Generalizations and specializations of cohesive crack models

By J. Planas, M. Elices, G. Guinea, F. J. Gómez, D. Cendón, I. Arbilla. 2003

164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

A high‐order generalized FEM for through‐the‐thickness branched cracks (2007, unknown): “Further, cohesive or frictional contact laws [21, 40–52] can be incorporated by appropriate modifications of the formulation reported in [6, Sec.”
Accurate simulation of delamination growth under mixed-mode loading using cohesive elements: Definition of interlaminar strengths and elastic stiffness (2010, background): “[35,36] have clearly explained that a constitutive model relating tractions to displacement jumps is valid when cohesive cracks already exist or in a singular surface, but have limitations otherwise.”
A fracture criterion for blunted V-notched samples (2004, background): “The only requirement for computing the fracture load is the suitability of the cohesive model that works well with brittle and quasi-brittle materials, as shown by Bazant and Planas (1998), and has good prospects for materials with more complex behaviour (Elices et al., 2002; Bazant and Zi, 2003; or”
Element-wise fracture algorithm based on rotation of edges (2013, unknown): “Determination of crack paths for problems with cohesive forces present difficulties (see [50]) circumvented by this technique.”