IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/ito/pchaps/212134.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Cohesive Elements or Phase-Field Fracture: Which Method Is Better for Dynamic Fracture Analyses?

In: Modeling and Simulation in Engineering - Selected Problems

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Dally
  • Carola Bilgen
  • Marek Werner
  • Kerstin Weinberg

Abstract

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 applied to simulate Hopkinson bar experiments on the fracture toughness of high-performance concrete. The experimental results are validated numerically in the sense of an inverse analysis. Both methods allow predictive numerical simulations of crack growth with an a priori unknown path and determine the related material parameter in a quantitative manner. Reliability, precision, and numerical costs differ however.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Dally & Carola Bilgen & Marek Werner & Kerstin Weinberg, 2020. "Cohesive Elements or Phase-Field Fracture: Which Method Is Better for Dynamic Fracture Analyses?," Chapters, in: Jan Valdman & Leszek Marcinkowski (ed.), Modeling and Simulation in Engineering - Selected Problems, IntechOpen.
    • Handle: RePEc:ito:pchaps:212134
    DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.92180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/72052
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5772/intechopen.92180?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Split-Hopkinson bar experiment; UHPC; cohesive elements; phase-field fracture; inverse analysis; dynamic fracture; crack propagation; crack tracking algorithms;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C60 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ito:pchaps:212134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Slobodan Momcilovic (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.intechopen.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.