Penalty and Lagrangian methods

  • Thread starter Thread starter pukb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lagrangian
Click For Summary
Lagrangian methods, specifically Lagrange multipliers, enforce contact constraints by calculating the necessary force to maintain contact between surfaces, ensuring they only touch without overlapping. In contrast, penalty methods simulate a spring-like interaction between surfaces, allowing for some overlap unless the spring stiffness is adjusted correctly, which can lead to numerical issues if not managed properly. Both methods require prior knowledge of contact points and involve matching nodes on the surfaces, complicating implementation if this information is uncertain. Additionally, forces in both approaches are only applied to separate the surfaces, not to pull them together. Understanding these fundamental differences is crucial for effectively modeling contact interfaces in simulations.
pukb
Messages
94
Reaction score
1
Hi

Can somebody please explain fundamentally what is the difference between these two methods of modelling contact interfaces?
I would prefer a more qualitative explanation (physics concept based ) rather than a more mathematical description.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Assuming "Lagrangian methods" mean "Lagrange multiplier methods" and not "Lagrangian dynamics in general:"

The basic idea of Lagrange multipliers is that you satisfy the contact constraint exactly (i.e. the two surfaces just touch) and calculate the force needed to make that happen. In the math, the force is the value of the Lagrange multiplier itself.

In penalty function methods, you do something like pretend there is a stiff spring in between the contact surfaces, and let the model do whatever it wants, according to the force in the spring. If the spring isn't stiff enough, the contact surfaces will overlap by an unreasonable amount. If it is too stiff, you will probably get some numerical problems in the solution. Finding a good value that lies between those two elephant traps is usually a matter of experience, (which is sometimes another name for "trial and error").

The above assumes you know where the contact will happen (if it happens at all), and that you can match up pairs of nodes (grid points) on the two surfaces. If you don't know that, both methods get more complicated to implement, but the basic ideas are still the same.

In both cases, the force is only applied if it is "pushing the contact surfaces apart", not "pulling them together".
 
Had my central air system checked when it sortta wasn't working. I guess I hadn't replaced the filter. Guy suggested I might want to get a UV filter accessory. He said it would "kill bugs and particulates". I know UV can kill the former, not sure how he thinks it's gonna murder the latter. Now I'm finding out there's more than one type of UV filter: one for the air flow and one for the coil. He was suggesting we might get one for the air flow, but now we'll have to change the bulb...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
596