Z Angew Math Mech - 2013 - Sysala

ZAMM · Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 95, No. 4, 333 – 353 (2015) / DOI 10.1002/zamm.
201300112
Discretization and numerical realization of contact problems for

elastic-perfectly plastic bodies. PART I – discretization, limit analysis
S. Sysala1,∗ , J. Haslinger1,2 , I. Hlaváček3 , and M. Cermak1,4
1
Institute of Geonics AS CR, IT4Innovations Department, Ostrava, Czech Republic
2
Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Prague, Czech Republic
3
Institute of Mathematics AS CR, Prague, Czech Republic
4
VŠB–Technical University of Ostrava, Centre of Excellence IT4Innovations, Ostrava, Czech Republic
Received 7 May 2013, revised 26 September and 21 October 2013, accepted 5 November 2013
Published online 25 November 2013
Key words Frictionless contact, elasto-perfect plasticity, limit analysis.

The paper deals with a static case of discretized contact problems for bodies made of materials obeying Hencky’s law of
perfect plasticity. The main interest is focused on the analysis of the formulation in terms of displacements. This covers
the study of: i) a structure of the solution set in the case when the problem has more than one solution ii) the dependence
of the solution set on the loading parameter ζ. The latter is used to give a rigorous justification of the limit load approach
based on work of external forces as a function of ζ. A model example illustrates the efficiency of the method.

c 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1 Introduction
Contact problems represent a branch of mechanics of solids whose goal is to study the behavior of a system of loaded
deformable bodies being in mutual contact. This paper deals with 3D frictionless contact problems for two bodies made
of materials obeying the Hencky constitutive law of perfect plasticity. The Hencky model has been investigated e.g. in
[9, 18, 20, 21, 27] from the theoretical and in [3, 10, 11, 19] from the computational point of view. If, in addition unilateral,
contact conditions are involved in the model then we refer to [14, 15, 17]. From the physical point of view this is one of the
simplest models of plasticity. Its drawback is the fact that it does not take into account the loading history. To get a more
realistic model one has to use quasi-static formulations [1, 7, 13]. Despite its simplicity, the analysis of the Hencky model
is worthwhile since a time discretization of quasi-static problems leads to a sequence of problems of the type considered in
this paper.
On the contrary, the rigorous analysis of the mathematical model of Hencky’s plasticity in terms of displacements (primal
formulation) is far from to be simple. Due to a linear growth of the respective inner energy functional, the variational
formulation on the Sobolev space W 1,1 (Ω) is not well posed since the existence of minimizers is not guaranteed there. To
make the problem well posed and to preserve the exact lower bound of the total potential energy functional, it is necessary
to extend the space W 1,1 (Ω). This was done in [23, 24], where the space of functions with bounded deformation (BD) was
introduced, and in [27] containing the detailed analysis of the BD spaces. On the other hand, the variational formulation in
terms of stresses (dual formulation) is the classical one. This formulation however is not usually used in computations due
to a high number of linear and nonlinear constraints characterizing the discretized set of plastically and statically admissible
stresses. The number is proportional to the size of a used finite element discretization [14, 15, 17].
The existence of a solution to both the primal and the dual formulation depends among other on the existence of stresses
which are at the same time statically and plastically admissible. To verify this property it is necessary to determine the
so-called limit load corresponding to the applied load L. The load is considered in the form ζL, where ζ > 0 is a loading
parameter. One seeks maximal ζ, denoted as ζlim , for which the above mentioned set is non-empty [3, 5, 27].
The paper is focused on the numerical realization of the problem using a conventional finite element method. It consists
of two parts. The main goal of present PART I is to analyze the discrete problem in details. The numerical realization itself
is the subject of PART II [4].
We use the continuous, piecewise linear approximation of displacements and the piecewise constant approximation of
stresses. This choice of the spaces is simple and commonly used in engineering community. The convergence analysis for
∗ Corresponding author E-mail: stanislav.sysala@ugn.cas.cz

15214001, 2015, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/zamm.201300112 by South Korea National Provision, Wiley Online Library on [17/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
334 S. Sysala et al.: Discretization and numerical realization of contact problems for elastic-perfectly plastic bodies
the formulation in terms of stresses has been done in [20] for classical boundary conditions and in [14, 15] for contact
problems. On the other hand if displacements or limit analysis are of our primal interest, the dual formulation turns out to
be inappropriate (see e.g. [3, 19]).
For this reason, the main part of our paper is devoted to the discretization of the primal formulation. We restrict ourselves
to the von Mises yield criterion. In particular we shall analyze in details the structure of the solution set Kh,ζ for a given
loading parameter ζ and a given discretization parameter h and the dependence of Kh,ζ on ζ. Furthermore we propose
and rigorously justify a new way of estimating the limit loading parameter ζlim . It is based on a mutual relation between a
parameter α representing work of external forces L(uζ ) and ζ, where uζ is a displacement field solving the corresponding
problem with the load ζL. We shall prove that for any α ≥ 0 there exists a unique ζ ≤ ζlim and a solution uζ ∈ Kh,ζ such
that α = L(uζ ) and in addition, ζ → ζlim as α → +∞. For this reason the parameter α is more suitable than ζ to control
the loading process. We drew inspiration from the engineering literature, see e.g. the arc-length method [7].
The paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we present the primal and dual formulations of the problem and recall
the mutual relation among them. Section 3 is devoted to a discretization of the dual formulation. Piecewise constant func-
tions are used for the approximation of stresses while continuous piecewise linear functions serve as test functions in the
week formulation characterizing statically admissible stress fields. Convergence results are established. The discrete dual
formulation is then used for the derivation of the discrete primal formulation. Section 4 collects useful results concerning
the von Mises criterion and recalls basic properties of functions and operators involved. These results will be used also in
PART II [4] of the paper which will be focused on numerical methods. Section 5 contains the main results of the paper: we
show how the solution set Kh,ζ depends on ζ and analyze the relation between ζ and the parameter α representing work of
external forces and characterizing the loading path. A model example at the end of this section illustrates and confirms the
obtained theoretical results.
2 Formulation of the problem

Let us consider two bodies in mutual contact which are made of elasto - perfectly plastic materials. The bodies are
represented by bounded domains Ω1 , Ω2 ⊆ Rd , d ∈ {2, 3} whose Lipschitz boundaries are decomposed as follows:
j j j
∂Ωj = Γu ∪ Γf ∪ Γc , j = 1, 2, where Γju , Γjf , Γjc are open and mutually disjoint. Let us denote Ω = Ω1 ∪ Ω2 ,
Γu = Γ1u ∪ Γ2u , Γf = Γ1f ∪ Γ2f . Next we shall suppose that Γ1u = ∅, Γ2u = ∅. If a quantity q is defined in Ω or in
∂Ω, its restriction to Ωj or to ∂Ωj will be denoted by q j , j = 1, 2. On different parts of ∂Ω different boundary conditions
d
will be prescribed: on Γu the structure is fixed, while surface tractions of density f ∈ L2 (Γf ) are applied on Γf . Further
Γjc is a potential part of ∂Ωj along which the bodies may come into a frictionless contact. Finally, the system Ω is subject
d
to body forces of density F ∈ L2 (Ω) .
Our aim is to find a displacement vector u : Ω → Rd and a stress tensor σ(u) : Ω → Rσ satisfying the following
equations and boundary conditions:
⎫
div σ(u) + F = 0 in Ω ⎪ ⎬
u = 0 on Γu (2.1)
⎪
⎭
T (σ) := σ(u)n = f on Γf
where Rσ denotes the set of all symmetric, (d × d) matrices, n is the unit outward normal vector to ∂Ω and T (σ) is the
stress vector corresponding to σ(u). To formulate the non-penetration conditions on Γjc we first postulate the existence of a
one-to-one mapping χ : Γ1c → Γ2c enabling us to define the gap function g : Γ1c → R1+ at x ∈ Γ1c as g(x) = χ(x) − x
and the contact direction ν : Γ1c → Rd by ν(x) = (χ(x) − x)/g(x) if g(x) = 0 and ν(x) = −n2 (x) if g(x) = 0, x ∈ Γ1c .
The non-penetration conditions read as follows:
[u]ν ≤ g, Tν (σ) ≤ 0, Tν (σ) ([u]ν − g) = 0 on Γ1c , (2.2)
1
where [u]ν := u − u2 ◦ χ ·ν, Tν (σ) := ν·T 1 (σ 1 ) is the projection of the relative displacement and of the stress vector
T 1 (σ 1 ), respectively on Γ1c into the direction ν. In addition to (2.2), the equilibrium of the contact forces must hold:

T 1 (σ 1 )·(v ◦ χ)ds = − T 2 (σ 2 )·vds (2.3)
Γ 1c Γ 2c
d
for every v ∈ H 1/2 (Γ2c ) . Since we shall consider a frictionless case we have
Tt (σ) := T 1 (σ 1 ) − Tν (σ) · ν = 0 on Γ1c (2.4)

c 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.zamm-journal.org
ZAMM · Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 95, No. 4 (2015) / www.zamm-journal.org 335
The material law specifying the relation between u and σ(u) will be described by Hencky’s law for elastic-perfectly plastic
materials [8, 20]. To present its form we introduce several notation and recall well-known facts. Denote
S = τ = (τij )di,j =1 : Ω → Rσ | τij ∈ L2 (Ω) ∀i, j ,
σ, τ = Ω
σ : τ dx, σ 0 = σ, σ1/2 , σ, τ ∈ S,
where σ : τ = σij τij denotes the biscalar product. In S we introduce also the energy scalar product and the associated
energy norm by
1/2
(σ, τ )E := C −1 σ, τ , σ E = (σ, σ)E , σ, τ ∈ S,
respectively, where C = (cij k l )di,j,k ,l=1 is the fourth order symmetric elasticity tensor of a generalized Hooke’s law:
σ = Ce ⇔ σij = cij k l ek l , i, j = 1, . . . , d; σ, e ∈ S.
Next we shall suppose that cij k l ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∀i, j, k, l and

2
∃α = const > 0 : Ce, e ≥ α e 0 ∀e ∈ S.
To define the set P ⊂ S of plastically admissible stress fields we introduce a continuous, convex yield function Φ:
Rσ → R1+ such that Φ(0) = 0, Φ(τ ) > 0, ∀τ = 0, τ ∈ Rσ . Then
P = {τ ∈ S | τ (x) ∈ B for a. a. x ∈ Ω} ,
where
B = {τ ∈ Rσ | Φ(τ ) ≤ γ} , γ > 0 given.
It is readily seen that P is a non-empty, closed, convex subset of S. To define the pointwise form of Hencky’s law of plastic-
ity, we use the projection ΠB (x) of Rσ on B with respect to the energy scalar product σ: C −1 (x)τ for
σ, τ ∈ Rσ , x ∈ Ω. The pointwise form of Hencky’s law reads as follows:
σ(u(x)) = ΠB (x) (C(x)ε(u(x))) , x ∈ Ω, (2.5)
where ε(u) = 1/2(∇u + (∇u)T ) is the linearized strain tensor corresponding to a displacement vector u : Ω → Rd . Let
Π be the projection of S on P with respect to the energy scalar product (·, ·)E . It is known (see [20]) that
(Πτ )(x) = ΠB (x)τ (x) for a. a. x ∈ Ω, ∀τ ∈ S.
From this and (2.5) we see that Hencky’s law of perfect plasticity can be written as:
σ(u) = Π(Cε(u)) in Ω (2.6)
or equivalently in the form of the variational inequality
C −1 σ(u) − ε(u), τ − σ(u) ≥ 0 ∀τ ∈ P. (2.7)
Definition 2.1. By a classical solution of a two-body frictionless contact problem for elasto-perfectly plastic bodies
obeying Hencky’s law of perfect plasticity we mean any sufficiently smooth displacement vector u : Ω → Rd satisfying
(2.1) - (2.4) and (2.6).
Before we give variational formulations of our problem in terms of stresses and displacements we shall need several
function spaces and their subsets. Denote:
d d d d
V = v ∈ H 1 (Ω) | v = 0 on Γu , H 1 (Ω) = H 1 (Ω1 ) × H 1 (Ω2 ) ,

K = v ∈ V | [v]ν ≤ g on Γ1c , K0 := K with g = 0,
ΛL = {τ ∈ S | τ, ε(v) ≥ L(v) ∀v ∈ K0 } ,
www.zamm-journal.org
where

L(v) := F ·vdx + f ·vds.
Ω Γf
In what follows we shall suppose that the gap function g is such that there exists u0 ∈ V such that [u0 ]ν = g on Γ1c .
Remark 2.1. The convex sets K, ΛL represent all kinematically admissible displacements and statically admissible
stress fields, respectively. In particular, τ ∈ ΛL iff (2.1)1 , (2.1)3 , (2.4) with τ instead of σ(u), and Tν (τ ) ≤ 0 on Γ1c are
satisfied.
Let S : S → R1 be the dual functional defined by
1 2
S(τ ) = τ − ε(u0 ), τ , τ ∈ S.
2 E
Definition 2.2. The dual formulation (in terms of stresses) of our problem reads as follows: find σ such that
S(σ) = arg min {S(τ ), τ ∈ ΛL ∩ P } . (P)∗
Since S is weakly lower semicontinuous, coercive and strictly convex in S, the classical result of calculus of variations says
that (P)∗ has a unique solution σ iff ΛL ∩ P = ∅.
The previous definition is justified by the following result.
Lemma 2.1. Let the classical solution u from Definition 2.1 be sufficiently smooth. Then σ := σ(u) = ΠCε(u) is a
solution of (P)∗ .
P r o o f. Let v = (v 1 , v 2 ) ∈ K0 . From the Green formula and the definition of σ it follows that σ ∈ P and
(2.1)
ε(v), σ = L(v) + Γ 1c
T 1 (σ 1 )·v 1 ds + Γ 2 T 2 (σ 2 )·v 2 ds
(2.3) c
(2.4)
= L(v) + Γ 1c
T 1 (σ 1 )· v 1 − v 2 ◦ χ ds = L(v) + Γ 1c
Tν (σ)[v]ν ds
(2.2)
≥ L(v)
making use of the definition of K0 . Hence σ ∈ ΛL ∩ P .

From (2.7) we see that
C −1 σ, τ − σ ≥ ε(u), τ − σ ∀τ ∈ P. (2.8)
Let τ ∈ ΛL ∩ P . Since K = u0 + K0 it holds that u = u0 + w0 for an appropriate function w0 ∈ K0 . Hence
ε(u), τ − σ = ε(u0 ), τ − σ + ε(w0 ), τ − σ. (2.9)
Since w0 ∈ K0 and τ ∈ ΛL we have
ε(w0 ), τ ≥ L(w0 ). (2.10)
At the same time
ε(w0 ), σ = L(w0 ) + Γ 1c
Tν (σ)[w0 ]ν ds
(2.11)
= L(w0 ) + Γ 1c
Tν (σ) ([u]ν − g) ds = L(w0 )
using the definition of u0 , the complementarity condition in (2.2), and (2.4). From (2.8)–(2.11) it follows that σ ∈ ΛL ∩ P
satisfies the inequality
C −1 σ, τ − σ ≥ ε(u0 ), τ − σ ∀τ ∈ ΛL ∩ P
which is nothing else than the necessary and sufficient optimality condition characterizing the unique solution of (P)∗ .
Remark 2.2. It is easy to verify that the solution σ of (P)∗ does not depend on a particular choice of u0 ∈ V satisfying
[u0 ]ν = g on Γ1c .

The primal formulation (in terms of displacements) of elasto-perfectly plastic problems is derived in [27] for classical
boundary conditions. However its extension to contact problems with unilateral conditions is straightforward. The respec-
tive inner energy functional Ψ is the conjugate of 12 τ 2E :

1 2
Ψ(e) := sup τ, e − τ ∀e ∈ S.
τ ∈P 2 E
It is easy to verify that for given e ∈ S, supremum is attained at τ = Π(Ce). Therefore,
1 2
Ψ(e) = − Π(Ce) + e, Π(Ce) ∀e ∈ S. (2.12)
2 E
Definition 2.3. The primal formulation (in terms of displacements) of a frictionless contact problem with Hencky’s law
of plasticity reads as follows: find u such that
J(u) = arg min {J(v) := Ψ(ε(v)) − L(v) , v ∈ K} . (P)
Using general results of convex analysis [9] one can show that the stress and displacement variational formulations are
dual to each other. The mutual relation between them is established in [27, Th. 4.1].
It is also well-known (see [10]) that Ψ is convex and Fréchet differentiable in S. The Fréchet derivative of Ψ at a point
e and a direction ξ is given by
DΨ(e, ξ) = Π(Ce), ξ ∀(e, ξ) ∈ S × S. (2.13)
Hence we obtain the following equivalent formulation of (P).

Lemma 2.2. A function u ∈ K is a solution of (P) if and only if it satisfies the following variational inequality:
Π (Cε(u)) , ε(v − u) ≥ L(v − u) ∀v ∈ K. (2.14)
Contrary to the dual formulation (P)∗ which has a unique solution provided that ΛL ∩ P = ∅, the situation for (P) is
much more complicated. The functional Ψ (and hence J) may have only a linear growth at infinity. Therefore the existence
of minimizers of J in K is not guaranteed, in general. This is the case of the von Mises criterion, which is studied in Sect. 4
and 5. The rigorous mathematical setting of (P) requires in this case to use larger BD-spaces (for details see [27]).
Despite this fact, problem (P) (or at least its finite-dimensional version) will be worthwhile from the computational
point of view as we shall see in PART II [4].
3 Discretization of the primal and dual variational formulation

For the sake of simplicity we shall suppose that Ω1 , Ω2 are polygonal (d = 2) or polyhedric (d = 3) domains. In addition,
here and in what follows Γc := Γ1c ≡ Γ2c , i.e., there is no gap between Ω1 and Ω2 . In this case the non-penetration condition
is expressed by [u]ν ≤ 0 on Γc , where
[u]ν := (u1 − u2 ) · n1 on Γc .
Since the gap function g = 0, the function u0 defining the linear term of the dual functional S can be chosen u0 ≡ 0, as
well. Thus
1 2
S(τ ) = τ E.
2
j
Let Thj , h → 0+ be a system of regular partitions of Ω , j = 1, 2 into triangles (d = 2) or tetrahedrons (d = 3) denoted
by . Next we shall suppose that Th1 |Γ c = Th2 |Γ c , i.e. the nodes of both partitions on Γc coincide. With any Th := Th1 ∪ Th2
we associate the following finite-dimensional spaces:
d
d
Vh = {vh ∈ C(Ω) | vh | ∈ (P1 ()) ∀ ∈ Th , vh = 0 on Γu },
d×d
Sh = {τh ∈ S | τh | ∈ (P0 ()) ∀ ∈ Th },
1 2
where (C(Ω))d := (C(Ω ))d × (C(Ω ))d and Pk (), k ≥ 0 integer, stands for the space of all polynomials of degree
less or equal k defined in ∈ Th . The spaces Vh and Sh are the simplest finite element approximations of V and S,
respectively. Further, define the following convex sets:
Ph = P ∩ Sh , K0,h = K0 ∩ Vh ,

ΛhL = τh ∈ Sh | τh , ε(vh ) ≥ L(vh ) ∀vh ∈ K0,h ,
which are natural discretizations of P , K0 and ΛL , respectively.
The discretization of (P)∗ reads as follows: find σh such that
S(σh ) = arg min S(τh ), τh ∈ ΛhL ∩ Ph (P)∗h
If ΛhL ∩ Ph = ∅, then (P)∗h has a unique solution.

Convergence of {σh } to σ (solution of (P)∗ ) is guaranteed under the following conditions (see [12, 15]):
(i) ΛL ∩ P = ∅;
(ii) ∀τ ∈ ΛL ∩ P ∃{τh }, τh ∈ ΛhL ∩ Ph : τh → τ in S;
(iii) if τh τ (weakly) in S, τh ∈ ΛhL , then τ ∈ ΛL .
The construction of a sequence {τh } satisfying (ii) is simple. For τ ∈ S we set τh := rh τ , where rh : S → Sh is the
orthogonal projection of S on Sh with respect to the scalar product ·, ·:

1
τh | = τ dx ∀ ∈ Th ∀τ ∈ S.
||
Then
τh → τ in S as h → 0+. (3.1)
In addition, if τ ∈ ΛL ∩ P , then it is easy to show (see [14, 20]) that τh ∈ ΛhL ∩ Ph . From this and (3.1) we obtain (i), (ii)
provided that ΛL ∩ P = ∅.
Remark 3.1. Let 0 < γ ≤ γ and Φ(τ ) ≤ γ for some τ ∈ S. Then Φ(τh ) ≤ γ ∀h > 0, where τh = rh τ . The last
inequality is equivalent to Φ τh | ≤ γ ∀h > 0 ∀ ∈ Th , i.e. τh ∈ Ph ∀h > 0. If γ < γ then τh ∈ int Ph ∀h > 0.

Now, let us comment in brief upon the satisfaction of (iii). Let us suppose that the system K0,h , h → 0+, is dense in
K0 :
∀v ∈ K0 ∃{vh }, vh ∈ K0,h : vh → v in V as h → 0 + . (3.2)
Then (iii) is satisfied. Indeed, let τh τ in S, τh ∈ ΛhL . Then letting h → 0+ in
τh , ε(vh ) ≥ L(vh ) ∀vh ∈ K0,h
and using (3.2) we immediately see that
τ, ε(v) ≥ L(v) ∀v ∈ K0 ,
i.e. τ ∈ ΛL .
Corollary 3.1. Let Vh and Sh be as above. Then from the previous results it follows: if ΛL ∩ P = ∅ then
(a) ΛhL ∩ Ph = ∅ ∀h > 0,

(b) there exist bounded sequences in h> 0 ΛhL ∩ Ph , i.e.
∃c = const > 0, ∃{τh }, τh ∈ ΛhL ∩ Ph : τh 0 ≤ c ∀h > 0.

On the contrary, if (a), (b) and (3.2) are satisfied then ΛL ∩ P = ∅.

Remark 3.2. A possible way how to verify (3.2) is to prove that a set of sufficiently smooth functions from K0 is dense
in K0 . For d = 2 it was shown in [14] that if there exists a finite number of points in Γc ∩ Γf and Γf ∩ Γu then the set
1 2
(C ∞ (Ω ))2 × (C ∞ (Ω ))2 ∩ K0 is dense in K0 . With this result at hand, (3.2) easily follows.
j
Remark 3.3. If Ωj , j = 1, 2 are domains with curved boundaries then the partitions Thj of Ω contain also curved ele-
ments along curved parts of the boundaries. Although the convergence hypothesis (i) − −(iii) remain the same, especially
the verification of (iii) is more involved. For the planar case we refer to [14], where this analysis is done.
To define a discretization of the primal formulation (P) we shall follow the same lines as in the continuous setting. The
discretized primal formulation (in terms of displacements) of a frictionless contact problem with Hencky’s law of plasticity
reads as follows: find uh ∈ K0,h such that

Jh (uh ) = arg min Jh (vh ) := Ψh (ε(vh )) − L(vh ), vh ∈ K0,h , (P)h
where
1 2
Ψh (eh ) := sup {τh , eh − τh E }, eh ∈ Sh .
τ h ∈P h 2
Analogously to the continuous case it holds:
1 2
Ψh (eh ) = − Πh (Ceh ) + eh , Πh (Ceh ),
2 E
where Πh : Sh → Ph is the projection of Sh onto Ph with respect to the scalar product (·, ·)E .
Remark 3.4. Notice that the inner energy functional Ψh depends on the discretization parameter h, in general. If the
elasticity tensor C is constant in Ω (or piecewise constant over Th1 ∪ Th2 ) then Πh (eh ) = Π(eh ) ∀eh ∈ Sh implying that
Ψh (eh ) = Ψ(eh ) ∀eh ∈ Sh , i.e. Ψh is the restriction of Ψ on Sh .
Contrary to the continuous setting of the primal problem in which the existence of a solution on K0 is not guaranteed,
the situation in the discrete case is much simpler. In particular, it has been shown that if ΛhL ∩ int Ph = ∅ then a solution of
(P)h on K0,h exists (see [10] for classical boundary conditions, [17] for unilateral conditions or the general result in [22]).
Here, solvability of (P)h will be analysed in more details in Sects. 4 and 5 for the von Mises yield criterion.
4 Useful results for the von Mises criterion

The aim of this section is to introduce pointwise and functional notation corresponding to the von Mises criterion and to
derive some basic properties of the investigated functions. These results will be used in the next section and also in PART
II [4].
The von Mises criterion is classical and one of the simplest plastic criteria. It is mentioned and investigated in engineering
and mathematical literature, see e.g. [7, 13, 27].
From now on we shall consider a 3D problem with the elasticity tensor C which characterizes a homogeneous isotropic
material and Φ : Rσ → R corresponding to the von Mises criterion of plasticity:
τ = Ce ⇔ τ = λ tr(e) δ + 2μe = (3λ + 2μ)tr(e) δ + 2μeD , e, τ ∈ Rσ , (4.1)

√ √
Φ(τ ) = τ D : τ D = 2μ eD : eD , τ ∈ Rσ , τ = Ce, (4.2)
where δ is the (3 × 3) identity matrix, tr(e) = eii is the trace of e and λ, μ are positive constants representing Lamé’s
coefficients. Further, τ D = τijD , where τ D = τ − 1/3 tr(τ )δ is the deviatoric part of τ . The last equality for Φ in (4.2)
follows from the fact that (Ce)D = 2μeD .
In accordance with Remark 3.4, the projection Πh of S on Ph is done by the restriction of Π on Sh . Since Ψh = Ψ|S h ,
Jh = J|S h , one can skip the index h and write simply Ψ, and J, in (P)h too and the same for other mappings which are
defined by means of Π. We also omit the index h at functions belonging to Vh and Sh . Thus we shall write v ∈ Vh , τ ∈ Sh
instead of vh ∈ Vh , and τh ∈ Sh , respectively.
The pointwise and functional representations of the stress-strain operator are following:
Σσ : Rσ → Rσ , Σσ := ΠB ◦ C (4.3)
and
Σ : S → S, Σ := Π ◦ C, (4.4)
respectively. We have (see also [10]):

⎧ √
⎨ Ce − 2μ eD : eD − γ n̂(e), e ∈ Rσ , eD = 0,
Σσ (e) = + (4.5)
⎩ Ce, e ∈ Rσ , eD = 0,
where
eD
n̂(e) := √ , e ∈ Rσ , eD = 0, (4.6)
eD : eD
and a+ denotes the positive part of a. Notice that
1 √
Σσ (e) = (3λ + 2μ)tr(e)δ + γ n̂(e) ∀e ∈ Rσ , 2μ eD : eD ≥ γ (4.7)
3
and Σσ (e) : e > 0 for any e ∈ Rσ \ {0}. It is known that Σσ and consequently Σ is Lipschitz continuous, monotone and
potential on Rσ , and Sh , respectively. These properties are typical for projective mappings. For more details, we refer to
e.g. [26]. A potential, denoted as Ψσ , to the function Σσ is given by
√ 2
1 2 γ
Ψσ (e) := (3λ + 2μ)(tr(e)) + μ e : e − D D
eD : eD − , (4.8)
6 2μ +
i.e. Σσ (e) = DΨσ (e) ∀e ∈ Rσ (recall that D stands for the Fréchet derivative of functions). It can be easily verified that
Ψσ is nonnegative and

√ γ2 1 1
Ψσ (e) ≥ γ e : e − + ∀e ∈ Rσ . (4.9)
2 2μ 3λ + 2μ
The functional Ψ introduced in Sect. 2 can be equivalently written in the form

1 2
Ψ(e) = − Σ(e) E + e, Σ(e) = Ψσ (e(x)) dx ∀e ∈ S. (4.10)
2 Ω
Ψ is the potential functional to Σ, i.e. DΨ(e; ξ) = Σ(e), ξ ∀e, ξ ∈ S. From (4.9) it follows that

γ |Ω| 2 1 1
Ψ(ε(v)) ≥ ε(v) L 1 (Ω) − γ + ∀v ∈ V, (4.11)
9 2 2μ 3λ + 2μ
3
where ε(v) L 1 (Ω) := i,j =1 εij (v) L 1 (Ω) . Next, we restrict ourselves to functions v ∈ Vh . Using that Γ1u , Γ2u are non-
empty and open in ∂Ω and Vh is finite-dimensional, we obtain from (4.11) that there exist positive constants c1 := c1 (h)
and c2 such that
Ψ(ε(v)) ≥ c1 |||v||| − c2 ∀v ∈ Vh , (4.12)
|Ω| 2 1 1
where c2 = 2 γ 2μ + 3λ+2μ is the constant from (4.11) and
|||v||| := Cε(v) E ∀v ∈ V. (4.13)

√
It is well-known that the function Σσ is non-differentiable on the set BI := {e ∈ Rσ | 2μ eD : eD = γ}, i.e. on the
elasto-plastic interface. Out of this set, the Fréchet derivative of Σσ is given by
√
C, 2μ eD : eD < γ,
DΣσ (e) = √ (4.14)
C − Cp,σ (e), 2μ eD : eD > γ,

where
γ
Cp,σ (e) := 2μID − √ (ID − n̂(e) ⊗ n̂(e)) , e ∈ Rσ . (4.15)
eD : eD
Here ID is the fourth order tensor representing the deviatoric part, i.e. ID e = eD , e ∈ Rσ , and ⊗ denotes the tensor
product. Notice that
1
Cη : η = (3λ + 2μ)(tr(η))2 + 2μη D : η D ∀η ∈ Rσ , (4.16)
3
γ
Cp,σ (e)η : η = 2μη D : η D − √ η D : η D − (n̂(eD ) : η D )2 ∀η, e ∈ Rσ . (4.17)
eD : eD
An easy computation yields
√
0 ≤ Cp,σ (e)η : η ≤ 2μη D : η D ∀e, η ∈ Rσ , 2μ eD : eD ≥ γ. (4.18)
Since Σσ is Lipschitz continuous, one can define the generalized derivative ∂Σσ (e) of Σσ at e ∈ Rσ in the sense of Clark
(see [6]). It holds
⎧ √
⎪
⎨ {C}, 2μ eD : eD < γ,
√
∂Σσ (e) = {C − ρCp,σ (e) | ρ ∈ [0, 1]}, 2μ eD : eD = γ, (4.19)
⎪
⎩ √
{C − Cp,σ (e)}, 2μ eD : eD > γ.
Let us define the function Σoσ : Rσ → L(Rσ , Rσ ) as follows:

√
C, 2μ eD : eD < γ,
Σσ (e) :=
o √ (4.20)
C − Cp,σ (e), 2μ eD : eD ≥ γ,
where L(Rσ , Rσ ) denotes the space of continuous linear mappings from Rσ to Rσ . It is easy to see that Σoσ (e) ∈ ∂Σσ (e)
for any e ∈ Rσ . Moreover, the following estimate holds:
0 ≤ Σoσ (e)η : η ≤ V (e)η : η ∀V (e) ∈ ∂Σσ (e), ∀e, η ∈ Rσ , (4.21)
making use of (4.16)-(4.20). Let e, η ∈ Rσ be given. Then the function q(Θ) := Σσ (e + Θη) : η, Θ ∈ R, is Lipschitz
continuous in R, continously differentiable apart at most two different points Θ1 , Θ2 ∈ R and q (Θ) = Σoσ (e + Θη) : η for
1
any Θ = Θ1 , Θ2 . Using that q(1) − q(0) = 0 q (Θ) dΘ, we obtain
1
Σσ (e + η) : η − Σσ (e) : η = Σoσ (e + Θη) : η dΘ ∀e, η ∈ Rσ . (4.22)
0
Further, the function Σσ is directionally differentiable for any e, η ∈ Rσ . In particular, for any e ∈ BI and any η ∈ Rσ , it
holds (see also [2]):

1 Cη, if n̂(e) : η ≤ 0,
Σσ (e; η) := lim [Σσ (e + βη) − Σσ (e)] = (4.23)
β →0 + β (C − Cp,σ (e))η, if n̂(eD ) : η ≥ 0.
(Notice that Cp,σ (e)η = 0 for e ∈ BI and n̂(eD ) : η = 0 as follows from (4.15)). Hence and from (4.14),
Σσ (e; η) : η ≥ Σoσ (e)η : η ∀e, η ∈ Rσ . (4.24)
The corresponding functional representation of the pointwise operator Σoσ will be denoted as Σo . Using (4.22) and
(4.24), we see that (see also [25])
1
Σ(ε(v + w)) − Σ(ε(v)), ε(w) = Σo (ε(v + Θw))ε(w), ε(w) dΘ, (4.25)
0
1
lim Σ(ε(v + βw)) − Σ(ε(v)), ε(w) ≥ Σo (ε(v))ε(w), ε(w) (4.26)
β →0 + β
for any v, w ∈ Vh .
We conclude this section with the following auxilliary result which will be useful for characterising the solution set of
(P)h in the case of the von Mises criterion. To this end, we denote for any given v ∈ Vh ,

The (v) := { ∈ Th | 2μ εD (v)| : εD (v)| < γ}, (4.27)

Thp (v) := { ∈ Th | 2μ εD (v)| : εD (v)| ≥ γ}. (4.28)
Lemma 4.1. Let us suppose that there exist v, w ∈ Vh such that
Σ(ε(v + βw)) = Σ(ε(v)) ∀β ∈ [0, 1]. (4.29)
Then
ε(w)| = 0 ∀ ∈ The (v) (4.30)
and
γ
∀ ∈ Thp (v) ∃ν ∈ R, ν ≥ −1: ε(w)| = ν εD (v)| . (4.31)
2μ ε (v)| : εD (v)|
D
Conversely, if there exists a pair (v, w) ∈ Vh × Vh satisfying (4.30) and (4.31) then
Σ(ε(v + βw)) = Σ(ε(v)) ∀β ∈ I, (4.32)
where

γ
I := I(v, w) = β ∈ R | 1 + βν ≥ p
∀ ∈ Th (v) . (4.33)
2μ εD (v)| : εD (v)|
In addition, I contains the interval [0, 1].

P r o o f. Let (4.29) be satisfied, i.e.
Σσ (ε(v + βw)| ) = Σσ (ε(v)| ) ∀β ∈ [0, 1], ∀ ∈ Th . (4.34)
First we show that (4.34) entails
The (v + βw) = The (v) and Thp (v + βw) = Thp (v) (4.35)
for any β ∈ [0, 1]. Clearly it is sufficient to prove the former relation.
Let ∈ The (v). Then ∈ The (v + βw) for any β > 0 small enough. From (4.5) and (4.34) we obtain ε(w)| = 0.
Thus The (v) ⊂ The (v + βw) for any β ∈ [0, 1]. To prove the opposite inclusion suppose that ∈ The (v + β̄w) for some
β̄ ∈ [0, 1]. Then ∈ The (v + βw) for any β ∈ [0, 1] sufficiently close to β̄ and Σσ (ε(v + βw)| ) = Σσ (ε(v + β̄w)| ) as
follows from (4.34). Hence ε(w)| = 0 again and consequently The (v + βw) ⊂ The (v). At the same time we proved (4.30).
Let ∈ Thp (v). From (4.7), (4.34), and (4.35) we have:
tr(ε(w)| ) = 0, n̂(ε(v + βw)| ) = n̂(ε(v)| ) ∀β ∈ [0, 1]. (4.36)
The former equality in (4.36) implies ε(w| ) = εD (w| ) and the latter one says that εD (w| ) is a multiple of εD (v| ),
i.e. there exists ν ∈ R such that εD (w)| = ν εD (v)| and, in addition 1 + βν > 0. In fact, one can obtain a sharper
estimate of ν . Indeed, from the definition Thp (v) and (4.35) we obtain:
γ
1 + βν ≥ ∀β ∈ [0, 1], ∀ ∈ Thp (v) (4.37)
2μ ε (v)| : εD (v)|
D
using the expression for ε(w)| on such . From (4.37) the lower band in (4.31) follows.
Conversely, let (v, w) ∈ Vh × Vh satisfy (4.30), (4.31) and I be defined by (4.33). If ∈ The (v), then ∈ The (v + βw)
for any β ∈ R, so that (4.34) holds for all ∈ The (v), as follows from (4.5).
Let ∈ Thp (v). Then by assumption ε(w)| = ν εD (v)| so that

2μ εD (v + βw)| : εD (v + βw)| = 2μ(1 + βν ) εD (v)| : εD (v)| ≥ γ

for any β ∈ I as follows from (4.33). Hence ∈ Thp (v + βw) for any β ∈ I. Since
tr(ε(w)| ) = 0, n̂(ε(v + βw)| ) = n̂(ε(v)| )
the equality in (4.34) holds for all ∈ Thp (v). The fact that I contains [0, 1] is a consequence of the lower estimate of ν
in (4.31).
Remark 4.1. From (4.33), one can observe that the boundedness of I depends on the sign of ν , ∈ Thp (v). Clearly
I is bounded if and only if there exist 1 , 2 ∈ Thp (v) such that ν1 > 0 and ν2 < 0. On the other hand, one has to
take into account that functions from Vh are continuous and thus the values of ν , ∈ Thp (v), representing w ∈ Vh are
probably mutually related. Therefore it is not clear whether ν may have different signs or not. This is an open question,
whose answer would be important for uniqueness analysis to (P)h , which will be partially discussed in the next section.
5 Dependence of (P)h on a loading path

In this section, we shall investigate how the solution set to (P)h , denoted as Kh in what follows, depends on the loading
parameter ζ. Moreover we give the characterization of elements of Kh in the case when (P)h has more than one solution. We
restrict ourselves to the von Mises criterion in 3D. We shall also study the dependence of ζ on a parameter α representing
the work of external forces. We prove that there is a relation between α and ζ. This enables us to construct a loading path
which coincides with the corresponding elastic branch for small values of ζ and assymptotically approaches the so-called
limit load as the parameter α tends to +∞. For given L, the loading path gives an information how far the load L is from
the limit load or how much the material response differs from the corresponding elastic one.
The results of this section are important for better understanding of the investigated model and will be useful for the
convergence analysis of numerical methods presented in PART II [4].
Let us recall the definitions of the discrete dual and primal problem (P)∗h , and (P)h , respectively: find σ and u such that
1
S(σ) = arg min{S(τ ) := τ 2E , τ ∈ ΛhL ∩ Ph },
2

J(u) = arg min J(v) := Ψ(ε(v)) − L(v), v ∈ K0,h .
Since we consider the von Mises criterion, the inner energy functional Ψ enjoys all properties listed in the previous section.
The convex set K0,h ⊂ Vh (recall that g = 0 on Γ1c ) has the cone property, i.e.
v ∈ K0,h iff βv ∈ K0,h , ∀β ≥ 0. (5.1)
Therefore problem (P)h can be equivalently written as:

Σ(ε(u)), ε(v) ≥ L(v) ∀v ∈ K0,h ,
find u ∈ K0,h : (5.2)
Σ(ε(u)), ε(u) = L(u).
We start with two auxilliary results.

Lemma 5.1. The functional J is coercive on K0,h if and only if the solution set Kh to (P)h is nonempty and bounded
in Vh . Moreover there exist constants c1 := c1 (h) > 0 and c2 := c2 (h) ∈ R such that
J(v) ≥ c1 |||v||| + c2 ∀v ∈ K0,h . (5.3)
P r o o f. If J is coercive on K0,h , then clearly Kh is nonempty, convex and bounded.

On the contrary, let Kh be nonempty, bounded and Πs be the projection of Vh onto Kh with respect to the scalar product
in V which induces the norm (4.13). Since Kh is bounded and Vh is finite dimensional, then for any r > 0 there exists a
positive constant c := c(h) > 0 such that
J(w) ≥ q + c (5.4)
holds for any w ∈ K0,h , |||w − Πs w||| = r, where q := q(h) = J(v) ∀v ∈ Kh .

Let r > 0 be fixed, v ∈ K0,h , |||v − Πs v||| ≥ r, and set w = Πs v + β(v − Πs v) with β = r|||v − Πs v|||−1 ∈ (0, 1]. Then
w ∈ K0,h , Πs w = Πs v and |||w − Πs w||| = r. By using the convexity of J and (5.4),
1 c
J(v) ≥ J(Πs v) + (J(w) − J(Πs w)) ≥ q +
β β
c c
≥ |||v||| − |||Πs v||| + q
r r
holds for any v ∈ K0,h , |||v − Πs v||| ≥ r. From this and the boundedness of Kh the lower bound (5.3) follows.
Notice that this result holds for general convex functionals defined on finite-dimensional spaces.
The second auxilliary result follows from the duality between (P)h and (P)∗h (see [9]).
Lemma 5.2. If
ΛhL ∩ Ph = ∅ (5.5)
then
inf J(v) = −S(σ) > −∞, (5.6)
v ∈K 0 , h
where σ is the unique solution to (P)∗h . Otherwise

inf J(v) = −∞. (5.7)
v ∈K 0 , h
Remark 5.1. Analogous to the continuous setting, the following relations between (P)h and (P)∗h hold: If u ∈ K0,h
solves (P)h then σ = Σε(u) is a unique solution to (P)∗h .
In Sect. 3 we mentioned the condition
ΛhL ∩ int Ph = ∅ (5.8)
ensuring the existence of a solution to (P)h . In fact, (5.8) implies that J is coercive on Vh , see e.g. [11, 27]. Thus the
solution set Kh is non-empty and bounded by Lemma 5.1 . As we will see, (5.8) is even a necessary condition for Kh to be
non-empty and bounded.
Notice that it is not simple to verify whether (5.5) and (5.8) are satisfied or not. Therefore it is useful to introduce the
so-called loading parameter ζ ≥ 0, see e.g. [27] and references therein. By means of ζ we will modify problems (P)h and
(P)∗h : instead of L, we will consider the load ζL. Up to now ζ = 1. To emphasize the dependence of (P)h and (P)∗h on ζ,
we will write (P)h,ζ , (P)∗h,ζ , ΛhζL , Jζ , and Kh,ζ instead of (P)h , (P)∗h , ΛhL , J and Kh , respectively, in what follows. Let
us note that the previous results, in particular Lemma 5.1 and 5.2, hold for any ζ ≥ 0.
The following result indicates why it is useful to introduce the parameter ζ. It is a direct consequence of the definition
of the sets ΛhζL and Ph .
Lemma 5.3. Let ζ > 0 be given. If ΛhζL ∩ Ph = ∅, then
Λhζ L ∩ int Ph = ∅ ∀ζ ∈ [0, ζ). (5.9)
If ΛhζL ∩ int Ph = ∅, then there exists > 0 such that
Λhζ L ∩ int Ph = ∅ ∀ζ ∈ [0, ζ + ]. (5.10)
Remark 5.2. Notice that for sufficiently small ζ > 0 problem (P)h,ζ has a unique solution uζ ∈ K0,h which also
solves the corresponding contact problem for elastic bodies (i.e. γ = +∞ in (4.5)). Thus σζ = Σ(ε(uζ )) ∈ ΛhζL ∩ Ph = ∅
making use of Remark 5.1.
On the basis of Lemma 5.3 and Remark 5.2, one can define the limit load parameter ζlim := ζlim (h) > 0 (possibly
ζlim = +∞) by
ζlim := sup{ζ ≥ 0 : ΛhζL ∩ Ph = ∅}. (5.11)
From Lemma 5.3, it follows:
ΛhζL ∩ int Ph = ∅ ∀ζ ∈ [0, ζlim ) (5.12)
and if ζlim < +∞ then
Λhζl i m L ∩ Ph = ∅ and Λhζl i m L ∩ int Ph = ∅. (5.13)

Remark 5.3. In case of classical boundary conditions, it is known that ζlim = +∞ if we prescribe the Dirichlet
boundary condition on the whole boundary, see [21]. Moreover, in Part II [4], we will derive a sufficient and necessary
condition to ζlim be finite. The parameter ζlim is meaningful even in the continuous formulation of the problem (see
e.g. [27]) and the determination of ζlim is important from the mechanical point of view in many applications. Let ζlim ,ex
denote the limit load for the continuous setting of our problem. Then the limit load ζlim of the discrete problem is its upper
bound, i.e. ζlim ,ex ≤ ζlim as follows from (a) of Corollary 3.1. Observe that this property of ζlim does not depend on the
dimension of Vh and Sh . It is known that in the case of classical boundary conditions ζlim ,ex is the saddle point of the
bilinear form τ, ε(v) for τ ∈ Ph (with additional regularity assumption on τ ) and v ∈ V with the additional normality
condition L(v) = 1. An appropriate discretization of this formulation enables us to obtain two-sided bounds for ζlim ,ex
(see [5]). From the computational point of view, we also refer [3]. A typical approach used in structural mechanics is to
succesively enlarge ζ to estimate ζlim [16]. We propose another way how to parametrize and evaluate the loading path for
a model example in the last part of this section.
Now we will investigate the solvability of (P)h,ζ and some properties of the solution set Kh,ζ with respect to ζ.
Theorem 5.1. The solution set Kh,ζ is nonempty and bounded if and only if ζ < ζlim .
P r o o f. Let the solution set Kh,ζ of (P)h,ζ be bounded and nonempty. Then by Lemma 5.1, there exist constants
c1 > 0 and c2 ∈ R such that
Jζ (v) ≥ c1 |||v||| + c2 ∀v ∈ K0,h .

−1
If ∈ (0, c1 L ∗ ), where . ∗ denotes the norm in the dual space to V, then
Jζ + (v) = Jζ (v) − L(v) ≥ (c1 − L ∗ )|||v||| + c2 ∀v ∈ K0,h ,
so that (P)h,ζ + and (P)∗h,ζ + have a solution by Lemma 5.1 and Remark 5.1, respectively. It means that Λh(ζ +)L ∩Ph = ∅.
From Lemma 5.3 it follows that ΛhζL ∩ int Ph = ∅ so that ζ < ζlim making use of (5.11)–(5.13).
Conversely, let ζ < ζlim . By Lemma 5.1, it is sufficient to show that Jζ is coercive on K0,h . Let {vk }k ⊂ K0,h ,
|||vk ||| → +∞ as k → +∞.
First suppose that L(vk ) → +∞ as k → +∞. From (5.12) and Lemma 5.3 we know that Λh(ζ +)L ∩ Ph = ∅ for
sufficiently small > 0. Then
Jζ (vk ) = Jζ + (vk ) + L(vk ) → +∞ as k → +∞
using that {Jζ + (vk )} is bounded from below as follows from (5.6).
If the sequence {L(vk )}k is bounded from above then the coercivity of Jζ on K0,h follows from (4.12).
A little bit different proof of this second implication can be found e.g. in [11, 27].
Theorem 5.1 has the following consequence.
Corollary 5.1. If the limit load parameter ζlim is finite and (P)h,ζ l i m still has a solution, then the solution set Kh,ζ l i m is
unbounded.
A necessary and sufficient condition for Kh,ζ l i m to be nonempty, ζlim < +∞, will be derived later, see Lemma 5.8. Now
we will study the structure of solutions to (P)h,ζ . On the basis of this analysis, we will be able to formulate a sufficient
condition ensuring its uniqueness.
Theorem 5.2. Let ζ ≥ 0 be given and Kh,ζ = ∅. Then any element of Kh,ζ can be written in the form
uζ + w,
where uζ is a fixed element of Kh,ζ and w is any element of Vh satifying:
Σ(ε(uζ )), ε(w) = ζL(w), (5.14)
uζ + w ∈ K0,h , (5.15)
ε(w)| = 0 ∀ ∈ The (uζ ) (5.16)
and
γ
∀ ∈ Thp (uζ ) ∃ν ∈ R, ν ≥ −1: ε(w)| = ν εD (uζ )| , (5.17)
2μ ε (uζ )| : εD (uζ )|
D
where The (uζ ), Thp (uζ ) are defined by (4.27) and (4.28), respectively.
On the contrary, if uζ ∈ Kh,ζ and w ∈ Vh satisfies (5.14) – (5.17), then all functions of the form uζ + βw belong to
Kh,ζ for all β ∈ I, where

γ
I := β ∈ R | 1 + βν ≥ p
∀ ∈ Th (uζ ), uζ + βw ∈ K0,h . (5.18)
2μ εD (uζ )| : εD (uζ )|
In addition, I := I(uζ , w) contains the interval [0, 1].

P r o o f. If Kh,ζ is a singleton, then (5.14)–(5.17) are satisfied with w = 0 and I = R.
Let uζ , ũζ be two different elements of Kh,ζ . Since Kh,ζ is convex, the segment uζ + β(ũζ − uζ ) ∈ Kh,ζ , β ∈ [0, 1].
Next, we show that w := ũζ − uζ satisfies (5.14) – (5.17). Due to Remark 5.1 we have
Σ(ε(uζ + βw)) = Σ(ε(uζ )) = σζ ∀β ∈ [0, 1], (5.19)
where σζ is the unique solution of (P)∗h,ζ . From this and (5.2)2 ,
ζL(w) = ζL(uζ + w) − ζL(uζ )

= Σ(ε(uζ + w)), ε(uζ + w) − Σ(ε(uζ )), ε(uζ )
= Σ(ε(uζ )), ε(w).
Hence (5.14) is satisfied. Further, (5.15) follows directly from the assumption ũζ ∈ Kh,ζ and (5.16), (5.17) are conse-
quences of Lemma 4.1.
Let uζ ∈ Kh,ζ and w ∈ Vh satisfy (5.14)–(5.17) and I be defined by (5.18). It is readily seen that I contains [0, 1]. By
Lemma 4.1,
Σ(ε(uζ + βw)) = Σ(ε(uζ )) = σζ ∀β ∈ I. (5.20)
Hence
(5.20) (5.2)
Σ(ε(uζ + βw)), ε(v) = Σ(ε(uζ ), ε(v) ≥ ζL(v) ∀v ∈ K0,h
and
(5.20)
Σ(ε(uζ + βw)), ε(uζ + βw)) = Σ(ε(uζ )), ε(uζ + βw))
(5.14)
= ζL(uζ + βw).
This is equivalent to uζ + βw ∈ Kh,ζ for any β ∈ I as follows from (5.2) and (5.15).
Corollary 5.2. Let ζ > 0 be given and uζ ∈ Kh,ζ . If there exists w ∈ K0,h , w = 0 that satisfies
Σ(ε(uζ )), ε(w) = ζL(w) (5.21)
and
ε(w)| = 0 ∀ ∈ The (uζ ),

(5.22)
∀ ∈ Thp (uζ ) ∃ν ≥ 0 : ε(w)| = ν εD (uζ )| ,
then functions uζ + βw belong to Kh,ζ for any β ≥ 0. In addition,
L(w) > 0. (5.23)
P r o o f. Let w ∈ K0,h , w = 0, satisfy (5.21) and (5.22). Then w also satisfies (5.14)–(5.17) and I defined by (5.18)
contains the interval [0, +∞). Therefore by Theorem 5.2, all functions uζ + βw ∈ Kh,ζ for any β ≥ 0. It remains to prove
(5.23):

(5.21)
ζL(w) = Σ(ε(uζ )), ε(w)
(5.22) 1
= || Σσ (ε(uζ | )) : ε(w| )
∈Thp (u ζ )

(4.7) 1
= || (3λ + 2μ)tr(ε(uζ | ))tr(ε(w| ))
3
∈Thp (u ζ )

(ε(uζ )| )D
+γ : ε (w| )
D
(ε(uζ )| )D : (ε(uζ )| )D

(5.22)
= || γν (ε(uζ )| )D : (ε(uζ )| )D > 0.
∈Thp (u ζ )
Positiveness of the last term is due to the fact that all ν ≥ 0 and at least one ν is positive.
Corollary 5.3. Let ζ > 0 be given and uζ ∈ Kh,ζ . Then the following statements are equivalent:
(i) Kh,ζ is unbounded.

(ii) ζ = ζlim is the limit load parameter.
(iii) There exists w ∈ K0,h , w = 0, satisfying (5.21) and (5.22), such that uζ + βw ∈ Kh,ζ for any β ≥ 0.
P r o o f. The equivalence between (i) and (ii) follows from Corollary 5.1. Let uζ ∈ Kh,ζ and Kh,ζ be unbounded, i.e.
(i) hold. As Kh,ζ is convex, there exists w ∈ Vh , w = 0 such that uζ + βw ∈ Kh,ζ for any β ≥ 0 implying w ∈ K0,h . In
particular, uζ + w ∈ Kh,ζ , so that w satisfies (5.14)–(5.17) by Theorem 5.2. Since I defined by (5.18) contains [0, +∞),
we know from Remark 4.1 that ν ≥ 0 for any ∈ Thp (uζ ). Therefore (iii) holds. Conversely, (iii) implies (i).
The following sufficient condition ensuring the uniqueness of the solution to (P)h , which will be useful in PART II [4],
is another consequence of Theorem 5.2.
Corollary 5.4. Let 0 ≤ ζ < ζlim , uζ ∈ Kh,ζ and
Σo (ε(uζ ))ε(v), ε(v) > 0 ∀v ∈ Vh , v = 0. (5.24)
Then Kh,ζ is singleton.

P r o o f. Suppose that (P)h,ζ has more than one solution. Then there exists w ∈ Vh such that (5.19) is satisfied and
consequently
Σo (ε(uζ ))ε(w), ε(w) = 0
as follows from (4.26).

Up to now, the solvability of (P)h,ζ has been analysed in terms of the loading parameter ζ. For a better description
or characterization of the loading process, we will study the relation between ζ and the functional L(uζ ) representing the
work of external forces, where uζ ∈ Kh,ζ . The mapping ζ → α := L(uζ ) is multivalued in general since Kh,ζ need not
be singleton. On the other hand, we will prove that the inverse mapping α → ζ is singlevalued and defined for any α ≥ 0
provided that the load does not produce a trivial solution.
To exclude 0 ∈ Kh,ζ , ζ > 0, we prove the following result.
Lemma 5.4. Let 0 ∈ Kh,ζ for some ζ > 0. Then
L(v) ≤ 0 ∀v ∈ K0,h . (5.25)
Conversely, let (5.25) hold. Then 0 ∈ Kh,ζ for any ζ > 0. Moreover, if 0 ∈ Kh,ζ then there is no other solution, i.e.
Kh,ζ = {0}.
P r o o f. If 0 ∈ Kh,ζ for some ζ > 0, then (5.25) follows from (5.2)1 . Consequently, Jζ (v) ≥ 0 for any v ∈ K0,h and
any ζ ≥ 0. Hence 0 ∈ Kh,ζ as Jζ (0) = 0 for any ζ ≥ 0. Since Σo (0) = C (see (4.20)), 0 is the unique solution of (P)h,ζ
owing to (5.24).
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the load L satisfies:

∃z ∈ K0,h : L(z) > 0. (5.26)
We start with an elementary but very useful result.
Lemma 5.5. Let 0 ≤ ζ1 < ζ2 ≤ ζlim , ζ2 < +∞, and Kh,ζ 2 = ∅. Then
0 ≤ L(uζ 1 ) ≤ L(uζ 2 ) ∀uζ 1 ∈ Kh,ζ 1 , ∀uζ 2 ∈ Kh,ζ 2 . (5.27)
Moreover if the load assumption (5.26) holds then
L(uζ 1 ) < L(uζ 2 ) ∀uζ 1 ∈ Kh,ζ 1 , ∀uζ 2 ∈ Kh,ζ 2 . (5.28)
P r o o f. Clearly L(uζ ) ≥ 0 ∀uζ ∈ Kh,ζ and ∀ζ ≥ 0 such that Kh,ζ = ∅ as follows from (5.2)2 . From the definition of
Kh,ζ i , i = 1, 2, we have:
Jζ 1 (uζ 2 ) − (ζ2 − ζ1 )L(uζ 2 ) = Jζ 2 (uζ 2 ) ≤ Jζ 2 (uζ 1 )
= Jζ 1 (uζ 1 ) − (ζ2 − ζ1 )L(uζ 1 )
≤ Jζ 1 (uζ 2 ) − (ζ2 − ζ1 )L(uζ 1 ). (5.29)
From this we obtain (5.27).
Let (5.26) be satisfied and suppose that the equality holds in (5.27). Then the equalities hold also in (5.29) so that
Jζ i (uζ 2 ) = Jζ i (uζ 1 ), i = 1, 2. Hence uζ 1 ∈ Kh,ζ 2 and uζ 2 ∈ Kh,ζ 1 . Let i ∈ 1, 2 be fixed. Since uζ i ∈ Kh,ζ j , j = 1, 2,
(5.2)2 implies
Σ(ε(uζ i )), ε(uζ i ) = ζ1 L(uζ i ) = ζ2 L(uζ i )
and consequently
L(uζ 1 ) = L(uζ 2 ) = 0
using that ζ1 < ζ2 . Hence uζ j = 0 so that Kh,ζ j = {0}, j = 1, 2. However this is a contradiction to (5.26) as follows from
Lemma 5.4.
Now we will show that Kh,ζ is uniformly bounded with respect to ζ and consequences of this property which will be
used in what follows.
Lemma 5.6. Let ζ ∈ (0, ζlim ). Then there exists a positive constant c := c(ζ) such that
|||uζ ||| ≤ c ∀0 ≤ ζ ≤ ζ, ∀uζ ∈ Kh,ζ . (5.30)
P r o o f. From Theorem 5.1 we know that Kh,ζ is nonempty and bounded for any ζ ≤ ζ. Further
(5.2) 2 (5.27)
Σ(ε(uζ )), ε(uζ ) = ζ L(uζ ) ≤ ζL(uζ )
= Σ(ε(uζ )), ε(uζ ) ∀0 ≤ ζ ≤ ζ.
This together with (4.10) and (4.12) yield (5.30).
Lemma 5.7. Let ζ ∈ (0, ζlim ). Denote
αζ ,m in := min L(uζ ), αζ ,m ax := max L(uζ ).
u ζ ∈Kh , ζ u ζ ∈Kh , ζ
Then for any α ∈ [αζ ,m in , αζ ,m ax ] there exists uζ := uζ (α) ∈ Kh,ζ such that
L(uζ ) = α. (5.31)
In addition,
lim L(uζ ) = αζ ,m in ∀uζ ∈ Kh,ζ , (5.32)
ζ →ζ −
lim L(uζ ) = αζ ,m ax ∀uζ ∈ Kh,ζ . (5.33)

ζ →ζ +

P r o o f. Since Kh,ζ is a nonempty, convex and compact set, there exist uζ ,m in , uζ ,m ax ∈ Kh,ζ such that
L(uζ ,m in ) = αζ ,m in , L(uζ ,m ax ) = αζ ,m ax .
Clearly, the function

α − αζ ,m in
uζ (α) := uζ ,m in + (uζ ,m ax − uζ ,m in )
αζ ,m ax − αζ ,m in
belongs to Kh,ζ for any α ∈ [αζ ,m in , αζ ,m ax ] and satisfies (5.31) .

Owing to (5.30), any sequence {uζ }ζ , uζ ∈ Kh,ζ is bounded in a vicinity of ζ. It is readily seen from (5.2) that any
accumulation point of any such sequence is a solution to (P)h,ζ . From (5.27) we have
L(uζ ) ≤ L(uζ ,m in ) = αζ ,m in ∀ζ ∈ [0, ζ),

L(uζ ) ≥ L(uζ ,m ax ) = αζ ,m ax ∀ζ ∈ (ζ, ζlim ).
Therefore
αζ ,m in ≤ lim inf ζ →ζ − L(uζ ) ≤ lim supζ →ζ − L(uζ ) ≤ αζ ,m in ,

αζ ,m ax ≥ lim supζ →ζ + L(uζ ) ≥ lim inf ζ →ζ + L(uζ ) ≥ αζ ,m ax
proving (5.32) and (5.33).

Now we shall extend Lemma 5.6 and 5.7 to the case ζ = ζlim < +∞. We obtain the following necessary and sufficient
condition for the solvability of (P)h,ζ l i m .
Lemma 5.8. Let ζlim < +∞. Then Kh,ζ l i m = ∅ if and only if solutions of (P)h,ζ are uniformly bounded in Vh with
respect to ζ < ζlim , i.e.
∃c > 0 : |||uζ ||| ≤ c ∀0 ≤ ζ < ζlim , ∀uζ ∈ Kh,ζ . (5.34)
P r o o f. Let (5.34) hold. Then any accumulation point of {uζ }ζ , uζ ∈ Kh,ζ , ζ → ζlim − satisfies (5.2) and thus solves
(P)h,ζ l i m .
Conversely, let (P)h,ζ l i m has a solution uζ l i m . Suppose that (5.34) does not hold. Then there exist sequences {ζk },
{uζ k }k , uζ k ∈ Kh,ζ k , such that ζk → ζlim −, |||uζ k ||| → +∞ as k → +∞ and
(5.2)
ζk L(uζ k ) = Σ(ε(uζ k )), ε(uζ k )
(4.10) 1 2 (4.12)
= Ψ(ε(uζ k )) + Σ(ε(uζ k )) E → +∞ (5.35)
2
as k → +∞. On the other hand, from Lemma 5.5 with ζ1 = ζk , ζ2 = ζlim we infer that
(5.27) (5.35)
+∞ > L(uζ l i m ) ≥ L(uζ k ) → +∞ as k → +∞. (5.36)
Therefore (5.34) holds.

Lemma 5.9. Let ζlim < +∞ and Kh,ζ l i m = ∅. Then there exists uζ l i m ,m in ∈ Kh,ζ l i m such that
αζ l i m ,m in := L(uζ l i m ,m in ) ≤ L(uζ l i m ) ∀uζ l i m ∈ Kh,ζ l i m (5.37)
and
lim L(uζ ) = αζ l i m ,m in ∀uζ ∈ Kh,ζ . (5.38)

ζ →ζ l i m −
In addition, for any α ≥ αζ l i m ,m in there exists uζ l i m ∈ Kh,ζ l i m such that
L(uζ l i m ) = α. (5.39)
P r o o f. From Lemma 5.8 it follows that
∃c > 0 : |||uζ ||| ≤ c ∀0 ≤ ζ < ζlim , ∀uζ ∈ Kh,ζ .
Moreover,
L(uζ ) ≤ L(uζ l i m )
holds for any uζ ∈ Kh,ζ , uζ l i m ∈ Kh,ζ l i m and ζ ∈ [0, ζlim ) as follows from (5.27). From this we easily obtain:
inf L(uζ l i m ) ≤ lim inf L(uζ ) ≤ lim sup L(uζ ) ≤ inf L(uζ l i m )
u ζ l i m ∈Kh , ζ l i m ζ →ζ l i m − ζ →ζ l i m − u ζ l i m ∈Kh , ζ l i m
using that any accumulation point of {uζ }ζ , uζ ∈ Kh,ζ , ζ → ζlim −, belongs to Kh,ζ l i m . This proves (5.37) and (5.38).
Since Kh,ζ l i m is unbounded, we know from Corollary 5.2 and 5.3 that there exists w ∈ K0,h , w = 0 such that L(w) > 0
and uζ l i m ,m in + βw ∈ Kh,ζ l i m for any β ≥ 0. Therefore for any α ≥ αζ l i m ,m in we can set β = (α − αζ l i m ,m in )/L(w) and
uζ l i m = uζ l i m ,m in + βw satisfies (5.39).
Now we show that for any α ≥ 0 there exist: ζ ≥ 0 and uζ ∈ Kh,ζ such that L(uζ ) = α. To this end, we shall consider
the following three cases.
Lemma 5.10. Let the load assumption (5.26) hold and ζlim = +∞. Then
⎛ ⎞
"
L⎝ Kh,ζ ⎠ = [0, +∞). (5.40)
ζ ≥0
P r o o f. Clearly the set on the left of (5.40) is connected as follows from Lemma 5.7. It is sufficient to show that
lim L(uζ ) = +∞ (5.41)

ζ →+∞
holds for any {uζ }ζ , uζ ∈ Kh,ζ . To prove (5.41) we shall consider the corresponding contact problem for the elastic
material characterized by the same elasticity tensor C and the load L:
1
min Jζe (v) := |||v|||2 − ζL(v)
2
on K0,h for ζ ≥ 0. This problem has a unique solution ueζ , which satisfies
|||ueζ |||2 = ζL(ueζ ) and ueζ = ζue1 ∀ζ ≥ 0.
Since Jζ (v) ≤ Jζe (v) for any v ∈ Vh , as follows from (4.8), we have
1 1 1
−L(uζ ) ≤ Jζ (uζ ) ≤ Jζ (ueζ ) ≤ Jζe (ueζ )
ζ ζ ζ
1 e 2 ζ
=− |||u ||| = − |||ue1 |||2 → −∞ as ζ → +∞.
2ζ ζ 2
Here we use that |||ue1 ||| = 0 due to the assumption (5.26).

Lemma 5.11. Let ζlim < +∞ and Kh,ζ l i m = ∅. Then
⎛ ⎞
"
L⎝ Kh,ζ ⎠ = [0, +∞). (5.42)
ζ ≤ζ l i m
P r o o f. The result follows from Lemma 5.7 and 5.9.

Lemma 5.12. Let ζlim < +∞ and Kh,ζ l i m = ∅. Then

⎛ ⎞
"
L⎝ Kh,ζ ⎠ = [0, +∞). (5.43)
ζ < ζlim
P r o o f. From Lemma 5.8 we know that Kh,ζ are not uniformly bounded, i.e there exist {ζk }k , ζk → ζlim − and
{uζ k }k , uζ k ∈ Kh,ζ k such that
|||uζ k ||| → +∞ as k → +∞.
Therefore L(uζ k ) → +∞, k → +∞ as follows from (4.10), (4.12), and (5.2)2 . From this and Lemma 5.7 we arrive at
(5.43).
Now we can formulate the main result, which relates the load parameter ζ to the parameter α representing the work of
external forces.
Theorem 5.3. Let the load assumption (5.26) be satisfied. Then for any α ≥ 0 there exist: a unique ζ ≥ 0 and at least
one uζ ∈ Kh,ζ such that
L(uζ ) = α. (5.44)
P r o o f. The existence of ζ ≥ 0 and uζ ∈ Kh,ζ satisfying (5.44) follows from Lemma 5.10–5.12. The uniqueness of
ζ is a consequence of (5.28).
From Theorem 5.3 we see that there exists a correspondence between α and ζ. Properties of the function ζ : α → ζ(α),
α ∈ R1+ , are summarized in the following corollary.
Corollary 5.5. Let the function ζ : α → ζ(α), α ∈ R1+ , be defined by (5.44). Then ζ is continuous and nondecreasing
in R1+ . In addition, ζ is linear for α ≥ 0 small enough and ζ(α) → ζlim as α → +∞.
P r o o f. The function ζ is nondecreasing as follows from (5.28). To prove that ζ is continuous in R1+ we show that
from αn → α, n → +∞, αn , α ∈ R1+ it follows that ζn → ζ(α), n → +∞, where ζn := ζ(αn ). Indeed, from Theorem
5.3 we know that
∀αn ∈ R1+ ∃! ζn ≥ 0 ∃uζ n ∈ Kh,ζ n : αn = L(uζ n ).
Consequently,
L(uζ n ) → α as n → +∞ (5.45)
implying the boundedness of {ζn } and {uζ n }. One can pass to convergent subsequences: ∃ζ̃ ≥ 0 and uζ̃ ∈ Kh, ζ̃ such that
ζm → ζ̃, uζ m → uζ̃ , m → +∞.
This and (5.45) yield L(uζ̃ ) = α. Since such ζ̃ is unique, necessarily ζ̃ = ζ(α) and the whole sequence {ζn } tends to ζ(α).
The rest of the assertions is an easy consequence of Lemma 5.10–5.12 and Remark 5.2.
Remark 5.4. If there exist α1 , α2 , 0 < α1 < α2 , such that ζ(α) = const for any α ∈ [α1 , α2 ], then Kh,ζ is not a
singleton.
To illustrate the previous theoretical results we shall find the loading path for a simple example.
Let Ω1 and Ω2 be two (3000 × 1000 × 1000) blocks with the configuration seen in Fig. 1. Observe that Ω1 , Ω2 are fixed
along the left, and right lateral face, respectively. The contact zone occupies 80% of the area of the faces. The load L is
represented by the constant surface traction f = (0, 0, 100) acting on the upper face of Ω2 and corresponds to ζ = 1. The
small square in Fig. 2 corresponds to the work of external forces for the respective solution. The mesh Th contains 6 000
nodes and 18 434 tetrahedrons. Both bodies Ωi are made of the same elasto-perfectly
plastic material which is characterized
by the Young modulus E = 206 900, the Poisson ratio ν = 0.29 and γ = 450 2/3 representing the initial yield stress.
More details on numerical methods and the implementation will be done in PART II [4]. Convergence can be guaranteed
only provided that the problem (P)h,ζ has a unique solution for any ζ ∈ [0, ζlim ). Then instead of the function ζ from
Corollary 5.5 we use the inverse ζ → L(uζ ) ≡ α evaluated at different ζ’s. Increasing adaptively ζ, the value of L(uζ )
Fig. 1 Geometry of the problem. Fig. 2 Example of the loading path.
increases as well, which makes it possible to estimate ζlim . Under uniqueness assumption this function is continuous, i.e.,
a possible discontinuity at some ζ̃ indicates that Kh, ζ̃ is not a singleton.
The dot on the curve represents the end of the elastic branch and corresponds to ζel ≈ 0.5. On the other hand, we see
that the material response is rather elastic even for the prescribed L, corresponding to ζ = 1. The loading path significantly
deflects from the elastic branch for ζ > 1.2. The limit load parameter ζlim is probably larger than 1.5. Since the curve
between ζ and α seems to be strictly monotone and continuous, the solution set Kh,ζ is very likely a singleton for any
ζ < ζlim and Kh,ζ l i m = ∅.
Remark 5.5. Another way how to estimate ζlim , is to use the function ζ from Corollary 5.5. However, the process of
finding unique ζ(α) for given α > 0, is more involved from both the theoretical and computational point of view. It will be
presented in PART II of our paper [4].
6 Conclusion
The paper was mainly focused on discretized contact problems for elastic-perfectly plastic bodies. We slightly extended
existence results for the formulation in terms of displacements by analysing the solution set in dependence on the loading
parameter ζ. Moreover, we proposed and justified a new way how to get the loading path which is based on the mutual
relation between ζ and the parameter α representing the work of external forces of the system. The knowledge of the
loading path is useful from a mechanical point of view since it characterizes a gradual process of plastification of the
material. Moreover, it can detect possible nonuniqueness of the displacement field for some values of ζ. Of course, the
obtained results are valid also for elastic-perfectly plastic problems with classical boundary conditions.
The investigated model of plasticity has some limitations. First, it does not take into account the history of the loading
process. To get a more realistic model, one has to pass to a quasistatic formulation. On the other hand, a suitable time
discretization of the quasistatic problem leads to a sequence of static ones solved at each time level. Thus to each of
these problems the previous results can be utilized. Secondly, continuous, piecewise linear elements are inappropriate for
the discretization of the displacement field in plasticity since displacements need not to be continuous even if the load
parameter is below the limit load parameter ζlim . Despite this fact, it turns out that the proposed approach is efficient for
estimating the stress state and the limit load.
Acknowledgements This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund in the IT4Innovations Centre of Excel-
lence project (CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0070). The first and fourth authors (S.S. and M.C.) acknowledge the support of the project 13-18652S
(GA CR). The second author (J.H.) acknowledges the support of the project P201/12/0671 (GA CR). The authors would particularly
like to thank to S. Repin (St. Petersburg), J. Zeman and J. Kruis (Prague) for fruitfull discussions to the investigated topic. Number of
discussions with S. Repin were held in frames of scientific cooperation of the Czech and Russian academies of sciences – Institute of
Geonics AS CR and St. Petersburg Department of Steklov Institute of Mathematics.

References
[1] S. Bartels, A. Mielke, and T. Roubı́ček, Quasistatic small-strain plasticity in the limit of vanishing hardening and its numerical
approximation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 50(2), 951–976 (2012).
[2] R. Blaheta, Numerical Methods in Elasto-Plasticity, Documenta Geonica 1998 (PERES Publishers, Prague, 1999).
[3] A. Caboussat and R. Glowinski, Numerical solution of a variational problem arising in stress analysis: The vector case, Discrete
Contin. Dyn. Syst. 27, 1447–1472 (2010).
[4] M. Cermak, J. Haslinger, T. Kozubek, and S. Sysala, Discretization and numerical realization of contact problems for elastic-
perfectly plastic bodies. PART II – numerical realization, In preparation.
[5] E. Christiansen, Limit Analysis of Collapse States, in: Handbook of Numerical Analysis, Vol. IV, Part 2, edited by P. G. Ciarlet
and J. L. Lions (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 195–312.
[6] H. F. Clarke, Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis (Wiley, New York, 1983).
[7] E. A. de Souza Neto, D. Perić, and D. R. J. Owen, Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Application (Wiley, New
York, 2008).
[8] G. Duvaut and J. L. Lions, Inequalities in Mechanics and Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1976).
[9] I. Ekeland and R. Temam, Analyse Convexe et Problèmes Variationnels (Dunod, Gauthier Villars, Paris, 1974).
[10] M. Fortin and R. Glowinski, Augmented Lagrangian Methods, Applications to the Numerical Solution of Boundary Value Prob-
lems, Studies in Mathematics and its Applications 15 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983).
[11] M. Fuchs and S. Repin, A posteriori error estimates for the approximations of the stress in the Hencky plasticity problem, Numer.
Funct. Anal. Optim. 32, 610–640 (2011).
[12] R. Glowinski, J. L. Lions, and R. Trémolières, Numerical Analysis of Variational Inequalities (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981).
[13] W. Han and B. D. Reddy, Plasticity: Mathematical Theory and Numerical Analysis (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New
York, 1999).
[14] J. Haslinger and I. Hlaváček, Contact between elastic perfectly plastic bodies, Appl. Math. 27(1), 27–45 (1982).
[15] J. Haslinger, I. Hlaváček, and J. Nečas, Numerical Methods for Unilateral Problems in Solid Mechanics, in: Handbook of Numer-
ical Analysis, Vol. IV, Part 2, edited by P. G. Ciarlet and J. L. Lions (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 313–485.
[16] P. G. Hodge, Plastic Analysis of Structures (R. E. Krieger, Malabar, Florida, 1981).
[17] D. Janovská, Numerical Solution of Contact Problems (in Czech), Thésis, Department of Numerical Mathematics, Faculty of
Mathematics and Physics (Charles University, Prague, 1980).
[18] C. Johnson, Existence theorem for plasticity problem, J. Math. Pures Appl., IX. Sér. 26, 431–444 (1976).
[19] C. Johnson and R. Scott, A Finite Element Method for Problems in Perfect Plasticity Using Discontinuous Trial Functions, in:
Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Structural Mechanics, edited by W. Wunderlich, E. Stein, and K.-J. Bathe (Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1981), pp. 307–324.
[20] B. Mercier, Sur la Théorie et l’Analyse Numériques de Problèmes de Plasticité, Thésis (Université Paris VI, Paris, 1977).
[21] S. Repin and G. Seregin, Existence of a Weak Solution of the Minimax Problem Arising in Coulomb-Mohr Plasticity, Nonlinear
Evolution Equations, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. (2), 164 (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1995), pp. 189–220,
[22] R. T. Rockafellar, Convex Analysis (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1970).
[23] P. Suquet, Existence et Régularité des Solutions des Équations de la Plasticité Parfaite, These de 3e Cycle (Université de Paris VI,
Paris, 1978).
[24] P. Suquet, Existence et régularité des solutions des équations de la plasticité, CRAS (Paris), Ser. A 286, 1201–1204 (1978).
[25] S. Sysala, Application of a modified semismooth Newton method to some elasto-plastic problems, Math. Comput. Simul. 82,
2004–2021 (2012).
[26] S. Sysala, Properties and simplifications of constitutive time-discretized elastoplastic operators, Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 94, 233–
255 (2014).
[27] R. Temam, Mathematical Problems in Plasticity (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1985).

Z Angew Math Mech - 2013 - Sysala

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Z Angew Math Mech - 2013 - Sysala

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZAMM · Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 95, No. 4, 333 – 353 (2015) / DOI 10.1002/zamm.

Discretization and numerical realization of contact problems for

Key words Frictionless contact, elasto-perfect plasticity, limit analysis.

2 Formulation of the problem

Tt (σ) := T 1 (σ 1 ) − Tν (σ) · ν = 0 on Γ1c (2.4)

S = τ = (τij )di,j =1 : Ω → Rσ | τij ∈ L2 (Ω) ∀i, j ,

Next we shall suppose that cij k l ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∀i, j, k, l and

B = {τ ∈ Rσ | Φ(τ ) ≤ γ} , γ > 0 given.

σ(u(x)) = ΠB (x) (C(x)ε(u(x))) , x ∈ Ω, (2.5)

(Πτ )(x) = ΠB (x)τ (x) for a. a. x ∈ Ω, ∀τ ∈ S.

σ(u) = Π(Cε(u)) in Ω (2.6)

or equivalently in the form of the variational inequality

C −1 σ(u) − ε(u), τ − σ(u) ≥ 0 ∀τ ∈ P. (2.7)

ΛL = {τ ∈ S | τ, ε(v) ≥ L(v) ∀v ∈ K0 } ,

S(σ) = arg min {S(τ ), τ ∈ ΛL ∩ P } . (P)∗

making use of the definition of K0 . Hence σ ∈ ΛL ∩ P .

Let τ ∈ ΛL ∩ P . Since K = u0 + K0 it holds that u = u0 + w0 for an appropriate function w0 ∈ K0 . Hence

ε(u), τ − σ = ε(u0 ), τ − σ + ε(w0 ), τ − σ. (2.9)

Since w0 ∈ K0 and τ ∈ ΛL we have

ε(w0 ), τ  ≥ L(w0 ). (2.10)

At the same time

It is easy to verify that for given e ∈ S, supremum is attained at τ = Π(Ce). Therefore,

J(u) = arg min {J(v) := Ψ(ε(v)) − L(v) , v ∈ K} . (P)

DΨ(e, ξ) = Π(Ce), ξ ∀(e, ξ) ∈ S × S. (2.13)

Hence we obtain the following equivalent formulation of (P).

Π (Cε(u)) , ε(v − u) ≥ L(v − u) ∀v ∈ K. (2.14)

3 Discretization of the primal and dual variational formulation

S(σh ) = arg min S(τh ), τh ∈ ΛhL ∩ Ph (P)∗h

If ΛhL ∩ Ph = ∅, then (P)∗h has a unique solution.

(ii) ∀τ ∈ ΛL ∩ P ∃{τh }, τh ∈ ΛhL ∩ Ph : τh → τ in S;

(iii) if τh τ (weakly) in S, τh ∈ ΛhL , then τ ∈ ΛL .

∀v ∈ K0 ∃{vh }, vh ∈ K0,h : vh → v in V as h → 0 + . (3.2)

Then (iii) is satisfied. Indeed, let τh τ in S, τh ∈ ΛhL . Then letting h → 0+ in

τh , ε(vh ) ≥ L(vh ) ∀vh ∈ K0,h

and using (3.2) we immediately see that

τ, ε(v) ≥ L(v) ∀v ∈ K0 ,

(a) ΛhL ∩ Ph = ∅ ∀h > 0, 

∃c = const > 0, ∃{τh }, τh ∈ ΛhL ∩ Ph : τh 0 ≤ c ∀h > 0.

Analogously to the continuous case it holds:

4 Useful results for the von Mises criterion

τ = Ce ⇔ τ = λ tr(e) δ + 2μe = (3λ + 2μ)tr(e) δ + 2μeD , e, τ ∈ Rσ , (4.1)

respectively. We have (see also [10]):

The functional Ψ introduced in Sect. 2 can be equivalently written in the form

Ψ(ε(v)) ≥ c1 |||v||| − c2 ∀v ∈ Vh , (4.12)

|||v||| := Cε(v) E ∀v ∈ V. (4.13)

Let us define the function Σoσ : Rσ → L(Rσ , Rσ ) as follows:

0 ≤ Σoσ (e)η : η ≤ V (e)η : η ∀V (e) ∈ ∂Σσ (e), ∀e, η ∈ Rσ , (4.21)

Σσ (e; η) : η ≥ Σoσ (e)η : η ∀e, η ∈ Rσ . (4.24)

Lemma 4.1. Let us suppose that there exist v, w ∈ Vh such that

Σ(ε(v + βw)) = Σ(ε(v)) ∀β ∈ [0, 1]. (4.29)

ε(w)| = 0 ∀ ∈ The (v) (4.30)

Σ(ε(v + βw)) = Σ(ε(v)) ∀β ∈ I, (4.32)

In addition, I contains the interval [0, 1].

Σσ (ε(v + βw)| ) = Σσ (ε(v)| ) ∀β ∈ [0, 1], ∀ ∈ Th . (4.34)

First we show that (4.34) entails

tr(ε(w)| ) = 0, n̂(ε(v + βw)| ) = n̂(ε(v)| ) ∀β ∈ [0, 1]. (4.36)

tr(ε(w)| ) = 0, n̂(ε(v + βw)| ) = n̂(ε(v)| )

5 Dependence of (P)h on a loading path

v ∈ K0,h iff βv ∈ K0,h , ∀β ≥ 0. (5.1)

Therefore problem (P)h can be equivalently written as:

We start with two auxilliary results.

J(v) ≥ c1 |||v||| + c2 ∀v ∈ K0,h . (5.3)

P r o o f. If J is coercive on K0,h , then clearly Kh is nonempty, convex and bounded.

holds for any w ∈ K0,h , |||w − Πs w||| = r, where q := q(h) = J(v) ∀v ∈ Kh .

C −1 σ(u) − ε(u), τ − σ(u) ≥ 0 ∀τ ∈ P. (2.7)

ΛL = {τ ∈ S | τ, ε(v) ≥ L(v) ∀v ∈ K0 } ,

ε(u), τ − σ = ε(u0 ), τ − σ + ε(w0 ), τ − σ. (2.9)

ε(w0 ), τ ≥ L(w0 ). (2.10)

DΨ(e, ξ) = Π(Ce), ξ ∀(e, ξ) ∈ S × S. (2.13)

Π (Cε(u)) , ε(v − u) ≥ L(v − u) ∀v ∈ K. (2.14)

τh , ε(vh ) ≥ L(vh ) ∀vh ∈ K0,h

τ, ε(v) ≥ L(v) ∀v ∈ K0 ,

(a) ΛhL ∩ Ph = ∅ ∀h > 0,

Σσ (e; η) : η ≥ Σoσ (e)η : η ∀e, η ∈ Rσ . (4.24)

ε(w)| = 0 ∀ ∈ The (v) (4.30)

Σσ (ε(v + βw)| ) = Σσ (ε(v)| ) ∀β ∈ [0, 1], ∀ ∈ Th . (4.34)

tr(ε(w)| ) = 0, n̂(ε(v + βw)| ) = n̂(ε(v)| ) ∀β ∈ [0, 1]. (4.36)

tr(ε(w)| ) = 0, n̂(ε(v + βw)| ) = n̂(ε(v)| )

Λhζ L ∩ int Ph = ∅ ∀ζ ∈ [0, ζ). (5.9)

If ΛhζL ∩ int Ph = ∅, then there exists > 0 such that

Λhζ L ∩ int Ph = ∅ ∀ζ ∈ [0, ζ + ]. (5.10)

Jζ + (v) = Jζ (v) − L(v) ≥ (c1 − L ∗ )|||v||| + c2 ∀v ∈ K0,h ,

Jζ (vk ) = Jζ + (vk ) + L(vk ) → +∞ as k → +∞

Σ(ε(uζ )), ε(w) = ζL(w), (5.14)

Σ(ε(uζ )), ε(w) = ζL(w) (5.21)

ε(w)| = 0 ∀ ∈ The (uζ ),

Σo (ε(uζ ))ε(v), ε(v) > 0 ∀v ∈ Vh , v = 0. (5.24)

Σo (ε(uζ ))ε(w), ε(w) = 0

L(uζ ) ≤ L(uζ ,m in ) = αζ ,m in ∀ζ ∈ [0, ζ),