.08E-08 4 3.22E-04 9.13E-14
41 4 4.66E-06 5.07E-16 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 4 8.17E-06 6.49E-15 5 6.40E-06 4.66E-16
42 time 0.65 L-error D-error 2 1.79E+05 1.67E-04 time 1.575 L-error D-error time 1.925 L-error D-error
iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 3 1.56E+02 2.23E-08 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
43 2 1.26E+05 1.87E-05 4 6.51E-06 7.64E-14 2 1.50E+05 6.24E-05 2 3.10E+05 1.69E-04
3 8.84E-01 3.26E-08 5 5.24E-06 7.65E-17 3 6.09E+00 2.41E-08 3 6.81E+01 9.76E-07
44 4 4.85E-06 4.67E-16 time 1.225 L-error D-error 4 6.46E-06 4.01E-15 4 2.48E-03 2.13E-12
45 time 0.7 L-error D-error iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 time 1.6 L-error D-error 5 7.99E-06 1.71E-16
iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 2 5.18E+04 4.74E-05 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 time 1.95 L-error D-error
46 2 1.27E+05 1.87E-05 3 1.16E+00 1.19E-08 2 1.05E+05 9.91E-05 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
3 8.36E-01 3.28E-08 4 5.20E-06 6.13E-16 3 9.26E+00 5.19E-08 2 3.64E+05 1.86E-04
47 4 5.32E-06 2.71E-16 time 1.25 L-error D-error 4 8.29E-06 1.04E-14 3 1.34E+02 1.75E-06
48 time 0.75 L-error D-error iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 5 4.84E-06 1.37E-16 4 7.70E-03 1.46E-11
iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 2 5.73E+04 4.49E-05 time 1.625 L-error D-error 5 6.39E-06 4.09E-16
49 2 1.27E+05 1.87E-05 3 1.24E+00 2.90E-09 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 time 1.975 L-error D-error
50 3
4
7.87E-01
6.20E-06
3.29E-08
1.74E-16 time
4
1.275
4.89E-06
L-error
1.43E-16
D-error
2
3
9.68E+04
1.05E+01
8.67E-05
1.67E-08
iterations 1
2
6.28E+09
1.07E+06
3.75E-02
1.43E-03
51 time 0.8 L-error D-error iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 4 5.37E-06 2.85E-15 3 2.86E+03 5.11E-06
iterations 1 9.67E+08 1.50E-02 2 7.53E+04 4.49E-05 time 1.65 L-error D-error 4 7.77E-02 1.02E-09
52 2 1.27E+05 1.88E-05 3 1.32E+00 1.25E-08 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02 5 5.86E-06 1.30E-16
53 3 7.38E-01 3.30E-08 4 6.90E-06 6.90E-16 2 1.32E+05 8.04E-05 time 2 L-error D-error
4 4.25E-06 6.42E-16 3 1.16E+01 3.49E-08 iterations 1 6.28E+09 3.75E-02
54 4 6.43E-06 4.30E-15 2 2.84E+05 2.33E-04
55 3
4
1.68E+02
1.00E-05
1.12E-07
1.88E-14
56 5 4.83E-06 2.92E-16

57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 32
65