Some observations on embedded discontinuity models

75 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.

3D modelling of strong discontinuities in elastoplastic solids: fixed and rotating localization formulations (2003, background): “Hence, it is not identical to the symmetric EAS concept originally proposed by SIMO & RIFAI [41] (see also the respective discussion in [42]).”
A cohesive segments method for the simulation of crack growth (2003, unknown): “The embedded discontinuity approaches enhance the deformational capabilities of the elements, especially when the standard Bubnov-Galerkin approach is replaced by a Petrov-Galerkin method, which properly incorporates the discontinuity kinematics [19].”
Cohesive‐zone models, higher‐order continuum theories and reliability methods for computational failure analysis (2004, methodology): “This so-called strong discontinuity approach can be conceived as a limiting case of the weak discontinuity approach for the band width h → 0 [32].”
Stability and robustness issues in numerical modeling of material failure with the strong discontinuity approach (2006, background): “2 STABILITY ISSUES It is a very well known fact that finite element formulations for modelling material failure suffer, very often, from lack of robustness [24, 25].”
An enhanced multi‐scale approach for masonry wall computations with localization of damage (2007, methodology): “The proposed unit cell was already used in References [3, 23], together with an isotropic damage model at the mesoscopic scale.”