arxiv: v1 [math.na] 11 May 2018

Transcription

1 Nitsce s metod for unilateral contact problems arxiv: v1 [mat.na] 11 May 2018 Tom Gustafsson, Rolf Stenberg and Jua Videman May 14, 2018 Abstract We derive optimal a priori and a posteriori error estimates for Nitsce s metod applied to unilateral contact problems. Our analysis is based on te interpretation of Nitsce s metod as a stabilised finite element metod for te mixed Lagrange multiplier formulation of te contact problem werein te Lagrange multiplier as been eliminated elementwise. To simplify te presentation, we focus on te scalar Signorini problem and outline only te proofs of te main results since most of te auxiliary results can be traced to our previous works on te numerical approximation of variational inequalities. We end te paper by presenting results of our numerical computations wic corroborate te efficiency and reliability of te a posteriori estimators. 1 Introduction Unilateral contact problems are of great engineering interest and tey occur in numerous areas of pysics and mecanics; cf. [26]. In matematical terms, tese problems are expressed as variational inequalities and most often approximated by te finite element metod; cf. [19] and all te references terein. One of te most common examples of unilateral contact problems is contact between two deformable elastic bodies. Here, we will consider te Signorini problem wic consists in finding te equilibrium position of an elastic body resting on a rigid frictionless surface. For simplicity, we consider te scalar version of suc problem, at times referred to as te Poisson-Signorini problem. However, our results carry over, wit minor modifications, to te Signorini problem in linear elasticity. Te finite element treatment of te Signorini problem as sown to be more difficult tan tat of te obstacle problem (anoter arcetypical variational inequality) due to te Signorini (no-penetration) condition at te boundary, and as led to a number of papers over te past years; cf. [2 4,6,12,20,23,29,31] and Funding from Tekes (Decision number 3305/31/2015) and te Finnis Cultural Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. Work supported by te Portuguese Science Foundation (FCOMP FDR ) and te Finnis Academy of Science and Letters. 1

2 te review papers [8,36]. Te above mentioned works address primal and mixed formulations and focus on obtaining optimal a priori estimates based on Falk s Lemma [13]. As for te a posteriori error estimates for te Signorini problem, we refer to [5, 21, 22, 27, 30, 35]. Anoter approac tat, at te same time, imposes te contact boundary conditions weakly, avoids te additional Lagrange multiplier of te mixed formulations and is consistent in contrast to te standard penalty formulations, is te Nitsce s formulation, first proposed for te unilateral contact problems by Couly and Hild [10], see also [7, 11] for furter generalisations. In [7, 10, 11], optimal a priori estimates were derived but, to our knowledge, te only existing work on te a posteriori error estimation of unilateral contact problems approximated by Nitsce s metod is te recent work by Couly et al. [9]. In tis paper, we will continue to advocate (cf. [14 18]) tat Nitsce s metod is most readily analysed as a stabilised finite element metod, te relation wic was first suggested in [32]. We will prove optimal a priori estimates for te stabilised mixed formulation and sow te reliability and te efficiency for te a posteriori error estimators witout additional saturation assumptions wic are needed wen Nitsce s metod is analysed directly (cf. [9]). We do empasise toug tat te stabilised metod is best implemented troug te Nitsce s formulation. Te paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we introduce te Poisson- Signorini problem, write it in a mixed variational form and state a continuous stability result. In Section 3, we formulate te stabilised finite element metod, state a discrete stability estimate and prove an a priori error estimate. In Section 4, we introduce residual-based a posteriori error estimators and establis lower and upper bounds for te error in terms of te estimators. In Section 5, we deduce te Nitsce s formulation from te stabilised one and in Section 6 report on our numerical computations. We note tat some of te proofs ave been left out since tey are formally similar to te ones proven in our previous works, in particular in [14, 16]. 2 Te continuous problem Let Ω R d, d {2, 3}, denote a polygonal (or polyedral) domain and Ω its boundary wit Ω = Γ D Γ N Γ. We assume tat te boundary parts Γ D, Γ N and Γ are all non-empty and non-overlapping, Γ D Γ = and tat te part Γ were te contact may occur coincides wit one of te sides of te polygon (or te polyedron). Te Poisson-Signorini unilateral contact problem can be written as follows: 2

3 find u suc tat u = f in Ω, u = 0 on Γ D, u = 0 on Γ (2.1) N, u u 0, 0, u u = 0 on Γ, were f L 2 (Ω) is a given load function and n denotes te outer normal vector to Ω. Remark 2.1. For ease of exposition, we consider ere te simplest version of te Signorini problem altoug we could easily deal wit a non-omogeneous Neumann condition u = g on Γ N, wit a gap function ψ defined on Γ, suc tat u ψ and (u ψ) u = 0 on Γ, and also wit te linear elastic Signorini problem. Note also tat by assuming tat Γ D Γ = we avoid introducing te Lions-Magenes space H 1/2 00 (Γ); cf. [33]. To give a weak formulation for problem (2.1), we introduce te Hilbert spaces V = {v H 1 (Ω) : v = 0 on Γ D }, endowed wit te norms W := {w Γ : w V } = H 1/2 (Γ), v V = v 0, w W = inf v V,v Γ=w v V. Now, defining a non-negative Lagrange multiplier by λ = u, (2.2) we obtain te following (weak) mixed variational formulation of problem (2.1) (cf. [24]): find (u, λ) V Λ suc tat Above ( u, v) v, λ = (f, v) v V, u, µ λ 0 µ Λ. Λ = {µ Q : w, µ 0 w W, w 0 a.e. on Γ}, (2.3) were Q := W is te topological dual of W and, : W Q R denotes te duality pairing. Te norm in Q is defined as w, µ µ Q = sup. w W w W Remark 2.2. Te corresponding primal weak formulation of problem (2.1) reads: find u K suc tat were ( u, (v u)) (f, v u) v K, (2.4) K = {v V : v 0 a.e. on Γ}. 3

4 Remark 2.3. It is well-known tat problem (2.4), equivalently (2.3), admits a unique solution u H 1 (Ω); cf. [25,26]. However, even if te boundary is smoot and te data regular enoug, te Signorini conditions limit te regularity of te solution. In fact, in te two-dimensional case te solution belongs only to H r, r < 5/2, in te vicinity of points at Γ were te constraints cange from binding to non-binding, cf. [28] and te discussion in [2]. If te boundary Γ as corners, furter singularities may occur; cf. [1]. Defining te bilinear and linear forms, B : (V Q) (V Q) R and L : V R troug B(w, ξ; v, µ) = ( w, v) w, µ v, ξ, L(v) = (f, v), te mixed variational formulation of (2.3) reads: find (u, λ) V Λ suc tat B(u, λ; v, µ λ) L(v) (v, µ) V Λ. (2.5) Te proof of te following result is straigtforward (see, e.g., [16]): Teorem 2.4 (Continuous stability). For all (v, ξ) V Q tere exists w V suc tat B(v, ξ; w, ξ) ( v V + ξ Q ) 2 (2.6) and w 1 v V + ξ Q. (2.7) Note tat above and in te following we write a b (or a b) wen a Cb (or a Cb) for some positive constant C independent of te finite element mes. 3 Te stabilised metod Our discretisation is based on a conforming sape-regular partitioning C of Ω into non-overlapping triangles or tetraedra, wit > 0 denoting te mes parameter. We denote te interior edges or facets of C by and let G and N be te partitioning of te boundary Γ and Γ N, respectively, corresponding to te partitioning C, into line segments (d = 2) or triangles (d = 3). Te finite element spaces V V, Q Q, are finite dimensional and consist of piecewise polynomial functions. We also define Λ = {µ Q : µ 0 on Γ} Λ, and introduce te discrete bilinear form B as B (w, ξ; v, µ) = B(w, ξ; v, µ) α S (w, ξ; v, µ), 4

5 were α > 0 is a stabilisation parameter and te stabilising term S is defined as S (w, ξ; v, µ) = ( ξ w, µ v ), wit denoting te diameter of G. Te stabilised finite element metod is now formulated as: find (u, λ ) V Λ suc tat B (u, λ ; v, µ λ ) L(v ) (v, µ ) V Λ. (3.1) Te proof of stability for metod (3.1) is very similar to te one given for te obstacle problem in [16, Teorem 4.1], see also [14], and is tus omitted. We only note tat to estimate te stabilising term we use te following inverse estimate, proven by a scaling argument. Lemma 3.1. Tere exists C I > 0, independent of, suc tat 2 C I v v 2 V v V. (3.2) 0, Teorem 3.2 (Discrete stability). Let 0 < α < C I. For all (v, ξ ) V Q, tere exists w V, suc tat ( ) 1/2 2 B (v, ξ ; w, ξ ) v V + ξ Q + ξ 2 0, (3.3) and w V v V + ξ Q. (3.4) Remark 3.3. Te additional stability for ξ in a mes-dependent norm in Teorem 3.2 will be needed in te proof of Teorem 3.5. We will need te following Lemma in establising te a priori error estimate. Its detailed proof can be found in [14]. Lemma 3.4. Let f V be te L 2 projection of f, define osc K (f) = K f f 0,K and, for eac G, let K() C denote te element satisfying K() =. For any (v, µ ) V Q it olds tat ( µ v ) 2 1/2 0, ( ) 1/2 (3.5) u v V + λ µ Q +. 5 osc K() (f) 2

6 As usual, te a priori estimate now follows from te discrete stability estimate. Teorem 3.5 (A priori error estimate). Let (u, λ) V Λ be te solution to te continuous problem (2.5) and let (u, λ ) V Λ be its approximation obtained by solving te discrete problem (3.1). Ten te following estimate olds ( u u V + λ λ Q inf u v V + inf λ µ Q + ) u, µ v V µ Λ ( ) 1/2 +. osc K() (f) 2 Proof. In view of Teorem 3.2, it olds tat ( ( ) 1/2 ) 2 + u v V + λ µ Q µ λ 2 0, wit some w V satisfying It follows tat B (u v, λ µ ; w, µ λ ), w V u v V + λ µ Q. (3.6) B (u v, λ µ ; w, µ λ ) = B (u, λ ; w, µ λ ) B (v, µ ; w, µ λ ) L(w ) + B(u v, λ µ ; w, µ λ ) B(u, λ; w, µ λ ) + α ( µ v, µ λ w ), were we ave used te bilinearity of B and B, and te discrete problem statement (3.1). Observe tat L(w ) B(u, λ; w, µ λ ) = (f, w ) ( u, w ) + w, λ + u, µ λ u, µ λ + u, λ λ = u, µ λ = u, µ, were we ave used te problem (2.3) and recalled tat 0 u, µ λ, µ Λ. Moreover ( µ v, µ λ w ) ( µ v ) 2 1/2 ( ) 1/2 µ λ 2 0, 0, + ( µ v 2 0, 6 ) 1/2 ( w 2 0, ) 1/2.

7 Te a priori estimate now follows from te continuity of te bilinear form B, te inverse estimate (3.2) and bound (3.6), Lemma 3.4, and from te triangle inequality. 4 A posteriori error analysis We will define te local error estimators corresponding to te finite element solution (u, λ ) as η 2 K = 2 K u + f 2 0,K, K C, η,ω 2 = u n 2 0,,, η,γ 2 = λ u 2, G, 0, 2 u =, N, η 2,Γ N 0, were u n denotes te jump in te normal derivative across te interelement boundaries. We also define te global error estimators η and S troug η 2 = ηk 2 + η,ω 2 + η,γ 2 + η,γ 2 N, K C N S = u W + (λ, u + ). were w + = max{w, 0} denotes te positive and w = min{w, 0} te negative part of w. We will now establis bot te efficiency and te reliability of te error estimators. Teorem 4.1 (A posteriori estimate). It olds tat and u u V + λ λ Q η + S (4.1) η u u V + λ λ Q + ( K C osc K (f) 2 ) 1/2. (4.2) Proof. Te continuous stability condition (cf. Lemma 2.4) guarantees te existence of v V suc tat v V u u V + λ λ Q (4.3) and ( u u V + λ λ Q ) 2 B(u u, λ λ ; v, λ λ). 7

8 On te oter and, testing in (3.1) wit ( ṽ, λ ), were ṽ is te Clément interpolant of v, we obtain 0 B (u, λ, ṽ, 0) + L( ṽ). It follows tat ( ) 2 u u V + λ λ Q B(u, λ; v, λ λ) B(u, λ ; v, λ λ) B(u, λ, ṽ, 0) + L( ṽ) + α S (u, λ, ṽ, 0) L(v ṽ) B(u, λ ; v ṽ, λ λ) + α S (u, λ, ṽ, 0), were we ave used te bilinearity of B and te problem statement (2.5). Observe first tat L(v ṽ) B(u, λ ; v ṽ, λ λ) = (f, v ṽ) ( u, (v ṽ)) + v ṽ, λ + u, λ λ. (4.4) After elementwise integration by parts, te first four terms on te rigt-and side of (4.4) read ( u + f, v ṽ) K ( u n, v ṽ) K C + ( λ u ), v ṽ ( ) u, v ṽ. N Te last term in (4.4) can be estimated as follows u, λ λ (λ, u + ) + u, λ λ (λ, u + ) + λ λ Q u W, given tat u +, λ 0. For te stabilisation term S (u, λ, ṽ, 0), we obtain ( λ u, ṽ ) ( λ u ) 2 1/2 ( ) 2 1/2 ṽ 0, 0, ( λ u ) 2 1/2 ṽ V, 0, were in te last step we ave used te discrete inverse estimate (3.2). For te Clément interpolant ṽ, it olds tat ṽ 2 V + 2 K v ṽ 2 0,K+ 1 v ṽ 2 0, v 2 V. (4.5) K C G N Te reliability estimate (4.1) can now be establised using te Caucy-Scwarz inequality togeter wit (4.3) and (4.5). Te efficiency follows from standard lower bounds [34] and from Lemma

9 5 Nitsce s metod Nitsce s formulation can be elegantly derived from te stabilised metod following te reasoning suggested in [32]. In fact, testing wit (0, µ ) in (3.1), yields (u, µ λ ) + α ( λ u ), µ λ 0 µ Λ. In particular, We can tus write (u, λ ) + α Γ C (u, µ ) + α Γ C ( λ u ), λ = 0. ( λ u ), µ = 0 µ Λ, were Γ C denotes te contact boundary. Locally, we obtain u λ = Π (α ) 1 Π u Γ C, (5.1) were Π is te L 2 projection onto Λ. Assuming equal polynomial order for bot variables, say k 1, but wit te discrete Lagrange multiplier being discontinuous from element to element, it follows tat Π = I and we ave Q = {µ Q : µ P k () G }. Terefore, using te test function (v, 0) in (3.1) and substituting (5.1) into te resulting equation, leads to ( u, v )+ {( ) ( (α ) 1 u (u, v ), v + u, v ) } Γ C Γ C α ( u, v ) = (f, v ) v V. Γ\Γ C Defining an L 2 (Γ) function troug = G, te discrete Lagrange multiplier can be written globally as ( u ) λ = (α) 1 u Γ Γ and te discrete contact region becomes + (5.2) Γ C = {(x, y) Γ : λ (x, y) > 0}. 9

10 Nitsce s metod now reads: find u V and Γ C = Γ C (u ) suc tat ( ) ( u, v ) Ω + α 1 ( 1 u u, v ) Γ C ( u, v ) Γ C, v Γ C ( α u, v ) = (f, v ) v V. Γ\Γ C (5.3) Remark 5.1. Note tat formulation (5.3) is equivalent to te Nitsce s metod introduced in [10], wit γ = α, and to te symmetric variant (θ 1 = 1) of te Nitsce s metod proposed in [11]. For te implementational aspects of te Nitsce s metod (5.3), we refer to [17] were similar metod was applied to te obstacle problem. 6 Numerical verification We consider te problem (5.3) were te domain is given by Ω = (0, 1) 2, te loading is f(x, y) = x cos(2πy), and te boundaries are Γ D = {(x, y) R 2 : x = 0, 0 < y < 1}, Γ N = {(x, y) R 2 : 0 < x < 1, y = 0} {(x, y) R 2 : 0 < x < 1, y = 1}, Γ = {(x, y) R 2 : x = 1, 0 < y < 1}. Te contact region is now a proper subset of Γ. Tere are two points on Γ were te constraints cange from binding to non-binding and te exact solution belongs to H r, r < 5/2, see te comments in Remark 2.3. We employ te quadratic finite element space V = {w V : w K P 2 (K) K C }. Tus, in view of te regularity of u, te convergence rate of te error u u V wit uniform mes refinement is limited to O(N 3/4 ) were N is te number of degrees of freedom. To overcome te limited regularity, we consider also a sequence of adaptive meses. Starting wit an initial mes, we compute te discrete solution u, te corresponding Lagrange multiplier troug (5.2), and te respective error indicator K 2 = 2 K u + f 2 0,K+ K u n 2 0, K + K λ u 2 u + K 0, K Γ 2 K Γ N for every K in te initial mes. Te mes is ten improved by splitting te elements tat ave large error indicators. Tis process is performed repeatedly 10

11 until a predetermined value of N is reaced. Please refer to [14] or [18] for more details on ow to coose and split te elements. Te discrete solution is visualised in Figure 1. Te resulting sequence of adaptive meses is given in Figure 2 and te convergence of te global error estimator η + S is compared between te uniform and adaptive mes sequences in Figure 3. As expected, te adaptive meses are more refined near te singular points on te contact boundary. Moreover, te observed convergence rate of te uniform refinement strategy is suboptimal, due to te limited regularity of te exact solution, wereas te adaptive metod successfully recovers te optimal rate of convergence, O(N 1 ) y x Figure 1: Te discrete solution after 8 adaptive refinements. Te contact region on te rigtmost boundary is igligted in red. References [1] S. Auliac, Z. Belacmi, F. Ben Belgacem, and F. Hect, Quadratic finite elements wit non matcing grids for te unilateral boundary contact, SAIM: Mat. Model. Numer. Anal., 47 (2013), pp [2] Z. Belacmi and F. Ben Belgacem, Quadratic finite element approximation of te Signorini problem, Mat. Comp., 72 (2003), pp

12 Figure 2: Te initial mes and te resulting sequence of adaptively refined meses. [3] F. Ben Belgacem, Numerical simulation of some variational inequalities arisen from unilateral contact problems by te finite element metod, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 37 (2000), pp [4] F. Ben Belgacem and Y. Renard, Hybrid finite element metods for te Signorini problem, Mat. Comp., 72 (2003), pp [5] H. Blum and F. Suttmeier, An adaptive finite element discretization for a simplified Signorini problem, Calcolo, 37 (2000), pp [6] F. Brezzi, W. W. Hager, and P.-A. Raviart, rror estimates for te finite element solution of variational inequalities. II. Mixed metods, Numer. Mat., 31 (1978/79), pp [7]. Burman, P. Hansbo, and M. G. Larson, Te penalty-free Nitsce metod and nonconforming finite elements for te Signorini problem, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 55 (2017), pp [8] F. Couly, M. Fabre, P. Hild, R. Mlika, J. Pousin, and Y. Renard, An overview of recent results on Nitsce s metod for contact problems, in Geometrically Unfitted Finite lement Metods and Applications, S. Bordas,. Burman, M. Larson, and M. Olsanskii, eds., vol. 121 of 12

13 Adaptive refinement, η + S = O(N 1.01 ) Uniform refinement, η + S = O(N 0.71 ) 10 2 η + S N Figure 3: Convergence of te error estimator η + S as a function of te number of degrees of freedom N for te uniform and te adaptive mes sequences. Te observed approximate convergence rates are given in te text box window. Lecture Notes in Computational Science and ngineering, Springer, 2018, pp [9] F. Couly, M. Fabre, P. Hild, J. Pousin, and Y. Renard, Residualbased a posteriori error estimation for contact problems approximated by Nitsce s metod, IMA J. Numer. Anal., 38 (2018), pp [10] F. Couly and P. Hild, A Nitsce-based metod for unilateral contact problems: numerical analysis, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 51 (2013), pp [11] F. Couly, P. Hild, and Y. Renard, Symmetric and non-symmetric variants of Nitsce s metod for contact problems in elasticity: teory and numerical experiments, Mat. Comp., 84 (2015), pp [12] G. Drouet and P. Hild, Optimal convergence for discrete variational inequalities modelling Signorini contact in 2D and 3D witout additional assumptions on te unknown contact set, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 53 (2015), pp

14 [13] R. S. Falk, rror estimates for te approximation of a class of variational inequalities, Mat. Comp., 28 (1974), pp [14] T. Gustafsson, R. Stenberg, and J. Videman, rror analysis of Nitsce s mortar metod. Submitted. arxiv preprint: [15], A stabilised finite element metod for te plate obstacle problem. Submitted. arxiv preprint: [16], Mixed and stabilized finite element metods for te obstacle problem, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 55 (2017), pp [17], On finite element formulations for te obstacle problem mixed and stabilised metods, Comput. Metods Appl. Mat, 17 (2017), pp [18], An adaptive finite element metod for te inequality-constrained Reynolds equation, Comput. Metods Appl. Mec. ngrg., 336 (2018), pp [19] J. Haslinger, I. Hlaváček, and J. Nečas, Numerical metods for unilateral problems in solid mecanics, in Handbook of numerical analysis, Vol. IV, Handb. Numer. Anal., IV, Nort-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996, pp [20] J. Haslinger and J. Lovíšek, Quadratic finite element metods for unilateral contact problems, Comment. Mat. Univ. Carolin., 21 (1980), pp [21] P. Hild and S. Nicaise, A posteriori error estimations of residual type for Signorini s problem, Numer. Mat., 101 (2005), pp [22], Residual a posteriori error estimators for contact problems in elasticity, M2AN Mat. Model. Numer. Anal., 41 (2007), pp [23] P. Hild and Y. Renard, An improved a priori error analysis for finite element approximations of Signorini s problem, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 50 (2012), pp [24] I. Hlaváček, J. Haslinger, J. Nečas, and J. Lovíšek, Solution of Variational Inequalities in Mecanics, vol. 66 of Applied Matematical Sciences, Springer-Verlag, New York, [25] N. Kikuci and J. T. Oden, Contact Problems in lasticity: A Study of Variational Inequalities and Finite lement Metods, SIAM, Piladelpia, [26] D. Kinderlerer and G. Stampaccia, An Introduction to Variational Inequalities and Teir Applications, Academic Press, New York-London,

15 [27] R. Krause, A. Veeser, and M. Wallot, An efficient and reliable residual-type a posteriori error estimator for te Signorini problem, Numer. Mat., 130 (2015), pp [28] M. Moussaoui and K. Kodja, Régularité des solutions d un problème mêlé Diriclet-Signorini dans un domaine polygonal plan, Commun. Part. Diff. q., 17 (1992), pp [29] F. Scarpini and M. Vivaldi, rror estimates for te approximation of some unilateral problems, RAIRO Anal. Numér., 11 (1977), pp [30] A. Scröder, rror control in - and p-adaptive FM for Signorini s problem, J. Numer. Mat., 17 (2009), pp [31], Mixed finite element metods of iger-order for model contact problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 49 (2011), pp [32] R. Stenberg, On some tecniques for approximating boundary conditions in te finite element metod, J. Comput. Appl. Mat., 63 (1995), pp [33] L. Tartar, Introduction to Sobolev Spaces and Interpolation Teory, Springer Berlin-Heidelberg, [34] R. Verfürt, A Posteriori rror stimation Tecniques for Finite lement Metods, Oxford University Press, Oxford, [35] A. Weiss and B. Wolmut, A posteriori error estimator and error control for contact problems, Mat. Comp., 78 (2009), pp [36] B. Wolmut, Variationally consistent discretization scemes and numerical algoritms for contact problems, Acta Numerica, 20 (2011), pp