Interpolation requirements for implicit gradient-enhanced continuum damage models

By A. Simone, H. Askes, Rhj Ron Peerlings, Lambertus J. Sluys. 2003

89 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computational Mechanics, Materials Chemistry, Mechanics of Materials

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7103614e0deea874730fe86209fcd0570d222458

How researchers see this paper

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

In Computational Mechanics

1. Thomas J. R. Hughes
2. Michael A. Scott
3. R. de Borst
4. Clemens V. Verhoosel
5. Timon Rabczuk
6. Antonio Huerta
7. Yuri Bazilevs
8. A. Rodríguez‐Ferran

In Materials Chemistry

1. A. Rodríguez‐Ferran
2. Thomas J. R. Hughes
3. Antonio Huerta
4. Clemens V. Verhoosel
5. R. de Borst
6. Michael A. Scott
7. I. Morata

In Mechanics of Materials

1. Thomas J. R. Hughes
2. R. de Borst
3. Clemens V. Verhoosel
4. Michael A. Scott
5. I. Morata
6. Antonio Huerta
7. A. Rodríguez‐Ferran
8. Timon Rabczuk

Citations in the corpus

• A new damage model based on non‐local displacements (2005, methodology): “Meaning Symbol Value Length of bar L 100 Cross-section of bar A 1 Length of weaker part LD 10 Young’s modulus E 20 000 Idem of weaker part ED 18 000 Damage threshold e0 10 4 Final strain ef 1:25 10 2 Geometric and material parameters [22].”
• An isogeometric analysis approach to gradient damage models (2011, methodology): “This choice is consistent with the conclusions in Reference [22], where it is shown that the objective results can be obtained using the same order of interpolation for both fields.”
• A Method for Gradient Enhancement of Continuum Damage Models (2008, unknown): “In that purpose two options are tested: reduced (2x2 points) Gaussian rule which is often employed in conjunction with the gradient models (see i.e. Peerlings et al. (1998), de Borst and Pamin (1996), (Peerlings, 1999)) and full (3x3 points) integration.”
• Efficient and Reliable Nonlocal Damage Models (2004, background): “Geometric and material parameters [18] Meaning Symbol Value Length of bar L 100 Idem of weaker part LD 10 Young’s modulus E 20 000 Idem of weaker part ED 18 000 Damage threshold ε0 10 −4 Final strain εf 1.”
• A thermodynamically motivated implicit gradient damage framework and its application to brick masonry cracking (2004, unknown): “A uniform finite element discretisation of 200 elements has been used, with a quadratic interpolation of the displacement and a linear interpolation of the nonlocal equivalent strain [19,32].”