Abstract

The corresponding author had the pleasure of attending an excellent symposium titled “Experimental and Theoretical Micro- and Nano-Mechanics: Honoring the Contributions of Prof. Kyung-Suk Kim” organized by Professors Ashraf Bastawros, Wendy Crone, Yanfei Gao, and Ruike (Renee) Zhao as part of the 2022 Society of Engineering Sciences Annual Technical Meeting held in College Station, TX on October 16–19, 2022. The symposium was held in honor of Prof. Kim’s 70th Birthday and celebrated over 40 years of Prof. Kim’s independent research achievements across several areas of Applied Mechanics. The present paper is dedicated to Prof. Kim, a great colleague at Brown University.

We present a new formulation for the multilayer isogeometric Kirchhoff–Love (KL) shells, where the individual layers are assumed to interact through no-penetration and frictional contact. This work is largely motivated by the experiments and analysis presented in Poincloux et al. (2021, “Bending Response of a Book With Internal Friction,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(21), p. 218004). We utilize a regularized version of Coulomb’s friction law to model the tangential traction between the contacting shell surfaces. To ensure objectivity (i.e., reference-frame invariance) in the frictional model, we propose two different strategies to extrapolate the velocity vectors of the contact pair at the contact interface: (i) using the underlying KL kinematics of the individual shell layers and (ii) using the Taylor series-based extension from Kamensky et al. (2019, “Peridynamic Modeling of Frictional Contact,” J. Peridyn. Nonlocal Model., 1(2), pp. 107–121). We compare the performance of both approaches through a numerical benchmark example. We then validate our multilayer shell formulation using the “bending response of a book with internal friction” experiments of Poincloux et al. (2021, “Bending Response of a Book With Internal Friction,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(21), p. 218004).

1 Introduction

Contact-impact treatment of shell-to-shell interactions with friction has a broad spectrum of applications. One traditional engineering scenario that involves frictional contact is car crash, where the structural members self-contact, buckle, and slide past each other, exhibiting finite deformations and dissipating impact energy. On the interface modeling side, more recently, the mechanical response of layered architected structures has gained much attention due to their numerous applications in biology [1,2], thin films [3,4], and multilayer graphene [57]. In all these applications, interlayer friction plays an essential role in defining the global response of multilayer structural systems. Although analytical and experimental methods to study the response of multilayer structures comprising of thin elastic rods and plates interacting through friction were recently proposed [8,29], there is still a demand for accurate and efficient computational methodologies of general purpose and applicability in this area. Motivated by this demand, we develop a computational framework to model the response of multilayer structures governed by interlayer friction. Our approach models each layer as a large-deformation thin shell and defines frictional contact interaction between the layers. At the level of each layer, we employ an updated Lagrangian, isogeometric Kirchhoff–Love (KL) shell formulation, building on the authors’ recent work in Ref. [9].

We note that over the past decade, isogeometric analysis (IGA) [914] has matured to be a computationally efficient, accurate methodology for the modeling of thin shells and deployed in numerous applications like fluid–structure interaction [15], failure analysis of carbon-fiber reinforced composites [9], curvature-resisting material surfaces [16], bioprosthetic heart-valve analysis [17], and car crash [14]. IGA has also proven to be advantageous in the modeling of shell-to-shell contact [18] over C0-continuous Lagrange polynomial discretizations. The ability to exactly represent shell mid-surfaces through smooth B-splines directly translates into better accuracy and smoothness in representing the contact tractions, especially for frictional contact with sliding [19,20].

Because we aim to simulate structural systems involving many layers, we develop and employ a simple and efficient penalty-based approach to enforce normal and tangential contact constraints. Although more sophisticated contact-constraint enforcement techniques such as Lagrange multiplier or mortar methods may be used, they typically suffer from a high computational cost due to the extra unknowns employed [21,22], and often require complex implementation [23].

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Sec. 2, we formulate the normal and tangential parts of the contact model, discuss the two options of extrapolating the velocity vector at the contact interface, present a regularized Coulomb’s friction law [24], and show the linearization of the frictional contact terms that is needed for computer implementation of implicit time stepping. In Sec. 3, we present the numerical results focusing on experimental validation. In Sec. 4, we draw conclusions and discuss future research directions.

2 Frictional Contact Formulation

In what follows, the subscripts (·)1 and (·)2 indicate a quantity on sides 1 and 2, respectively, of a shared contact interface denoted by (Γc). The superscript (·)3D denotes an extrapolation of a shell mid-surface quantity, labeled (·)2D, to the contact interface via the KL kinematics [9,12,13]. We denote by hΓ the thickness of a single shell layer. The operator ()^ normalizes a vector with respect to the l2 norm denoted by . The notation δ(·) stands for the variation with respect to the mid-surface unknowns, ξi=1,2 indicates the shell in-plane parametric coordinate directions, and ξ3 ∈ [−1, +1] corresponds to the shell through-thickness parametric direction. In what follows, we focus exclusively on the contact formulation. The detailed formulation of the isogeometric KL shell that describes the behavior of the individual layers may be found in Ref. [9].

2.1 Normal Contact.

We begin with formulating the frictionless part of the virtual work due to contact tractions:
(1)
Here, the current-configuration position vector x3D and its variation may be computed using the KL kinematics (see Section 2.1 of Ref. [9]) as
(2)
and
(3)
respectively, where n is the mid-surface normal vector computed from the parametric derivatives of the mid-surface position vector x2D. Here, the “+” and “−” signs indicate the upper and lower shell layer surfaces, respectively, and are chosen such that the two mid-surface material points project onto the same spatial location on Γc.
In Eq. (1), f12nor stands for the normal contact traction that may be expressed as
(4)
where the contact pressure p(d) is given by
(5)
Here, k is the contact stiffness parameter, r is the cutoff distance taken as the local shell thickness average, i.e., r=(hΓ1+hΓ2)/2, and d is a scalar-valued gap function given by
(6)
where n^ is the contact interface effective normal
(7)
As evidenced by Eq. (5), we employ an active-set strategy in which we only take into account the contact contributions if the gap is closing, i.e., d > 0.

2.2 Tangential Contact.

To develop the frictional contact contributions, we proceed analogously to the frictionless case. Here, we use the principle of virtual power and define
(8)
The velocity vector v3D can be computed by taking a Lagrangian time derivative of the position vector in Eq. (2) to obtain
(9)
where B1 and B2 are the auxiliary matrices detailed in Section 2.1 of Ref. [9]. We use Eq. (10) to compute the variation of the velocity as
(10)
The relative velocity at a point on the shared contact interface Γc may now be defined as
(11)
and its variation as
(12)
Remark 1

As the analysis in Ref. [25] demonstrates, if the relative velocity is calculated directly between the two shell mid-surface locations as v12=v12Dv22D, it does not transform like a vector under superposed rigid body motions. As a result, this definition violates the objectivity requirements [26]. By defining the relative velocity as in Eq. (11), objectivity is restored because the relative velocity is computed at the same spatial point on the shared contact surface.

Remark 2
An alternative approach to restore objectivity, proposed in Ref. [25] in the context of solids, is to employ Taylor series expansion to first order to extrapolate the velocity from one side of the contact interface to another. In the context of KL shells, the extrapolation operator becomes
(13)
where (xv13D)|ξ3=0 is the spatial velocity gradient evaluated at the shell layer mid-surface. The relative velocity may now be defined as
(14)
We will compare the performance of both approaches in the numerical examples section of this paper.

2.2.1 Regularized Coulomb’s Friction Law.

The tangential traction f12tan due to the velocity difference can be computed via the Coulomb’s friction law as follows:
(15)
Here, (v1→2)τ is the tangential part of the relative velocity vector at the contact interface given by
(16)
where I is the second-order identity tensor and P=In^n^.
The scalar function Rfr expressing the frictional constitutive law is defined as
(17)
where v is the relative tangential velocity magnitude, and cfr is the coefficient of friction that depends on the properties of the materials that come into contact. (Table 5.1 in Ref. [22] includes some exemplary values for different material combinations.) The relationship given by Eq. (17) is a regularized version of Coulomb’s law [24,27,28], where εfr is a regularization parameter corresponding to the speed at which the stick-like behavior transitions to the full slip behavior. Besides being able to model stick-slip behavior, the regularized version of the friction law leads to improved convergence of the Newton–Raphson iterations in the implicit time stepping procedures employed in the present work. Figure 1 shows how the normalized friction magnitude varies with the relative slip speed for a given choice of the constitutive law parameters.
Fig. 1
Traction due to friction normalized by contact pressure p(d) as a function of the relative tangential slip speed v ∈ [0, 0.1] mm/s. For illustration purposes, we set εfr=0.02mm/s and cfr = 0.5
Fig. 1
Traction due to friction normalized by contact pressure p(d) as a function of the relative tangential slip speed v ∈ [0, 0.1] mm/s. For illustration purposes, we set εfr=0.02mm/s and cfr = 0.5
Close modal

2.3 Linearization.

To carry out implicit calculations, the weak form due to friction needs to be linearized with respect to the mid-surface velocity unknowns. We start with Eq. (8) and introduce the linearized operator as follows:
(18)
We focus our attention on the linearization of the traction term Δf12tan. Dropping the functional dependence of Rfr for brevity, the linearization of the traction may be expressed as
(19)
Here, the derivative of Rfr in Eq. (19) may be computed as
(20)
where v=(v12)τ is the relative slip velocity magnitude,
(21)
(22)
and
(23)
Inserting Eqs. (20)(23) into Eq. (19) leads to the following linearization of the frictional contact terms:
(24)
where Cfr may be thought of as a tangent damping tensor, which is symmetric and given by
(25)

3 Numerical Results

We compute two examples: (i) a relatively simple numerical benchmark problem from Ref. [25] where we assess the performance of the KL-based versus Taylor expansion-based velocity extrapolation and (ii) a more involved three-point bending test of a paper stack, where we are able to compare our results with the experimental measurements of Ref. [29]. For all the calculations we use C1-continuous quadratic non-uniform rational B-spline (NURBS) and employ three-point Gaussian quadrature in the plane and two-point Gaussian quadrature through the thickness in each layer.

3.1 Sliding Panel.

Following Ref. [25], we simulate a sliding action of an elastic panel on a rigid flat surface. The problem configuration is depicted in Fig. 2. The rectangular rigid surface measures 10 mm × 2 mm and has a constant thickness of 0.0625 mm. The deformable elastic square panel has an edge length of 1 mm and a constant thickness of 0.125 mm. The elastic panel is assumed to be made of an isotropic material with Young’s modulus E = 2.5 × 107 N/mm2 and Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.25. The flat surfaces come into contact after applying a uniformly distributed vertical body force per unit volume of fv = 1.0 N/mm3 to the elastic panel. After static equilibrium is achieved, we induce friction by sliding the elastic panel on the rigid surface using a constant, uniformly distributed horizontal body force per unit volume of fh = 1.0 N/mm3.

Fig. 2
Problem configuration for the sliding panel example. fh and fv are horizontal and vertical body force vectors, respectively, acting on the elastic panel
Fig. 2
Problem configuration for the sliding panel example. fh and fv are horizontal and vertical body force vectors, respectively, acting on the elastic panel
Close modal

We compute the problem using two meshes, denoted by M1 and M2, and two different values of the friction coefficient cfr = 0.2 and cfr = 0.5. We also compare the performance of the KL kinematics-based and Taylor expansion-based velocity extrapolation. The total number of elements for M1 and M2 are 100 × 20 + 10 × 10 = 2,100 and 200 × 40 + 20 × 20 = 8,400, respectively.

We report a time-dependent effective friction coefficient, which we define as
(26)
Here, ρ is the mass density, Ω is the elastic panel domain, and e1 and e2 are the unit normal vectors in the horizontal (along fh) and vertical (along fv) directions, respectively.

In Figs. 36, we compare the time history of the effective friction coefficient cfreff to the constant value cfr employed in the regularized Coulomb’s friction law (Eq. (17)). For both values of cfr, the Taylor series-based extension results in cfreff fluctuate around the analytical value. The fluctuations arise due to the fact that locally the relative friction velocity may have a small out-of-plane component. The fluctuation levels reduce appreciably with mesh refinement. These results are consistent with the original reference on the Taylor expansion-based approach in Ref. [25]. In contrast to the Taylor expansion-based case, the KL extension gives an accurate prediction of the effective friction coefficient and shows no fluctuations, even on the coarse mesh. With this result, in the next section, we simulate a more complicated scenario using only the KL kinematics-based extension version of the formulation.

Fig. 3
Time history of the effective coefficient of friction for M1 and cfr = 0.2. Comparison between the Taylor expansion-based extrapolation operator and that based on the KL kinematics
Fig. 3
Time history of the effective coefficient of friction for M1 and cfr = 0.2. Comparison between the Taylor expansion-based extrapolation operator and that based on the KL kinematics
Close modal
Fig. 4
Time history of the effective coefficient of friction for M2 and cfr = 0.2. Comparison between the Taylor expansion-based extrapolation operator and that based on the KL kinematics.
Fig. 4
Time history of the effective coefficient of friction for M2 and cfr = 0.2. Comparison between the Taylor expansion-based extrapolation operator and that based on the KL kinematics.
Close modal
Fig. 5
Time history of the effective coefficient of friction for M1 and cfr = 0.5. Comparison between the Taylor expansion-based extrapolation operator and that based on the KL kinematics.
Fig. 5
Time history of the effective coefficient of friction for M1 and cfr = 0.5. Comparison between the Taylor expansion-based extrapolation operator and that based on the KL kinematics.
Close modal
Fig. 6
Time history of the effective coefficient of friction for M2 and cfr = 0.5. Comparison between the Taylor expansion-based extrapolation operator and that based on the KL kinematics.
Fig. 6
Time history of the effective coefficient of friction for M2 and cfr = 0.5. Comparison between the Taylor expansion-based extrapolation operator and that based on the KL kinematics.
Close modal

3.2 Bending Response of a Paper Stack With Friction.

Inspired by experiments from Ref. [29], we present a series of three-point bending test calculations of a 40-layer paper stack. A rigid indenter that drives the transverse deflection is placed halfway between the supporting rollers, which have a radius of 6.8 mm and are positioned 65 mm from the center the stack. Each elastic plate measures 220 mm in the longitudinal direction and 30 mm in the width direction and has a constant thickness of 0.286 mm. (See Fig. 7 for the problem configuration.) The stack layers are made of polyethylene terephthalate. The material parameters for each layer are: Young’s modulus E = 2.4 GPa and Poisson’s ratio = ν = 0.44. In the experiments, the supporting rigid rollers are coated with a thin film of vinyl polysiloxane to mimic frictionless contact between the bottom layer of the stack and the rollers. To provide dry-friction conditions and avoid interlayer adhesion, the surface roughness of each layer is increased by applying sandpaper.

Fig. 7
Three-point bending test of a 40-layer stack with friction. Problem configuration.
Fig. 7
Three-point bending test of a 40-layer stack with friction. Problem configuration.
Close modal

For the discretization of each layer in the stack, we use 353 elements in the longitudinal direction and a single element in the width direction. In a similar fashion, to discretize the frictionless roller supports, we employ 804 elements in the circumferential direction with a single element in the width direction. The problem mesh consists of 42 NURBS patches with 15,728 elements in total. In the computations, we assume that the layers are airtight. That is, there are no initial gaps present between the layers in the stack.

The stack is displaced at the midline of the top layer in the transverse direction up to 19.5 mm and then unloaded to the undeformed configuration. The stack is displaced at a constant speed of 1 mm/s with a short ramp-up and ramp-down of the velocity at the start, end, and reversal of the loading. We employ several values of the coefficient of friction to demonstrate the influence of interlayer friction on the bending response of the stack.

We carry out several computations of the 40-layer stack and compare the predicted force–displacement response with the experimental results in Fig. 8. (See Fig. S1(b) in the supplementary material of the experimental reference [29].) We first perform a computation without interlayer friction (i.e., we only enforce the no-interpenetration condition and assume the frictional contact contributions are identically zero). We compare the results with those for a single-layer computation and a force response amplified by a factor 40. The two force-deflection curves are nearly indistinguishable and provide a lower-bound for the stack bending stiffness, which scales with the number of layers for the frictionless case. (See also the analysis and discussion in Ref. [29].)

Fig. 8
Force–displacement response in the three-point bending test of the 40-layer stack. Comparison of the experimental and computational results. The no-friction case (simulated as a 40-layer stack and as a single layer with the force response amplified by a factor 40) is plotted for comparison.
Fig. 8
Force–displacement response in the three-point bending test of the 40-layer stack. Comparison of the experimental and computational results. The no-friction case (simulated as a 40-layer stack and as a single layer with the force response amplified by a factor 40) is plotted for comparison.
Close modal

We then carry out two additional simulations, one employing cfr = 0.50 and another cfr = 0.75. The same regularization parameter εfr=0.001mm/s is employed in both cases. In Figs. 9(a)9(c), we visualize the horizontal component of the tangential traction due to friction at the three representative stages of the deformation process. The figure indicates that throughout the deformation, the tractions cluster below the indenter and above the roller supports. In addition, the tractions appear to be smoothly distributed along the thickness of the stack despite the discontinuity in the kinematics between the layers.

Fig. 9
Contours of the horizontal component of the traction (in N/mm2) due to friction for the case of cfr = 0.75. Three instances of the vertical indenter displacement are visualized: (a) 7.30 mm during the loading stage, (b) 19.41 mm during the loading stage right before the load reversal, and (c) 12.2 mm during the unloading stage.
Fig. 9
Contours of the horizontal component of the traction (in N/mm2) due to friction for the case of cfr = 0.75. Three instances of the vertical indenter displacement are visualized: (a) 7.30 mm during the loading stage, (b) 19.41 mm during the loading stage right before the load reversal, and (c) 12.2 mm during the unloading stage.
Close modal

Introducing friction increases the bending stiffness during the loading part of the curve. This is because friction in the stack creates additional forces that counteract the downward force produced by the indenter (see Fig. 9(a)). During unloading, however, the sign of the traction vector due to friction reverses and creates a contribution that reduces the indenter force (see Figs. 9(b) and 9(c)). This creates a hysteresis behavior that is very well captured in the experiments as well as in our simulations. We also note that the computational results are self-consistent in that the loading part of the force–displacement curve is above, and the unloading part is below, the data for the frictionless case.

Compared to the experimental findings in Ref. [29], we have a fairly accurate prediction of the peak load and hysteresis curve. For cfr = 0.75, the peak load in the computations is only underestimated by 3.5%. On the other hand, for cfr = 0.5, we obtain a better estimation of the hysteresis compared to the experiments. The discrepancies in the peak load and the amount of dissipated energy may be attributable to the inherent minor differences between the modeling assumptions and physical reality. For instance, in the early stages of the experiment for up to 1 mm of deflection, the reaction forces reported appear to be near zero. This may be explained by the presence of small initial gaps between the layers in the experimental setup. Because this is not reflected in the modeling, the computations produce non-zero reaction forces as soon as the indenter comes into contact with the top layer.

During the unloading stage, as the interlayer friction reverses sign, we also observe a slight separation and dynamic “chattering” of layers in the bottom of the stack, which is consistent with the experimental observations reported in Ref. [30]. This finer-scale dynamic phenomenon can only be captured using a multilayer modeling approach developed in this work.

4 Conclusion

We developed and validated a new multilayer isogeometric KL shell formulation, where the individual layers are assumed to interact through the enforcement of no-penetration and frictional contact conditions. The latter makes use of a regularized Coulomb’s law, which is able to model stick-slip behavior and help improve the nonlinear convergence of the implicit time integration procedure. We compared two strategies for extrapolating the velocity vector in the frictional contact formulation and found that the approach based on directly using the KL shell kinematics delivers the best results. Finally, we carried out a set of computations for a 40-layer stack subjected to bending and obtained very good results in being able to reproduce the load–displacement curves and hysteresis behavior reported in the experiments. We also note that the distribution of the traction due to friction is smooth across the thickness of the stack, which is attributable to the accurate approximation of the KL shell kinematics by the IGA approach.

The present work clearly demonstrates the ability of the proposed approach to handle frictional contact scenarios involving a large number of layers with finite sliding. The formulation presented opens the door for problems where shell-to-shell frictional contact plays an important role, e.g., extreme-event mitigation using architected structures [31] or heart-valve analysis [32]. In addition, the present approach may be further extended to model the behavior of multilayer structural systems where both friction and van der Waals interactions play an important role.

Acknowledgment

The authors were supported through the ONR Grant No. N00014-21-1-2670. We gratefully acknowledge the high-performance computing resources provided by the Center for Computation and Visualization (CCV) of Brown University.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The authors attest that all data for this study are included in the paper.

References

1.
Bruet
,
B. J.
,
Song
,
J.
,
Boyce
,
M. C.
, and
Ortiz
,
C.
,
2008
, “
Materials Design Principles of Ancient Fish Armour
,”
Nat. Mater.
,
7
(
9
), pp.
748
756
.
2.
Ali
,
H.
,
Ebrahimi
,
H.
, and
Ghosh
,
R.
,
2019
, “
Frictional Damping From Biomimetic Scales
,”
Sci. Rep.
,
9
(
1
), p.
14628
.
3.
Huajian
,
G.
,
Cheng-Hsin
,
C.
, and
Jin
,
L.
,
1992
, “
Elastic Contact Versus Indentation Modeling of Multi-Layered Materials
,”
Int. J. Solids Struct.
,
29
(
20
), pp.
2471
2492
.
4.
Liu
,
Y.
,
Song
,
A.
,
Xu
,
Z.
,
Zong
,
R.
,
Zhang
,
J.
,
Yang
,
W.
,
Wang
,
R.
,
Hu
,
Y.
,
Luo
,
J.
, and
Ma
,
T.
,
2018
, “
Interlayer Friction and Superlubricity in Single-Crystalline Contact Enabled by Two-Dimensional Flake-Wrapped Atomic Force Microscope Tips
,”
ACS Nano
,
12
(
8
), pp.
7638
7646
.
5.
Wang
,
G.
,
Dai
,
Z.
,
Xiao
,
J.
,
Feng
,
S.
,
Weng
,
C.
,
Liu
,
L.
,
Xu
,
Z.
,
Huang
,
R.
, and
Zhang
,
Z.
,
2019
, “
Bending of Multilayer Van Der Waals Materials
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
,
123
(
11
), p.
116101
.
6.
Akinwande
,
D.
,
Brennan
,
C. J.
,
Bunch
,
J. S.
,
Egberts
,
P.
,
Felts
,
J. R.
,
Gao
,
H.
,
Huang
,
R.
,
Kim
,
J.-S.
,
Li
,
T.
,
Li
,
Y.
,
Liechti
,
K. M.
,
Lu
,
N.
,
Park
,
H. S.
,
Reed
,
E. J.
,
Wang
,
P.
,
Yakobson
,
B. I.
,
Zhang
,
T.
,
Zhang
,
Y.
,
Zhou
,
Y.
, and
Zhu
,
Y.
,
2017
, “
A Review on Mechanics and Mechanical Properties of 2d Materials–Graphene and Beyond
,”
Extreme Mech. Lett.
,
13
, pp.
42
77
.
7.
Kothari
,
M.
, and
Kim
,
K.-S.
,
2022
, “
Flexoelectricity-Driven Periodic Buckling in Multilayer Graphene Bonded to Compliant Substrate
,”
MRS Commun.
,
12
(
5
), pp.
648
653
.
8.
Jawed
,
M. K.
,
Dieleman
,
P.
,
Audoly
,
B.
, and
Reis
,
P. M.
,
2015
, “
Untangling the Mechanics and Topology in the Frictional Response of Long Overhand Elastic Knots
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
,
115
(
11
), p.
118302
.
9.
Alaydin
,
M.
,
Benson
,
D.
, and
Bazilevs
,
Y.
,
2021
, “
An Updated Lagrangian Framework for Isogeometric Kirchhoff–Love Thin-Shell Analysis
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
384
, p.
113977
.
10.
Hughes
,
T. J.
,
Cottrell
,
J. A.
, and
Bazilevs
,
Y.
,
2005
, “
Isogeometric Analysis: CAD, Finite Elements, Nurbs, Exact Geometry and Mesh Refinement
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
194
(
39–41
), pp.
4135
4195
.
11.
Cottrell
,
J. A.
,
Hughes
,
T. J.
, and
Bazilevs
,
Y.
,
2009
,
Isogeometric Analysis: Toward Integration of CAD and FEA
,
John Wiley & Sons
,
Hoboken, NJ
.
12.
Kiendl
,
J.
,
Bletzinger
,
K.-U.
,
Linhard
,
J.
, and
Wüchner
,
R.
,
2009
, “
Isogeometric Shell Analysis With Kirchhoff–Love Elements
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
198
(
49
), pp.
3902
3914
.
13.
Benson
,
D.
,
Bazilevs
,
Y.
,
Hsu
,
M.-C.
, and
Hughes
,
T.
,
2011
, “
A Large Deformation, Rotation-Free, Isogeometric Shell
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
200
(
13–16
), pp.
1367
1378
.
14.
Leidinger
,
L.
,
2020
, “
Explicit Isogeometric b-rep Analysis for Nonlinear Dynamic Crash Simulations
,” PhD thesis,
Technische Universität München
.
15.
Hsu
,
M.-C.
, and
Bazilevs
,
Y.
,
2012
, “
Fluid–Structure Interaction Modeling of Wind Turbines: Simulating the Full Machine
,”
Comput. Mech.
,
50
, pp.
821
833
.
16.
Rastogi
,
A.
, and
Dortdivanlioglu
,
B.
,
2022
, “
Modeling Curvature-Resisting Material Surfaces With Isogeometric Analysis
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
401
, p.
115649
.
17.
Johnson
,
E. L.
,
Wu
,
M. C.
,
Xu
,
F.
,
Wiese
,
N. M.
,
Rajanna
,
M. R.
,
Herrema
,
A. J.
,
Ganapathysubramanian
,
B.
,
Hughes
,
T. J.
,
Sacks
,
M. S.
, and
Hsu
,
M.-C.
,
2020
, “
Thinner Biological Tissues Induce Leaflet Flutter in Aortic Heart Valve Replacements
,”
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
,
117
(
32
), pp.
19007
19016
.
18.
De Lorenzis
,
L.
,
Wriggers
,
P.
, and
Hughes
,
T. J.
,
2014
, “
Isogeometric Contact: A Review
,”
GAMM-Mitteilungen
,
37
(
1
), pp.
85
123
.
19.
Temizer
,
I.
,
Wriggers
,
P.
, and
Hughes
,
T.
,
2011
, “
Contact Treatment in Isogeometric Analysis With Nurbs
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
200
(
9–12
), pp.
1100
1112
.
20.
De Lorenzis
,
L.
,
Temizer
,
İ.
,
Wriggers
,
P.
, and
Zavarise
,
G.
,
2011
, “
A Large Deformation Frictional Contact Formulation Using Nurbs-Based Isogeometric Analysis
,”
Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.
,
87
(
13
), pp.
1278
1300
.
21.
Laursen
,
T. A.
,
2003
,
Computational Contact and Impact Mechanics: Fundamentals of Modeling Interfacial Phenomena in Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis
,
Springer Science & Business Media
.
22.
Wriggers
,
P.
, and
Laursen
,
T. A.
,
2006
,
Computational Contact Mechanics
, Vol. 2,
Springer
.
23.
Mayr
,
M.
, and
Popp
,
A.
,
2023
, “
Scalable Computational Kernels for Mortar Finite Element Methods
,”
Eng. Comput.
, pp.
1
30
.
24.
Martins
,
J.
, and
Oden
,
J.
,
1983
, “
A Numerical Analysis of a Class of Problems in Elastodynamics With Friction
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
40
(
3
), pp.
327
360
.
25.
Kamensky
,
D.
,
Behzadinasab
,
M.
,
Foster
,
J. T.
, and
Bazilevs
,
Y.
,
2019
, “
Peridynamic Modeling of Frictional Contact
,”
J. Peridyn. Nonlocal Model.
,
1
(
2
), pp.
107
121
.
26.
Belytschko
,
T.
,
Liu
,
W. K.
,
Moran
,
B.
, and
Elkhodary
,
K.
,
2013
,
Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures
,
John Wiley & Sons
.
27.
Zhao
,
Y.
,
Choo
,
J.
,
Jiang
,
Y.
,
Li
,
M.
,
Jiang
,
C.
, and
Soga
,
K.
,
2022
, “
A Barrier Method for Frictional Contact on Embedded Interfaces
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
393
, p.
114820
.
28.
Li
,
M.
,
Ferguson
,
Z.
,
Schneider
,
T.
,
Langlois
,
T. R.
,
Zorin
,
D.
,
Panozzo
,
D.
,
Jiang
,
C.
, and
Kaufman
,
D. M.
,
2020
, “
Incremental Potential Contact: Intersection- and Inversion-Free, Large-Deformation Dynamics
,”
ACM Trans. Graph.
,
39
(
4
), p.
49
.
29.
Poincloux
,
S.
,
Chen
,
T.
,
Audoly
,
B.
, and
Reis
,
P. M.
,
2021
, “
Bending Response of a Book With Internal Friction
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
,
126
(
21
), p.
218004
.
30.
Modeling the Friction Between Pages in A Book
,” https://actu.epfl.ch/news/modeling-the-friction-between-pages-in-a-book/, Accessed February 2, 2023.
31.
Yin
,
H.
,
Liu
,
Z.
,
Dai
,
J.
,
Wen
,
G.
, and
Zhang
,
C.
,
2020
, “
Crushing Behavior and Optimization of Sheet-Based 3d Periodic Cellular Structures
,”
Composites Part B: Eng.
,
182
, p.
107565
.
32.
Kamensky
,
D.
,
Xu
,
F.
,
Lee
,
C.-H.
,
Yan
,
J.
,
Bazilevs
,
Y.
, and
Hsu
,
M.-C.
,
2018
, “
A Contact Formulation Based on a Volumetric Potential: Application to Isogeometric Simulations of Atrioventricular Valves
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
330
, pp.
522
546
.