Cohesive Elements or Phase-Field Fracture: Which Method Is Better for Dynamic Fracture Analyses?
Numerical techniques to simulate crack propagation can roughly be divided into sharp and diffuse interface methods. Two prominent approaches to quantitative dynamic fracture analysis are compared here. Specifically, an adaptive cohesive element technique and a phase-field fracture approach are appli...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Capítulo de libro |
| Lenguaje: | inglés |
| Publicado: |
IntechOpen
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/72052 |
| Etiquetas: |
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
Ejemplares similares: Cohesive Elements or Phase-Field Fracture: Which Method Is Better for Dynamic Fracture Analyses?
- On phase-field regularization in dynamic fracture with brittle and cohesive formulations
- A spatially adaptive phase-field model of fracture
- A phase field model for cohesive fracture in micropolar continua
- Dynamic phase-field fracture with a first-order discontinuous Galerkin method for elastic waves
- A comparative accuracy and convergence study of eigenerosion and phase-field models of fracture
- Cohesive phase-field fracture with an explicit strength surface: an eigenstrain-based return-mapping formulation