Modeling three‐dimensional crack propagation—A comparison of crack path tracking strategies

By P. Jäger, Paul Steinmann, Ellen Kuhl. 2008

108 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Mechanics of Materials

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/05579d827e5440067b3da2ddd9e8b0c47c491508

How researchers see this paper

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

In Electrical and Electronic Engineering

1. Carlos Armando Duarte
2. J. Pereira
3. Xiangmin Jiao
4. Nicolas Moës
5. Nicolas Chevaugeon
6. S. Géniaut
7. Yiming Zhang
8. E. Galenne

In Mechanical Engineering

1. Jörn Mosler
2. S. Géniaut
3. E. Galenne
4. Carlos Armando Duarte
5. Otto T. Bruhns
6. J. Pereira
7. Xiangmin Jiao
8. Nicolas Moës

In Mechanics of Materials

1. Carlos Armando Duarte
2. J. Pereira
3. Xiangmin Jiao
4. Dae-Jin Kim
5. S. Géniaut
6. E. Galenne
7. Jörn Mosler
8. Nicolas Moës

Citations in the corpus

• Effective 3D failure simulations by combining the advantages of embedded Strong Discontinuity Approaches and classical interface elements (2011, background): “A comparison of some of these methods can be found in [23].”
• Three-dimensional crack growth with hp-generalized finite element and face offsetting methods (2010, methodology): “In the studies presented in [2,12, 28 ], the overall solution of the problems solved with methods that use implicit crack surface representation is not mesh dependent, as expected.”
• A simple method for crack growth in mixed mode with X-FEM (2012, methodology): “A detailed comparison of most common 3d crack tracking algorithm is presented in Jäger et al. (2008), in which a global tracking seems to be the most general solution.”
• Damage growth modeling using the Thick Level Set (TLS) approach: Efficient discretization for quasi-static loadings (2012, result): “Several studies previously used this benchmark, as the study of cohesive and cohesionless cracks models [21], the comparison of crack path tracking strategies [12], the development of X-FEM-based models for cohesive cracks [38] or the study of crack models comparison using adaptive grids [7].”
• Element‐local level set method for three‐dimensional dynamic crack growth (2009, unknown): “[23].”
• Strong discontinuity embedded approach with standard SOS formulation: Element formulation, energy-based crack-tracking strategy, and validations (2015, background): “Comparisons of numerical results obtained from different crack-tracking strategies can be found in [53,63,62,64].”