4.6 Article

Equilibrium finite element and error estimation for frictional contact problem based on linear complementarity problem formulation

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nme.7336

Keywords

Coulomb frictional contact; dual analysis; equilibrium finite element method; error estimation; linear complementarity problem

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article proposes a novel equilibrium finite element method (EFEM) for solving frictional contact problems. The EFEM uses a traction-based equilibrium element to construct the discrete equilibrated stress field and recasts the Coulomb frictional contact problem into a linear complementarity problem (LCP). The equilibrated solution, combined with the compatible solution of the traditional FEM, can provide reliable error estimation for frictional contact within the framework of dual analysis.
This article proposes a novel equilibrium finite element method (EFEM) for equilibrated solution of frictional contact problem. The development of such EFEM is mainly two-fold. On the one hand, the traction-based equilibrium element is employed to construct the discrete equilibrated stress field. This equilibrium element, using edge tractions as basic variables, is found straightforward to deal with the friction and contact constraints on the contact surface. On the other hand, the Coulomb frictional contact problem is recast into a linear complementarity problem (LCP), with which the algebraic complementarity formulation can be obtained with the help of the constructed equilibrated stress field. A remarkable property of the proposed EFEM is that the equilibrated solution, in conjunction with the compatible solution of the traditional FEM, can provide reliable error estimation for frictional contact within the framework of dual analysis. Numerical examples are finally conducted to see the performance and the ability to reliable error estimation of the proposed EFEM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available