MODELING QUASI-STATIC CRACK GROWTH WITH THE EXTENDED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD PART II: NUMERICAL APPLICATIONS

By Rui Huang, Natarajan Sukumar, Jean-Herve Prevost. 2003

190 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Materials Chemistry, Mechanics of Materials

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6a02e26da834ad8556a9b160ecbf2159fd3f5bf6

How researchers see this paper

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

In Materials Chemistry

In Mechanics of Materials

Citations in the corpus

Numerical analysis of 2-D crack propagation problems using the numerical manifold method (2010, unknown): “6(c) of [32].”
Partition of unity enrichment for bimaterial interface cracks (2004, methodology): “In the modelling of cracks that have arbitrary orientation with respect to the finite elements, partitioning algorithms are required [29, 30]; detailed discussion on the theoretical need for element partitioning and its distinction from de facto remeshing is provided in Reference [32].”
Conforming polygonal finite elements (2004, methodology): “In References [35] [36], the Laplace shape functions were used on polyhedral elements in the physical space in which the nodes of the polyhedron (x i ∈ ) were located on the boundary of the same circumsphere (degenerate case in 3D).”
Abaqus implementation of extended finite element method using a level set representation for three-dimensional fatigue crack growth and life predictions (2010, unknown): “(34) For fatigue life prediction under multi-axial loading, the following equivalent stress intensity factor, 𝐾eqv , is also computed: 𝐾eqv = 𝐾I 2 + 𝐾II 2+(1 − 𝜈2)𝐾III 2 (35) In Eqn (35) 𝜇 and where 𝜅 are defined by 𝜇 = 𝐸 2(1+𝜈) , 𝜅 = 3 − 4𝜈 for the plain-strain assumption or 𝜅 = (3 − ”
The MLS-based numerical manifold method with applications to crack analysis (2014, unknown): “In addition, this example and other examples we have tested so far suggest that the crack path is not as sensitive to the crack increment as XFEM (Huang et al. 2003). Zheng and Xu (2014) expounded in detail the reason for XFEM to be sensitive to crack locations relative to the mesh.”
Modeling quasi-static crack growth with the extended finite element method Part I: Computer implementation (2003, methodology): “…enrichment functions for they possess the correct near-tip behavior, and in addition, their use also leads to better accuracy on relatively coarse finite element meshes in 2-d (Mo€ e es et al., 1999; Daux et al., 2000; Huang et al., 2003a,b; Sukumar et al., 2003a) and 3-d (Sukumar et al., 2000).”
Modeling complex crack problems using the numerical manifold method (2009, methodology): “Within the same framework as the partition of unity method (PUM) (Melenk ane Babuska 1996; Babuska and Melenk 1997), the extended finite element method (XFEM) (Daux et al. 2000; Moes et al. 1999; Sukumar and Prevost 2003; Huang et al. 2003; Sukumar et al. 2000) and the generalized finite element m”
Domain integral formulation for 3-D curved and non-planar cracks with the extended finite element method (2013, unknown): “It is well documented in the literature [1,14], and also verified through our studies that these functions significantly improve the accuracy of the SIF extraction.”
Fracture & Fatigue Analyses: SGBEM-FEM or XFEM? Part 1: 2D Structures (2013, methodology): “This problem was solved by XFEM in [Huang, Sukumar, and Prévost (2003)].”