Mortar based frictional contact formulation for higher order interpolations using the moving friction cone

By K. Fischer, Peter Wriggers. 2006

166 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computational Theory and Mathematics, Mechanics of Materials

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3d673e173dbff65b4a28e2a97b4430505c22eb3e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computational Theory and Mathematics

In Mechanics of Materials

Citations in the corpus

On the contact domain method: A comparison of penalty and Lagrange multiplier implementations (2012, unknown): “Recently, Fischer and Wriggers [6] used penalty methods for solving 2D frictional contact for large deformation problems.”
Three-dimensional mortar-based frictional contact treatment in isogeometric analysis with NURBS (2012, methodology): “The order of integration is chosen to be sufficiently high in order to minimize the error in the evaluation of the integrals, following Fischer and Wriggers [13,14].”
Isogeometric contact: a review (2014, background): “Very similar characteristics are exhibited by more recently developed formulations based on the enforcement of the contact constraints at an arbitrary number of contact quadrature points located along the contact surface (Fischer and Wriggers 2005, 2006).”
An unbiased computational contact formulation for 3D friction (2015, unknown): “The only diﬀerences between [1] and [2] lie in the deﬁnition of the gap function and in the constraint enforcement, which in our case is considered at the quadrature level like in [3] and [4].”
A mortar formulation for 3D large deformation contact using NURBS-based isogeometric analysis and the augmented Lagrangian method (2012, background): “On the other hand, formulations based on the enforcement of the contact constraints at an arbitrary number of integration points along the contact surface [13,14], while significantly improving the patch test performance, have been shown to lead to an overconstrained problem and hence to LBB-instabi”
A finite deformation mortar contact formulation using a primal–dual active set strategy (2009, unknown): “This example can also be interpreted as an ironing problem, and we refer to [13, 17] for similar investigations.”
A large deformation frictional contact formulation using NURBS‐based isogeometric analysis (2011, methodology): “This section summarizes the theoretical and algorithmic background of the contact between two deformable bodies undergoing finite deformations, for more details see Laursen [16] and Wriggers [17].”