Penalty and Lagrangian methods

  • Thread starter Thread starter pukb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lagrangian
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the fundamental differences between Penalty methods and Lagrangian methods for modeling contact interfaces in computational physics. Lagrangian methods, specifically Lagrange multiplier methods, enforce contact constraints by calculating the force needed to maintain contact between surfaces. In contrast, Penalty methods simulate a stiff spring between surfaces, allowing for some overlap unless the spring stiffness is appropriately calibrated. Both methods apply force only to separate contact surfaces, complicating implementation when the contact point is unknown.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrange multiplier methods
  • Familiarity with Penalty function methods
  • Basic knowledge of contact mechanics
  • Experience with numerical modeling techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Lagrange multiplier applications in contact mechanics
  • Explore Penalty method tuning for optimal stiffness
  • Study numerical stability issues in contact modeling
  • Investigate alternative methods for unknown contact points
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, physicists, and computational modelers involved in contact mechanics and numerical simulations will benefit from this discussion.

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".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K