Publication:
A comparison between some fracture modelling approaches in 2D LEFM using finite elements

Simple item page
dc.affiliation.areaUC3M. Área de Ingeniería Mecánicaes
dc.affiliation.dptoUC3M. Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánicaes
dc.affiliation.grupoinvUC3M. Grupo de Investigación: Tecnologías de Fabricación y Diseño de Componentes Mecánicos y Biomecánicoses
dc.contributor.authorMarco Esteban, Miguel
dc.contributor.authorInfante García, Diego
dc.contributor.authorBelda, Ricardo
dc.contributor.authorGiner, Eugenio
dc.contributor.funderMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (España)es
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-15T08:02:45Z
dc.date.available2022-07-15T08:02:45Z
dc.date.issued2020-02-03
dc.description.abstractThe finite element method has been widely used to solve different problems in the field of fracture mechanics. In the last two decades, new methods have been developed to improve the accuracy of the solution in 2D linear elastic fracture mechanics problems, such as the extended finite element method (XFEM) or the phantom node method (PNM). The goal of this work is to quantify the differences between some numerical approaches: standard finite element method (FEM), mechanical property degradation, interelemental crack method with multi-point constraints, XFEM and PNM. We explain the different techniques analysed together with their advantages and disadvantages. We compare these numerical techniques to model fracture using problems of reference with known solutions, evaluating their behaviour in terms of convergence with respect to the element size and accuracy of the stress intensity factor (SIF), stresses ahead the crack tip and crack propagation prediction. Some of the new techniques have shown a better accuracy in SIF calculation or stress fields ahead the crack tip and other lead to high errors in local results estimations. However, all methods reviewed here can predict crack propagation for the problems of reference of this work, showing good accuracy in crack orientation prediction.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors gratefully acknowledge the funding support received from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades and the FEDER operation program in the framework of the projects DPI2017-89197-C2-1-R and DPI2017-89197-C2-2-R and the FPI subprograms BES-2014-068473 and BES-2015-072070. The financial support of the Generalitat Valenciana through the Programme PROMETEO 2016/007 is also acknowledged.en
dc.format.extent21
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-020-00426-6
dc.identifier.issn0376-9429
dc.identifier.publicationfirstpage151
dc.identifier.publicationissue1-2
dc.identifier.publicationlastpage171
dc.identifier.publicationtitleInternational Journal of Fractureen
dc.identifier.publicationvolume223
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10016/35469
dc.identifier.uxxiAR/0000025721
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.projectIDGobierno de España. DPI2017-89197-C2-1-Res
dc.relation.projectIDGobierno de España. DPI2017-89197-C2-2-Res
dc.relation.projectIDGobierno de España. BES-2014-068473es
dc.relation.projectIDGobierno de España. BES-2015-072070es
dc.rights© 2020 The Authorsen
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España*
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accessen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/*
dc.subject.ecienciaMaterialeses
dc.subject.otherFinite element modellingen
dc.subject.otherFracture mechanicsen
dc.subject.otherNumerical modellingen
dc.subject.otherPhantom node methoden
dc.subject.otherXfemen
dc.titleA comparison between some fracture modelling approaches in 2D LEFM using finite elementsen
dc.typeresearch article*
dc.type.hasVersionSMUR*
dspace.entity.typePublication
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Comparison_IJOF_2020.pdf
Size:
3.18 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
Collections
DIM - FABDIS - Artículos de revistas