Three‐dimensional cohesive modeling of dynamic mixed‐mode fracture

248 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.

The cohesive element approach to dynamic fragmentation: the question of energy convergence (2007, background): “It has been generally observed that for a fixed strain rate, finer meshes lead to higher energy dissipation due to more microcracking [17].”
Combining interface damage and friction in a cohesive‐zone model (2006, unknown): “developed a cohesive formulation to simulate the processes of mixed-mode tension-shear damage [4], Carol et al.”
Development of a Single-Edge Notched Beam Test for Asphalt Concrete Mixtures (2005, methodology): “[21], who investigated fracture of Portland cement concrete using CZMs.”
Cohesive zone modeling of dynamic failure in homogeneous and functionally graded materials (2005, background): “D) fracture growth and fragmentation simulation (Ortiz and Pandolfi, 1999; Ruiz et al., 2001).”
Dynamic crack propagation with cohesive elements: a methodology to address mesh dependency (2004, background): “have observed [39], that the extent of microcracking in the ner mesh results in higher energy dissipation.”
A scalable 3D fracture and fragmentation algorithm based on a hybrid, discontinuous Galerkin, Cohesive Element Method (2011, methodology): “Simulations using cohesive element methods suffer from a well-known mesh dependency as the possible crack nucleation sites and propagation paths are constrained by the finite element discretization (9; 10; 11; 12).”