Computers & Strwcrures Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 319-331, 1990 0045.7949/90 $3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Ptvss plc

FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION OF LARGE

DEFORMATION IMPACT-CONTACT PROBLEMS
WITH FRICTION

P. WRIGGWS, T. Vu VAN and E. STBIN

Institut fiir Baumechanik und Numerische Mechanik, Universitat Hannover, Appelstrasse 9A,
D-3009 Hannover 1, F.R.G.

(Receded 5 October 1989)

Abstract-Impact~ontact problems including frictional effects appear in many technical applications. For
these problems a tinite element formulation is presented which is based on a new frictional interface law
and fully implicit algorithmic treatment for the integration of the constitutive relations and the dynamics.
The first is performed via radial return schemes, which are well established in computational plasticity.
As radial return methods are amenable to consistent linear&&ions, a full Newton-type algorithm can be
constructed within a time step. This leads, however, to non-symmetric tangent matrices. Several examples
compare this method with other formation and shows its ethciency.

1. INTRODUCTION new frictional interface law with a non-associated slip

rule which takes into account micromechanical
Frictional phenomena have to be considered when
effects. However, the classical Coulomb law can be
the tangential part of a motion is irn~rt~t in the
recovered as a limiting case.
response of two or more bodies coming into contact
The combination of the frictional interface law
during a static or dynamic process. For frictional
with well-known radial return mapping algorithms
problems different finite element formulations have
(see e.g. [6]) leads to construction of a new algorithm.
recently been proposed, most of which rely on the
The formulation is an extension of the algorithm
classical law of Coulomb. However, different fric-
given in [TJ, and opens the possibility of deriving a
tional laws are available which take into account the
consistent tangent matrix. Thus it ensures quadratic
local, ~crom~hani~al phenomena within the con-
convergence near the solution within a Newton iter-
tact interface. An extensive overview may be found in
ation. A similar approach may be found in [S] for a
[l]. In recent years, frictional phenomena have been
different interface model. As a result of the non-
considered within the framework of the theory of
associated flow rule the resulting tangent matrix is
plasticity. For the physical background see, e.g. [2].
non-symmetric.
Elastic-plastic relations for friGtiona1 problems are
Several examples show the performance and
well known and have been proposed, e.g. in [3-S].
efficiency of the developed finite element formulation.
Until now, most of the finite element implemen-
tations of frictional phenomena have been based on
2. THE FRICTIONAL INTERFACE LAW
the classical Coulomb law. Many of the associated
algorithms are constructed on an ad hoc basis. How- Contact constraints can be incorporated via differ-
ever, elastic-plastic relations are also used to devise ent formulations into the general variational frame-
frictional algorithms. In these cases it is often work of finite element methods. The approach
assumed that the normal contact stresses are known, between two bodies is characterized by the following
which implies an associated flow rule (see e.g. [5]). distance function:
This approach leads to a two-step algorithm when
applied to frictional contact problems with an a priori
gN = (4 ’ - (b2). n2 on r, = Wn8B2. (1)
unknown contact stress distribution, in which, in the
first step, a solution of the normal contact problem
is found, and in the second step the frictional stresses gN denotes the gap between two bodies, cftAis the
due to the known normal stresses are calculated. Such deformation of the body BA and rr’ is the normal
algorithms need a considerable number of iterations associated with the surface dBA.The non-penetrating
for convergence. This is also true for algorithms condition
which change normal and tangential contact stresses
simul~eously. g,&O on r, (2)
In this paper a new finite element formulation for
frictional contact problems is given. The basis for this is a commonly used mathematical approximation for
development is an elastic-plastic formulation of a the kinematics within the contact interface.

319
320 P. Wruoosas et al.
However, the above condition does not represent
the real physical behaviour in the interface, which is
considered in the following approach.
2.1. Frictionless contact law
2.1.1. The true contact area. It can be observed in
experiments on the micromechanical level that two
bodies come into contact only at the asperities of the
rough surfaces. From these experiments and their
statistical evaluation, Tabor [2] extracted a relation
between the true contact area A, and the contact
force.
For elastic deformations of quasi-spherical contact
areas one observes a proportionality between A, and
It,#, with the limiting cases.
n = f, which means that the number of contact points
is constant during loading;
n = 1, which means that the number of contact points
increases during loading.
In the case the fully plastic deformation within the
true contact areas or when the form of the surface
roughness is different from a spherical cap, the
limiting case for the law above is (n = 1), which is also
known as the law of Meyer.
A similar relationship may be found in [9];
Kragelski et al. proposed for elastic deformations
within the true contact area the exponent n = 0.8-0.9
and for plastic deformations n = 1.
The evaluation of different contact experiments
leads to a nonlinear relation between the true contact
area and the contact load t, (see [lo]).
: metallic materials the parameter cNis proportional to
n=-.
Here A, is the true and A is the nominal contact area,
and H denotes the hardness of the material.
Figure 1 depicts the logarithm of the dimensionless
pressure It,(/AH vs the ratio of the true contact area
to the nominal area.
Equation (3) depends strongly on the material and
surface parameters. However, it can be concluded
& ‘-
A
IO-' 4 and the micro-displacement is slightly nonlinear in
IO-' IO-' IO-* 10-l I m
Fig. 1. Dimensionless plot of the true contact area vs
pressure [lo].
that a sublinear relation exists in general between
pressure and true contact areas.
2.1.2. Approach of the contact surfaces. Based on
statistical models, Kragelski et al. [9] developed a
contact law which relates the normal stress in the
contact interface to the approach between the two
contact surfaces:
]aJ = c]gJ’“, m = 2-3.3. (4)
In (4) g, is the approach normal to both contact areas
and eN is the mean interface pressure. The parameters
c and m describe the stiffness of the contacting
surfaces. These parameters depend on, e.g. the
material and the micromechanics of the surface.
Remark 2.1. Often the penalty method is used to
solve contact problems. In this method the term
l/2 jas, cgf d(aB) is added to the function to incor-
porate the contact conditions. Its first variation yields
JaDcEgg,6gNd(dB), which is equivalent to the virtual
work of the contact stresses jaBcua,6gNd(c%r). By
comparing the last two expressions we recover a
linear interface law for the normal contact stresses
crN= cg,. Thus, a linear version (m = 1) of the inter-
face law (4) may lead to a choice of the penalty
parameter on physical grounds.
An overview of different experimental data and con-
tact interface laws may be found in [ 111,in which was
proposed the law (4) up to a pressure of 5 MPa. For
a higher pressure, an exponential law is favoured
(see [12]): (QJ = a exp 6(gN]). c, a, b and m are vari-
ables which describe the interface law. For most
the modulus of elasticity, whereas m is approximately
two.
2.2. Frictional interface law
Frictional phenomena have to be considered in the
case of a relative tangential motion within the contact
surface. To derive the associated interface laws we
will neglect influences of temperature and tangential
velocity on the interface law. As an alternative to the
classical Coulomb law we will develop a frictional
interface law which includes the decrease of frictional
coefficient with increasing contact pressure. Based on
this relation a frictional law analogous to the theory
of plasticity will be formulated.
By the classical assumptions of the frictional law a
body rests until the maximum shear force is reached.
In reality, however, bodies show tangential micro-
displacements within the contact area before the
sliding process starts. This behaviour is depicted in
Fig. 2, where the relation between the tangential force
M the presliding phase (see e.g. [9, 111).
AH
A reasonable approximation of the nonlinear be-
haviour in the pre-sliding phase is given by a linear
 Impact-contact problems with friction
tT
I The slip condition
Fig. 2. Friction force vs tangential displacement [9].Zone 1:
preliminary displacement. Zone 2: sliding.
relation between the tangential micro-displacements
and the shear force:
tT= cTgT,
which will be used throughout this paper.
When the bodies start to slide within the contact
interface we have to consider a different law for the
tangential forces. From experiments an equation for
the frictional shear stresses can be obtained in depen-
dence on the normal contact pressure, (see e.g. [9]).
The shear stresses in the contact area can be written
as a linear function of the contact pressures (this is
depicted in Fig. 3)
Thus the frictional coefficient is given by
It should be noted that the frictional coefficient p in
(7) is constant when the pressure pr reaches the yield
pressure H.
We can now combine eqns (3) and (6) to give a
new formulation of a frictional law. As the yield
pressure will not be reached in the true contact area
(n < l), the mean pressure p, in (6) can be expressed
by (3):
‘
Fig. 3. Relation between shear and normal stresses in the
contact area [9].
CAS 37/3-F
321
Using (6), eqn (8) can be rewritten as
for the frictional force follows
from (9):
-- Afo
f=-alfNl”-~l~Nl+lltTtl~O, a-(AHY. (10)
This condition is analogous to the yield condition
in plasticity. Condition (10) depicts in the three-
dimensional case a slip paraboloid. Thus (10) in-
cludes the phenomenon of decrease in frictional
coefficient with increasing normal pressure. The par-
ameters CL,/I and n depend on surface properties such
as roughness or hardness and have to be deduced
(9 from experiments. It should be noted that the sliding
rule used in conjunction with slip condition (10) is
non-associated. Reasons for this have been pointed
out for the classical Coulomb law in earlier work,
e.g. [13].
Assuming that the true contact area is proportional
to the contact pressure p, = H = ItJ/A, (n = l), one
recovers the slip cone of Coulomb as a limiting case:
f = -,‘#Nl + Ilt,II & 0. (11)
Here, the frictional coefficient
is given by
(6) p = (to/H) + /I. Other formulations, such as that
given in [14], use a slip ellipsoid as the slip criterion
together with an associated slip rule.
The formulation of a frictional law analogous to
the theory of plasticity leads to the split of the
tangential velocity in the contact interface:
Here the first part of the right-hand side is associated
with the incremental micro-displacements before
sliding; see eqn (5). With the postulate of an associ-
ated slip rule the slip direction is defined by the
gradient of the slip condition:
(8)
However, (13) leads to uplifting displacements
which produce negative dissipation. Thus, because of
thermodynamical restrictions, a non-associated flow
rule has to be used in combination with (lo), (see
e.g. ]3,4,71).
The possibility of circumventing this problem,
based on the assumption of a known normal contact
stress distribution in the contact area, is followed in
most implementations of friction. In this case the
slip paraboloid (10) decreases to a circle at the
known normal stress tN = constant. Thus (12) can be
neglected, which leads to an associated slip rule for
fixed tN =constant. (For a variational framework,
322 P. WRIGGERS
see [15].) However, algorithms based on this assump-
tion need a staggered form: first the normal contact
stresses have to be calculated with fixed tangential
stresses and then, in a next iteration, the frictional
stresses have to be computed with fixed normal
stresses. In many cases the convergence properties of
these algorithms are not satisfactory.
In this paper, no assumption of a constant normal
pressure in the contact area is made. According to the
thermodynamical restrictions, the following non-
associated slip rule is used to formulate the frictional
interface law:
The parabolic slip surface associated with the
sliding condition (10) and the slip rule (14) is shown
in Fig. 4.
The advantage of (14) is that a two-step algorithm
can be avoided, However, this leads to a non-
symmetric tangent matrix. Its good convergent
behaviour in combination with a return mapping
scheme will be depicted by means of examples.
3. FINlTE ELEMENT FORMULATION
3.1. Standard FE formulation without constrailtts
Standard finite element approximations yield in
case of dynamics a nonlinear system of ordinary
differential equations:
G(v,t)=Mii+R(v)-P=O, VCR”. (15)
Here the body B is discretixed by n, finite elements q,
which leads to Bh = u ::, 1R,. The vectors R, P and
the matrix M are given by
(16)
where N contains the shape functions and B their
derivatives according to the theory used. R denotes
Fig, 4. Parabolic slip surface.
et al.
the so-called stress divergence term and P is the load
pattern. Because of geometrical or material non-
linearities the system of equations (15) is nonlinear in
v. M is the consistent mass matrix. Here we will use
a lumping technique to obtain a mass matrix of
diagonal form. (For a discussion of different ap-
proaches, see e.g. [16].)
Remark 3.1. The degree of nonlinearity depends on
the theory used to describe the problem at hand.
(1) In the three-dimensional theory of nonlinear elas-
ticity using St Venant material R is a cubic poly-
nomial in v.
(2) In shell theories for large rotations v depends on
t~gonomet~c functions (see e.g. [17]).
(3) The incorporation of elasto-plastic materials
leads-depending on the plasticity model-to differ-
ent types of nonlinea~ty.
The methods for the solution of (15) are standard.
For two-dimensional applications Newton’s method
has been proved to be advantageous.
3.2. Finite element formulation of frictional contact
Attention is now focused on the planar and
axisymmetric case of a straight element boundary
undergoing finite deformations. This formulation is
valid for a class of elements such as beam, axisym-
metrical shell and two-dimensional isoparametric
elements.
The constraint equations are based on nodal
values. In this context, and with reference to Fig. 5,
the gap or penetration is approximated by the finite-
element method nodally. Here, the gap or ~netration
gh: associated with a typical slave node s is indicated
by the inequality
gN, = (x, -x,)9l>O, vs:E4,. (17)
n denotes the normal to the master segment 1-2,
x, = X, + v, defines the current position of the slave
node, and xl = X, + v, , x2 = X2 + v2 define the cur-
rent position of the master segment. Inequality (17)
has to be checked for all candidate contact nodes s
which are contained in the finite set YC. In general,
9C contains all boundary nodes of the contacting
bodies. For gN, < 0, the constraint equation for a
node s becomes active (s E fA); otherwise, the con-
straint is inactive (s E fr), with #C = fAu9[ and
9,n.Ff=0.
It should be noted that eqn (17) is valid for the
general contact of two or more bodies, (see e.g. [18]).
If u~lateral cons~aints are present, the master
surface becomes rigid, which is associated with
Vl -- v2 2 0.
Fu~he~ore, we define the length of the master
element i-2 and the local-base vectors by
- Xl II, t =; 62 - X*)t n = e3 x t.
1 = 11x2 (181
 Impact-contact problems with friction 323

gjv=hR-hnr=u.-gR

Fig. 5. Discrete formulation of the approach in the contact area. g, = h$ - h, = u - g$

With these quantities we are able to define the natural define a displacement vector for the three-node
coordinate a : contact elements (s, 1,2)

v’= (~~~*~*~~~~#~)r, (24)

o! = f (x, - xi) *t, a E [0, 11, (19)
and the vectors

which measures the relative position of the slave node

s within the master segment l-2. We are now able to K=[-(:#I}, N,,={ -3, (25)
define the relative slip of the slave node s on the
master surface l-2:
and

g, =&+(a -E)l:

In this equation the overbar denotes quantities

(20)
T’=( -a, (26)
-(;;ct)t}.
To={
related to the reference configuration. Thus the initial
length of a segment is given by r= l/Xl - Xi 11. With these definitions we obtain the matrix formu-
The virtual work of boundary nodes which are in lation of eqns (22) and (23):
contact is now formulated for one slave node s:
=N;6v’,
&?.VS 6gr*=f I(T,+~N,)).~~. (27)

Thus the virtual work which has to be added to the

Here, rlv,and tr, are the normal and tangential force,
respectively, at the node, SgNSdenotes the virtual gap
and agr, is the virtual tangential displacement.
The variations of the gap and the tangential dis-
placements in (21) are given by
standard finite element equation (15) because of
contact can be expressed with (21) for all nodes which
are in contact by

=@v,- (1 -a)&,
~&zs - afhj)~o, (22) In (28) the contact forces trJ, and tr, are known from
the constitutive interface laws. The directions of these
forces are defined by N$, T, and NO. &cause of the
&r,=f (Sv,-(1 -a)&,-a&)-t
[ known interface laws, a pure displacement formu-

1.
lation of the contact problem is possible, which is in
contrast to the Lagrangian multiplier technique often
+g+ (SV~-SV,)‘D 03) used in eqn (2). Furthermore, the proposed method
can be viewed as a regularixation technique, like the
For finite element implementations we need the penalty method, based on physical grounds (see also
matrix form of eqns (21)-(23). For this purpose we Remark 2.1).
324 P.
It should be noted that the vector R, reduces for the
infinitesimal theory to
Finally, we obtain the global nonlinear finite element
equation extended by contact forces (28)
G;,(v, t) = Mii + R(v) + R, - P = 0, v E R”,
which is the basis for the algorithmic treatment
within the finite element method.
4. ALGORITHMS FOR FRICTIONAL IMPACTXONTACT
PROBLEMS
The algorithmic treatment of impact-contact prob-
lems involves several aspects which will be discussed
below in detail. As can be seen from eqns (28) and
(29) we have to solve a nonlinear ordinary differential
equation with inequality constraints as a resuJt of
contact. For this pupose, we will use a standard
implicit method, the Newmark scheme. Impact-
contact and release conditions which have to be
addressed in Lagrangian multiplier techniques (see
e.g. [19]) do not enter this method. Here the same
arguments apply as in penalty methods (see e.g. [20]).
F~he~o~, physical nonlinea~ty associated with
the frictional sliding or the material model of the
bodies has to be considered. As an iterative scheme
we apply Newton’s method for the solution within a
time step. For this purpose, we have to linearize the
standard finite element formulation as well as the
contact interface laws for the normal and tangential
part. The frictional interface law will be integrated by
using a radial return scheme, which is well established
in computational plasticity (see e.g. [6,21]). Its lin-
earization leads to a non-symmetric tangent operator.
We do not state the linearization procedures for
standard f&&e element techniques which lead to the
tangential stiffness matrix of the finite element model,
explicitly. They can be found in text-books (e.g. [22]).
Consistent tangent operators for elastic-plastic prob-
lems may be found in, e.g. [6].
4.1. Time discretizatioPt with Newmark’s method
Explicit or implicit methods can be used for the
integration of eqn (29). Explicit methods are often
applied for the short-duration impact-contact prob-
lems. Their drawbacks are the dependence of the time
step on the smallest element size. On the other hand,
the implementation is very simple and efficient.
Un~ndi~onally stable implicit methods do not
possess this disadvantage. However, the numerical
effort is substantial larger as a nonlinear system of
equations has to be solved for every time step.
Our experience is that for impact-contact problems
where no inherent shock waves appear, implicit inte-
gration can be used with considerable larger time
WRIGGFM et al.
steps than in explicit schemes. Thus, in this work,
Newmark’s method is used (see [23]). As the update
formulae of this scheme are well known (see e.g. [16]),
we do not specify them here explicitly. Their incor-
poration into the nonlinear algorithm leads to the
so-called effective tangent stiffness and effective
residuals which will be used in the general algorithm
(see Sec. 4.3).
4.2. Algorithmic treatment of the contact
(29) Within the solution ~go~thm Newton’s method
will be used to achieve equilibrium within one time
step. For this purpose a consistent linearization of the
contact contributions is necessary. We will now de-
rive the associated finite element formulation. For
more clarity in the subsequent developments we will
suppress the index s in the following which denotes
the slave node of a contact element (see See 3.2).
4.2.1. Frictionless contact. The consistent lineariza-
tion of the frictionless part can be found for the
contact discretization (17) in [24]. It stems from the
linearization of the term tN&glyusing the directional
derivative in (28):
(30)
and
AL\6g,=6vc- - f T, N: + N,T:
[ (
>I
+y N,N,T Av’. (32)
Inserting (31) and (32) in (30) yields the tangent
stiffness for the normal contact:
K -!&qLtN i T~N~+N~T~~~N~N~ . (33)
N-agN s 5 ( >
The matrices N,, T, and N, can be found in eqns (25)
and (26). The derivation of the normal contact force
with respect to the displacement g, is given by the
interface law (4). Numerical experiments have shown
that a linearized interface law does not change the
solution and yields a robust behaviour. Such a choice
is related to the penalty method for normal contact
(see Remark 2.1).
4.2.2. Tangential contact, elastic part. In the case of
friction we have to consider additional terms.
Analogous to (30) we obtain the consistent lineariza-
tion for the elastic part of the tangential motion-the
micro-displacements-in the contact interface from
D(tr agr) bgr -%Ag&gr+
agr t,Adgp (34)
-_
 Impact<ontact problems with friction 325

Using eqn (28) the first term in (34) can be written as The unknown L is computed by inserting (43) into
(40):

Ag,dg,=6P+-, (35)

with the symmetric matrix + IG+, - Ic, sign(t, + ,)I = 0. (44)

A=(T3+~No)(Ts+~No) For constant parameters a and j? we can solve (44)

=[r.T:+$Nf+N,T:+~
NON:)].
It should be noted that eqn (36) has the same
structure as (33). Furthermore, we have to compute
A6g,, which leads to the matrix formulation
with respect to L explicitly. In the case of hardening
effects in the frictional law, these parameter will
depend on the tangential displacements (see e.g. [5]).
Then (44) is nonlinear in 1, which leads to a local
Newton iteration for the solution of (44).
When 1 is known, the inelastic slip increment is
given by
Agi;! = Iz sign(t,), AgFO= IAgfl = 1. (45)

A6g, = 6ti.i B Avc, (37) We may now derive the cons&e@ linearization of the
algorithm stated above which leads to the tangential
stiffness matrix for the sliding part. The frictional
with force depends, in contrast to the elastic part of the
tangential motion, on the normal forces in the
B=(N,N,T+N,N,T)--(T,T,T+T,,T:) contact area. Thus we obtain from the virtual
work expression fT6gT with g = {gN, gT} the lin-
-2e(N earization
0Nr+T
0 0Nr)
0. (38)
I

We can now combine eqns (35) and (37) with (34) to

find the symmetric tangent stiffness of the elastic part
of the tangential motion in the contact area:
+ 2 AgN6g, + fT ASg,. (46)
N

k,=$;A+l,;B. (39)
T
As the linearizations with respect to g, and g,
have already been derived, only the linearization of
In (39) the derivation of the tangential contact forces
the frictional forces has to be considered in the
with respect to the displacement g, is given by the
following.
interface law (5). Thus it may be replaced by cr. The tangential force tr is known only via the
4.2.3. Tangential contact, sliding part. The normal algorithm described above. Thus, the differentiations
and frictional forces at the element nodes have to with respect to gr and gN yield
fulfil the slip condition (10) which can be rephrased
for two-dimensional problems as follows:
ah.,
-=
ah + I
f(fNV rT) = -alt,l” - BM + lb1G0. (40)

With the kinematic split (12) and the non-associated (47)

slip rule evaluated for the plane case, the return
mapping scheme can be formulated: The differentiation of 1 with respect to tN and tS
follows from the slip condition (40) as no explicit
&! = 0 gl;n= n’ sign(t,). (41) dependence of 1 as a function of the forces rN and t;
is known. The final result of this implicit differen-
With the elastic predictor tiation yields the incremental constitutive parameters

%+l = fTn + dan+l -an)k (42) +&=+(1+.&J,

we obtain for the frictional force

c;=-=atTn+ I
-cNcrsign(t,)
af+l/atNn+l
af,+, ,an . (48)
agNn + I
326
The non-symmetric frictional tangent matrix follows
with lTn+l from (41) and eqns (46)-(48):
k&;A+fm+,;B+c:C.
Matrix b differs from kH [see eqn (39)], by the
different incremental constitutive parameter c$, and
the non-symmetric part c:C, which stems from the
coupling between normal and tangential force in the
contact area. The matrix C yields
C=T,Nf+gFN,N:.
4.3 Overall algorithm
In this section we will state the overall algorithm
for the solution of impact-contact problems. For
simplicity we do not use an index for quantities at
time t + At. Quantities associated with the time t will
be denoted by an overbar. The global matrix KF is
assembled from the contributions of tangent stiffness
matrices for the elements and the contact segments as
well as the mass matrix according to the Newmark
formulae. The same considerations hold for Cc”,
which is assembled from the stress divergence terms
of the elements, the contact forces (29), and the mass
terms due to the Newmark formulae.
(1) Time t = 0.
Set initial values, loop over all time steps.
(2) Equilibrium iteration at time t + At:
set initial values and i = 0.
(3) Loop over all elements, compute K;B’, GeRi.
(4) Loop over all contact segments s.
Check for contact and compute contact forces.
(a) Check for contact: IF: gN, = (x, - x,).n > 0:
go to (e).
(b) Compute normal force: tN, and matrix k,
IF (frictionless contact): go to (e).
(c) Compute frictional force: tT, = tTs, + cT
(a - E)L
(d) Check slip condition:
IFf(t,,rrz)= -aIt,I”-pItlv,I+ltT~I~O
THEN
Elastic
I I
1 ::“,‘I
Fig. 6. System, FE discretization and deformed configuration.
P. Wamosas et al.
Update: g$ = g:,, , compute matrices
k,, k,, go to (e)
ELSE
Sliding
(49) Elastic predictor: t;, = tT,
Compute 1 from
f(n)= -alfN,In-BlfN,I
+ It!+,- Ic, sign(tt ] = 0
Compute: tT,, g$ and matrices kN,, k,
go to (e)
ENDIF
(e) Continue.
(5) Solution of the incremental system of equations
(50) KF AV’ + Ga’ = 0.
(6) Check for convergence:
IF IlG@ll > Tol: Set (O)i = (i)‘+’ ELSEIIG&‘lI
<Tel: go to (8).
(7) Update VifL=Vi+AVi and gi+‘,V’+l, go to
(2).
(8) Updates for next time step:
If t <tend: Update (0) =(e), go to (2).
(9) stop.
5. NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS
In this section we present a selected sample of
numerical simulations that demonstrate the applica-
bility of the method developed in the previous sec-
tions to a wide range of frictional contact-impact
problems. To illustrate the efficiency and convergence
characteristics of the proposed method, we report on
explicit rates of convergence obtained in the course of
these simulations. The developed algorithms have
been implemented in the general purpose finite
element code FEAP (see Taylor in [22], Chapter 24).
5.1. Contact of an elastic block with a rigidfoundation
For purposes of comparison, a numerical exper-
iment of Oden and Pires [25] is investigated in this
paper. The problem considered is that of an elastic
block pressed against a rough rigid foundation. The
elastic block is then pulled by a tangential force
uniformly distributed along one of its lateral sides
(see Fig. 6).
To compare with the results of Oden and Pires the
contact area is restricted such that the first and the
last element in the contact area do not come into
I
 Impact-contact problems with friction 327

I
d. 2.

x-Coordinate
Fig. 7. Stresses on contact area (conical slip surface). Con-
tact normal stress: +, [25]; *, computed result. Contact
frictional stress: 0, [25]; x , computed result.
contact with the rigid surface. Young’s modulus E
and Poisson’s ratio v are 1000 per length square and
0.3, respectively. The applied loads are p, = 60 and
p,, = 200 per unit length. To reproduce the data given
in [25] the properties of the contact surface have been
chosen as follows: m = 1, c, = lo*, cr = 104, n = 1
and a +/I = 0.5, which is equivalent to Coulomb’s
conical slip surface. Here, a nonlinear dependence of
the frictional stress on the normal stress has been
neglected as the formulation of Oden and Pires does
not include this effect.
The block is discretized using 200 four-node iso-
parameter% elements. It should be noted that with
the developed frictional algorithm the total load can
be applied in only one step. The computed contact
stresses are depicted in Fig. 7, and indicate good
agreement between the solutions.
To represent the nonlinear dependence of the
friction stress on the normal stress the parameters of
the friction law are varied: n = 0.5, u = $2, /? = 0.3.
This results in a parabolic slip surface.
Figure 8 shows the contact stress distribution
for the parabolic slip surface. We observe only a
small change of the normal contact stress; however,
a considerable reduction of the frictional stress is
detected in the region of higher normal pressure,
which is in agreement with experimental obser-
vations.
Table 1 shows the quadratic rate of convergence of
the Newton method. It should be noted that only four
iterations are necessary to achieve convergence for
x-Coordinate
Fig. 8. Stresses on contact area (parabolic slip surface).
the conical slip surface. Here the total load has been
applied in one step.
5.2. Sliding and rolling of a ring on a rigid surface
This textbook example has been considered to test
the frictional interface law and the algorithm. A steel
ring of R = 50 cm with a rectangular cross-section
of A = lOcm* and an elasticity modulus of
2.1 x 104kN/cm* is pushed with an initial tangential
velocity of ur= 300 cm/set along a straight rigid
surface. The density has been chosen as
7.85 x lo-’ kNsec/cm4. One hundred and twenty
finite elements have been used to discretize the ring.
To compare with the exact solution, Coulomb’s law
has been applied with a frictional constant of
v = 0.15. The parameters of the interface law are set
as follows: m = 1, c, = 10’ kN/cm and cr = lo* kN/
cm. The time integration was performed by
Newmark’s method with the parameters S = 0.7 and
j? = 0.4. Throughout the computation a time step of
At = O.O1s has been used*
Figure 9 shows different states of the ring, begin-
ning with pure sliding and ending with rolling. The
values computed using the exact solution are stated
in brackets. Figure 9 also shows the velocity profiles
for the different solution states. The good agreement
of the finite element solution with the exact solution
for a rigid ring is noteworthy.
5.3. Sloping impact of a ring on a rigid foundation
A ring with a quadratic cross-section of A = 1 and
a radius of R = 10 impacts a rigid plane surface under

Table 1.
Norm of residuum llGj

Iteration no. Conical slip surface Parabolic slip surface

1 0.1713709 x 10’ 0.1713709 x 103
2 0.1196315 x lo2 0.2446232 x lo2
3 0.3218561 x 10’ 0.1265767 x lo2
4 0.4368441 x lo-” 0.5389606 x 10’
5 0.1306383 x 10’
6 0.1098278 x lo-$
7 0.4359430 x 10-u
328 P. Waroosas et al.

t-23* (229) 1x= 382 (376) , [cm]

1 1

Pro&s of velocity [cm/s]

300 (300) 149 (150)

n @JL(75) 147Yo(5)

300 156 (150) 16 (0) 1 (0)

Fig. 9, Rolling of a ring on a rigid surface, velocity profiles.

an angle of incidence of a, = 45” with the velocity a viscoplastic beam element, which can be found
u,= 2, t+ = 2. A uniform mesh of 16 linear beam in [26]. The plastic values for the stress resultants
elements which include finite deformations was used N, Q and M are 1, 0.5 and 0.25, respectively. The
in the computations. The formulation of this element non-uniform deformations and a lower upward
is found in [26,27]. The material data chosen are movement of the ring indicate the loss of energy
E = 100, v = 0 and p = 0.01. The time integration in the system because of plastic deformations [see
was performed by Newmark’s method with the par- Fig. 1l(b)].
ameters 6 = 0.7 and /I = 0.4 and a time step At = 0.1.
The data for the interface law are 1?1= 1, cN= 50, 5.4. Fall of an elastic ring into a funnel
cr= 30, n = 0.8, a = 0.2 and /I = 0.3. In this example, the same ring as in Sec. 5.3 is
The motion of the elastic ring is shown in Figs 10 considered, which falls with an initial velocity v,, = 4
and 11(a) for the case of frictionless and frictional into a rigid funnel. Because of symmetry only one-
contact, respectively. Two hundred time steps have
been used for the overall impact-contact calculation.
Figures 10 and 11 indicate the difference between
the solutions. For the case of frictional contact the
ring suffers an additional rotation after rebounding
from the foundation. The angles of reflection and the
components of the velocity of the ring after contact
are given in Table 2.
Next, the same problem is considered for the
case of inelastic response of the ring. Here we use

Fig. 10. Motion of the elastic ring for the case of frictionless Fig. 11. Motion of the ring for the case of frictional contact.
contact. (a) Elastic; (b) viscoplastic.
 Impact-contact problems with friction 329

Table 2.
Velocity Angle of
components reflection, al
Frictionless contact t&=2 * Uv’ 1.7 50”
Frictional contact u, = 1.2, uv= 1.7 35”

half of the ring was discretized, by 30 beam elements.

For the interface law within the contact surface the
parameters m = 1, c, = 10 and e, = 5 have been
chosen, The frictional law (10) is used with the
following data: n = 0.75, a = 0.3 and fi = 0.1.
In Fig. 12 the motion of the ring is plotted in
intervals of five time steps, the time step being
At = 0.1. For the case of frictionless contact a large
elastic deformation of the ring is observed during the
contact process; moreover, the ring rebounds, as
there is no energy loss in the system [see Fig. 12(b)]. Fig. 14. Finite element model of the cork.
By taking into account frictional phenomena, the ring
sticks to the funnel wall for the given data above [see of the interface law are m = 1, cN= 100 N/mm,
Fig. 13(b)]. Furthermore, the elastic deformation is cr = 10 N/mm.
smaller, as in the frictionless case. Figure 14 depicts the geometry of the cork. The
axisymmetric cord was discretized by 114 four-node
isoparametric elements. As the deformation of the
5.5. Champagne cork under internalpressure bottle is negligible, only two elements were used to
In this example, the motion of a cork of a cham- discretixe the bottle neck.
pagne bottle during opening is discussed. The cork is The initial connation of the cork being pressed
described by an isotropic and hypereiastic material into the bottle neck with internal radius of IOmm,
law with the material data E = 10 MPa, v = 0.25, was achieved by a quasistatic contact calculation. As
p = 3.5 x IO-” N sec2/mm4. The material data the cork has a maximum radius of 12mm, large

(a) (bl
v, = 4.0 -

Fig. 12. Motion of the ring for the case of frictionless contact.

(at (b)

12= 0.75
Q = 0.3
p = 0.1

Fig. 13. Motion of the ring for the case of frictional contact.
330
7 n
t = 0.0
Ii
ms 0.8 ms
II!
t = 2.0 ms
! II
Fig. 15. The configurations of the cork at several time instants (0.0,0.8, 1.0, 1.5,2.0,2.6,2.7 and 3.0 msec).
strains appear during this process. Thus a geometric
nonlinear theory with finite deformation had to be
applied for this example. For the frictional law (lo),
the following data were applied: n = 1 and
h = a + /l = 0.1, where, for the frictional coefficient,
a linear hardening law p = k + rg! with 5 = 0.001
was used.
In the initial configuration a normal force of
t,,,x 2500 N acts in the contact zone surrounding the
cork. With the assumed frictional coefficient the cork
begins to slide at a tangential force of t, x 250 N.
This force is created by an internal pressure of about
0.8 MPa. Because of the high load in relation to the
small mass of the cork, it is essential to describe the
pressure precisely during the dynamic solution. In
general, this is a coupled problem, as the pressure is
inversely proportional to the volume. Here we use an
explicit scheme for the coupling. Hence the pressure
is computed from the law p,, V, = pi Vi = constant as
p, = (V,,/Vi)po for the next time step i + 1. As this is
81 ,
6. 1. 1. ’ 3.*
Time / ms
Fig. 16. The pressure on the cork vs time.
P. Waioozas et al.
1.0 Ins
1
1.5 ms
L’11
ms
3.0 Ins
28mls
i
1
an explicit procedure, a small time step must be
adapted to avoid considerable errors in the solution.
Thus a time step of At = 1 x 10e4 s was used as long
as the cork moved inside the bottle.
The internal pressure was applied in eight time
steps of 0.1 MPa. It was then reduced according to
the above equation for the next time steps. Because
of the assumption that the distance between the
liquid and the cork is 3Omm, a pressure of
pi = (30/54) 0.8 = 0.56 MPa acts on the cork just be-
fore it leaves the bottle. After that the pressure drops.
During a short time period just before and after the
cork leaves the bottle, the time step was reduced to
At = 5 x 10e6 s, as the cork suffers great deformation
at this time. After about 3-4 x 10e4 s the larger time
step was used again.
The motion of the cork is shown in Fig. 15. Based
on the given data the cork leaves the bottle with a
velocity of appromimately 28 m/set. The graphs in
Figs 16 and 17 show the pressure and the displace-
Time / ms
Fig, 17. The displacement of the cork vs time.
 Impact-contact problems with friction
ment of the cork vs time. It was observed by par-
ameter studies that the velocity of the cork is affected
primarily by the initial gas volume.
RJlFEitENCXS
1. J. ‘I’. Oden and J. A. C. Martins, Models and compu-
tational methods for dynamic friction phenomena.
Comput. Meth. appl. Mech. Engng 52, 527-634
(1985).
2. D, Tabor, Friction-the present state of our under-
standing. l. &u&r. Technol. 103, 169-179 (1981).
3. R. Michaloswki and Z. Mroz, Associated and non-
associated sliding rules in contact ftiction problems.
Archs Mech. 30,-259-276 (1978).
4. A. Cumier. A &ON of friction. ht. J. Soli& Struct. u),
637-647 (1984).
5. B. Fredriksson, Finite element solution of surface non-
linear&s in structural mechanics with special emphasis
on contact and fracture mechanics problems. Compur.
Struct. a, 281-290 (1976).
6, J. C. Simo and R. L. Taylor, Consistent tangent
operators for rate-independant elastoplasticity. Comput.
Math. URRI.Mech. Engng 48, 101-118 (1985).
7. P. Wri&rs, On c&is&t tangent matrices for fric-
tional contact nroblems. Proc. NUMETA 87 Confi
(Edited by J. I&ddleton and G. N. Pande) (1987). _
8. A. G. Giannokopoulos, The return mapping method for
the integration of friction constitutive relations. Com-
put. Strut. 32, 1.57-168 (1989).
9. 1. V. Kragelsky, M. N. Dobychin and V. S. Kombalov,
Friction and Wear-Calculation Methoak (Translated
from Russian by N. Standen). Pergamon P&s, Oxford
(1982).
10. K. L. Woo and T. R. Thomas, Contact of rough
surfaces: a review of experimental works. Wear 58,
331-340 (1980).
11. N. Back, M. Burdekin and A. Cowley, Review of
the research on tied and sliding joints. Proc 13th
Znt. MTDR Conf: (Edited by S. A. Tobias and F.
Koenigsberger), pp. 87-97. Macmillan, London
(1973).
12. R. Connoly and R. H. Thomley, Determining the
normal stiffness of joint faces. ASME Paper 67, Prod.
6 (1967).
13. D. C. Drucker, Coulomb friction, plasticity and
limit loads. J. appl. Mech., Trans. ASME 21, 71-74
(1954).
331
14, F. P. Bowden and D. Tabor, The Friction and Lubrica-
tion of Solids, Part II. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1964).
ls
G. Duvaut and J. L. Lions, Znequolities in Mechanics
and Physics. Springer-Vedag, Berlin (1976).
16. T. J. R. Hu&es. The Fmite Element Method: Linew
Static and D&a& Finite Element Analysis. Presitice-
Hall. Enalewood Cliffs. NJ 1198n.
17. F. dm&ann, Theo& und‘ Nurkerik schubelasticher
Schalen mit endlichen Drehungen unter Verwendung
der Biot-Spannungen. Forschung- und Seminarbe-
richte aus dem Bereich der Mechanik der Universitiit
Hannover, Bericht Nr. F 88/l (1988).
18. P. Wriaaers. W. Wanner and E. Stein. Alaorithms for
nonline: c&tact &&mints with ap&a~on to stab-
ility problems of rods and shells. Comput. Mech. 2,1-16
(1987).
19. T. J. R. Hughes, R. L. Taylor, L. Sackman, A. Curnier
and W. Kanoknukulchai, A finite element method for
a class of contact-impact problems. Cornput. Meth.
appl. Mech. Engng 8, 249-276 (1976).
20. J. Hallquist and D Nike. An implicit, finite deformation,
finite-element code for analysing the static and dynamic
response of two-dimensional solids. Rep. UCRL-52678,
University of California-Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (1979).
21, M. Ortiz and J. Simo, An analysis of a new class
of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive
relations. ~artment of Engineering, Brown Univer-
sity (1984).
22. 0. C. Zienkiewicz, The Finite Element Method.
McGraw-Hill, London (1977).
23. N. M. Newmark, A method of computation for struc-
tural dynamics. ASCE, J. Engng Mech. Div. 85,67-94
(1959).
24. P. Wriggers and J. C. Simo, A note on tangent stiffness
for fully nonlinear contact problems. Common. appt.
Numer. Meth. 1, 199-203 (1985).
25. J. T. Oden and E. B. Pires, Algorithms and numerical
results for finite element approximations of contact
problems with non-classical friction laws. Cornput.
Struct. 19, 137-147 (1983).
26. J. C, Simo, K. D. Hjehnstad and R. L. Taylor, Numeri-
cal formation of el~to-~~opl~tic response of beam
accounting for the effect of shear. Comput. Meth. appt.
Mech. Engng 42, 301-330 (1984).
21. J. C. Simo, P. Wriggers, K. Schweizerhof and R. L.
Taylor, Finite deformation postbuckling analysis
involving inelasticity and contact constraints. Int. J.
Numer. Meth. Engng 23, 779-800 (1986).