Modeling Friction and Contact in Chrono
Theoretical Background
Things Covered
• Friction and contact, understanding the problem at hand
• The penalty approach
• The complementarity approach
2
Mass × Acceleration = Force
3
Mass × Acceleration = Force
• Coulomb friction coefficient - 𝜇𝜇
Reflect on this: friction force can assume a bunch of values
(as long as they’re smaller than 𝜇𝜇 × N though)
4
5
Additive Manufacturing (3D SLS Printing)
Courtesy of Professor Tim Osswald, Polymer Engineering Center, UW-Madison
6
Two main approaches: penalty & complementarity
Computational many-body dynamics
Problem
Handling frictional contact
Penalty-based Complementarity
Modelling approach
approach approach
Optimization
Numerical techniques Collision detection
techniques
7
General Comments, Penalty Approach
• Approach commonly used in handling granular material
• Called “Discrete Element Method”
• The “Penalty” approach works well for sphere-to-sphere and sphere-to-plane scenarios
• Deformable body mechanics used to characterize what happens under these scenarios
• Standard reference: K. L. Johnson, Contact Mechanics, University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
• Methodology subsequently grafted to general dynamics problem of rigid bodies – arbitrary geometry
• When they collide, a fictitious spring-damper element is placed between the two bodies
• Sometimes spring & damping coefficient based on continuum theory mentioned above
• Sometimes values are guessed (calibration) based on experimental data
8
The Penalty Method, Taxonomy
• Depending on the normal relative velocity between bodies that experience a collision and their
material properties, if there is no relative angular velocity, the collision is
• Elastic, if the contact induced deformation is reversible and independent of displacement rate
• Viscoelastic, if the contact induced deformation is irreversible, but the deformation is dependent on the
displacement rate
• Plastic, if collision leaves an involved body permanently deformed but the deformation of body is
independent of the displacement rate
• Viscoplastic, if impact is irreversible and similar to the viscoelastic contact but deformation depends on the
displacement rate
• According to the dependency of the normal force on the overlap and the displacement rate, the
force schemes can be subdivided into
• Continuous potential models (like Lennard-Jones, for instance)
• Linear viscoelastic models (simple, used extensively, what we use here)
• Non-linear viscoelastic models
• Hysteretic models (see papers of L. Vu-Quoc, in “DEM Further Reading” slide)
9
The Penalty Method in Chrono, Nuts and Bolts
• Method relies on a record (history) of tangential displacement 𝜹𝜹𝒕𝒕 to model static friction (see figure at right)
10
The Penalty Method in Chrono, Nuts and Bolts
𝒏𝒏 𝜹𝜹𝒕𝒕 Visualize this 𝛿𝛿𝑡𝑡
as creep.
𝛿𝛿𝑛𝑛 𝛿𝛿𝑛𝑛
𝑭𝑭𝒏𝒏 = 𝑓𝑓 𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 𝛿𝛿𝑛𝑛 𝒏𝒏 − 𝛾𝛾𝑛𝑛 𝑚𝑚eff 𝒗𝒗𝒏𝒏 𝑭𝑭𝒕𝒕 = 𝑓𝑓 −𝑘𝑘𝑡𝑡 𝜹𝜹𝒕𝒕 − 𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡 𝑚𝑚eff 𝒗𝒗𝒕𝒕
𝐷𝐷eff 𝐷𝐷eff
If 𝑭𝑭𝒕𝒕 > 𝜇𝜇 𝑭𝑭𝒏𝒏 then scale 𝜹𝜹𝒕𝒕 so that 𝑭𝑭𝒕𝒕 = 𝜇𝜇 𝑭𝑭𝒏𝒏
11
Direct Shear Analysis via Granular Dynamics
[using LAMMPS/LIGGGHTS and Chrono]
• 1800 uniform spheres randomly packed
• Particle Diameter: D = 5 mm
• Shear Speed: 1 mm/s
• Inter-Particle Coulomb Friction Coefficient: µ = 0.5
(Quartz on Quartz)
• Void Ratio (dense packing): e = 0.4
[J. Fleischmann]→ 12
Direct Shear Analysis via Granular Dynamics
[using LAMMPS/LIGGGHTS and Chrono]
DEM contact model in Chrono Parallel
• 1800 uniform spheres randomly packed
• Particle Diameter: D = 5 mm
• Shear Speed: 1 mm/s
• Inter-Particle Coulomb Friction Coefficient: µ = 0.5
(Quartz on Quartz)
• Void Ratio (dense packing): e = 0.4 Chrono Serial, no history
Chrono Parallel, no history
[J. Fleischmann]→ 13
Wave propagation in ordered granular material
14
[Arman]→
15
[Antonio Recuero]→
Penalty Method – the Pros
• Backed by large body of literature and numerous validation studies
• No increase in the size of the problem
• This is unlike the “complementarity” approach, discussed next
• Can accommodate shock wave propagation
• Can’t do w/ “complementarity” approach since it’s a pure “rigid body” solution
• Easy to implement
• Entire numerical solution decoupled
• Easy to scale up to large problems
• Parallel-computing friendly – run in parallel on per contact basis
• Memory communication intensive
16
Penalty Method – Cons
1. Numerical stability requires small integration time steps
• Long simulation times
2. Choice of integration time step strongly influences results
3. Sensitive wrt information provided by the collision detection engine
4. There is some hand-waving when it comes to arbitrary shapes and the fact that the
friction force is a multi-valued function
17
DEM, Further Reading
[1] D. Ertas, G. Grest, T. Halsey, D. Levine and L. Silbert, Gravity-driven dense granular flows, EPL (Europhysics Letters), 56 (2001), pp. 214-220.
[2] H. Kruggel-Emden, E. Simsek, S. Rickelt, S. Wirtz and V. Scherer, Review and extension of normal force models for the Discrete Element Method, Powder
Technology, 171 (2007), pp. 157-173.
[3] H. Kruggel-Emden, S. Wirtz and V. Scherer, A study on tangential force laws applicable to the discrete element method (DEM) for materials with viscoelastic
or plastic behavior, Chemical Engineering Science (2007).
[4] D. C. Rapaport, Radial and axial segregation of granular matter in a rotating cylinder: A simulation study, Physical Review E, 75 (2007), pp. 031301.
[5] L. Silbert, D. Ertas, G. Grest, T. Halsey, D. Levine and S. Plimpton, Granular flow down an inclined plane: Bagnold scaling and rheology, Physical Review E, 64
(2001), pp. 51302.
[6] L. Vu-Quoc, L. Lesburg and X. Zhang, An accurate tangential force–displacement model for granular-flow simulations: Contacting spheres with plastic
deformation, force-driven formulation, Journal of Computational Physics, 196 (2004), pp. 298-326.
[7] L. Vu-Quoc, X. Zhang and L. Lesburg, A normal force-displacement model for contacting spheres accounting for plastic deformation: force-driven
formulation, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 67 (2000), pp. 363.
18
The “Complementarity” Approach
aka
Differential Variational Inequality (DVI) Method
19
Two Shapes, and the Distance [Gap Function]
• Signed distance function in a given configuration 𝒒𝒒𝐴𝐴 and 𝒒𝒒𝐵𝐵
• Contact when distance function is zero
20
Body A – Body B Contact Scenario
21
Defining the Normal and Tangential Forces
22
DVI-Based Methods: The Contact Model
23
DVI-Based Methods: The Friction Model
24
Coulomb’s Model Posed as the Solution of an Optimization Problem
25
The DVI Problem: The EOM, in Fine-Granularity Form
26
Frictional Contact: The Matrix-Vector Form
27
The Discretization Process
28
The Discretization Process
29
The NCP → CCP Metamorphosis
30
The Cone Complementarity Problem
31
Cone Complementarity Problem (CCP)
32
The Optimization Angle
33
Wrapping it Up, Complementarity Approach
34
Complementarity Approach: Putting Things in Perspective
• Perform collision detection
• Formulate equations of motion; i.e., pose DVI problem
• DVI discretized to lead to nonlinear complementarity problem (NCP)
• Relax NCP to get CCP
• Equivalently, solve QP with conic constraints to compute γ
• Once friction and contact forces available, velocity available
• Once velocity available, positions are available (numerical integration)
35
Additive Manufacturing (3D SLS Printing)
Courtesy of Professor Tim Osswald, Polymer Engineering Center, UW-Madison
36
37
[Hammad]→
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) Layering
7,800,000 contacts
46,800,000 unknowns
[Hammad]→ 38
39
Dress 3D Printing Problem
40
Using Simulation in 3D Printing of Clothes
41
42
43
44
45
Pros and Cons, Complementarity Approach
• Pros
• Allows for large integration step sizes since it doesn’t have to deal with contact stiffness
• Reduced number of model parameters one can fiddle with
• It looks at the entire problem, it doesn’t artificially decouples the problem
• Cons
• Requires a global solution, which means that large systems lead to large coupled problems
• Our implementation has numerical artifacts owing to the relaxation of the non-penetration condition
• Challenging to model coefficient of restitution (currently uses an inelastic model)
• Stuck w/ a rigid body dynamics take on the problem (can’t propagate shock waves)
46
Reference, DVI Literature
• Lab technical report:
• TR-2016-12: “Posing Multibody Dynamics with Friction and Contact as a Differential Algebraic Inclusion
Problem” D. Negrut, R. Serban: http://sbel.wisc.edu/documents/TR-2016-12.pdf
• D. E. Stewart and J. C. Trinkle, An implicit time-stepping scheme for rigid-body dynamics with
inelastic collisions and Coulomb friction, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 39 (1996), pp. 2673-2691.
• D. E. Stewart, Rigid-body dynamics with friction and impact, SIAM Review, 42 (2000), pp. 3-39
• M. Anitescu and G. D. Hart, A constraint-stabilized time-stepping approach for rigid multibody
dynamics with joints, contact and friction, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 60 (2004), pp. 2335-2371.
• M. Anitescu and A. Tasora, A matrix-free cone complementarity approach for solving large-scale,
nonsmooth, rigid body dynamics, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 200 (2011) 439–453
47
Closing Remarks
[Applies both for Penalty and DVI approaches]
• There is some hand waving when it comes to handling friction and contact
• Both in Penalty and DVI
• Handling frictional contact is equally art and science
• To get something to run robustly requires tweaking
• Takes some time to understand strong/weak points of each approach
• Continues to be area of active research
48
Supplemental Slides
49
General Comments, DVI
• Differential Variational Inequality (DVI): a set of differential equations that hold in
conjunction with a collection of constraints
• Classical equations of motion: Newton-Euler EOMs, govern time evolutions of constrained MBS
• Kinematic constraints coming from joints
• These constraints are called bilateral constraints
• When dealing with contacts, the non-penetration condition captured as a unilateral constraint
• At point of contact, relative to body 1, body 2 can move outwards, but not inwards
• The variational attribute stems from the optimization problem posing the Coulomb friction model
52
[Nomenclature]
Bilateral vs. Unilateral Constraints
53
