0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Fast Methods for Solving Rough Contact Problems: A Comparative Study

[+] Author and Article Information
I. A. Polonsky, L. M. Keer

Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-3109

J. Tribol 122(1), 36-41 (Apr 20, 1999) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.555326 History: Received October 09, 1998; Revised April 20, 1999
Copyright © 2000 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Relative error versus the number of grid rows per contact length, for MLMS (filled symbols) and FFT (empty symbols). The errors in both the contact pressure (diamonds) and the subsurface Mises stress (squares) are shown. The curves ε=2(M*)−3/2 (solid line) and ε=2(M*)−2 (dashed line) are also shown for comparison.
Grahic Jump Location
Relative error in the subsurface Mises stress versus normalized depth for MLMS (filled squares) and FFT (empty squares)
Grahic Jump Location
Relative error (a) and CPU time (b) versus normalized grid length for FFT (empty symbols) and MLMS (filled symbols). The errors in both the contact pressure (diamonds) and the subsurface Mises stress (squares) are shown in Fig. 3(a).
Grahic Jump Location
CPU time versus the number of grid rows per contact length, for MLMS with fixed parameters (filled triangles) and FFT with L/(2R)≈2 (empty triangles).

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In