Challenges, Tools and Applications of Tracking Algorithms in the Numerical Modelling of Cracks in Concrete and Masonry Structures

Abstract

The importance of crack propagation in the structural behaviour of concrete and masonry structures has led to the development of a wide range of finite element methods for crack simulation. A common standpoint in many of them is the use of tracking algorithms, which identify and designate the location of cracks within the analysed structure. In this way, the crack modelling techniques, smeared or discrete, are applied only to a restricted part of the discretized domain.This paper presents a review of finite element approaches to cracking focusing on the development and use of tracking algorithms. These are presented in four categories according to the information necessary for the definition and storage of the crack-path. In addition to that, the most utilised criteria for the selection of the crack propagation direction are summarized.The various algorithmic issues involved in the development of a tracking algorithm are discussed through the presentation of a local tracking algorithm based on the smeared crack approach. Challenges such as the modelling of arbitrary and multiple cracks propagating towards more than one direction, as well as multidirectional and intersecting cracking, are detailed. The presented numerical model is applied to the analysis of small-and large-scale masonry and concrete structures under monotonic and cyclic loading.

Global cracking elements: A novel tool for Galerkin‐based approaches simulating quasi‐brittle fracture

“…To demonstrate this advantage, most of the numerical examples in this work are characterized by irregular meshes which were automatically built by Gmsh . Besides, the mesh used in the GCEM can be relatively coarse. For putting it more precisely, the GCEM is a type of strong‐discontinuity‐embedded approach (SDA), which obviously does not need remeshing. Unlike phase field methods, extended finite‐element methods (XFEMs), or numerical manifold methods, the GCEM does not require a precise description of the stress state at crack tips and does not need extra degrees of freedom. Unlike the traditional SDA and the XFEM, the GCEM does not need a crack‐tracking strategy . Disconnected element‐wise cracking segments, passing through the elements, are used for representing crack paths.…”

Applying the Cracking Elements Method for Analyzing the Damaging Processes of Structures with Fissures

“…Hence, we do not use damage degree-based methods such as the phase field method [36][37][38][39], mixed mode model [40][41][42][43], equivalent lattice models [44][45][46][47], and peridynamic-based methods [48][49][50][51]. Finally, we hope that multiple cracks can be efficiently tracked simultaneously and that complicated crack tracking strategies [52,53] can be avoided. The cracking elements method (CEM) [54][55][56][57] is the chosen numerical tool.…”

Applying the Cracking Elements Method for Analyzing the Damaging Processes of Structures with Fissures

“…Hence, we did not use the damage degree based methods such as phase field method [36][37][38][39], mixed mode model [40][41][42][43], equivalent lattice models [44][45][46][47] and peridynamic based methods [48][49][50][51]. Finally, we hope multiple cracks can be efficiently and simultaneously tracked and complicated crack tracking strategies [52,53] can be avoided. The Cracking Elements Method (CEM) [54][55][56][57] is the chosen numerical tool.…”