2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2013.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification of a scatterer embedded in elastic heterogeneous media using dynamic XFEM

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
37
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
37
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…And CMSE equations were formed the same as Scenario 1. Performing SVD yielded that the condition number of A increased to 3.262 × 10 8 and cond(A T A) got to 1.0668 × 10 17 . It shows that the ill conditioning of the CMSE equations is aggravated compared with that of Scenario 1.…”
Section: Scenariomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…And CMSE equations were formed the same as Scenario 1. Performing SVD yielded that the condition number of A increased to 3.262 × 10 8 and cond(A T A) got to 1.0668 × 10 17 . It shows that the ill conditioning of the CMSE equations is aggravated compared with that of Scenario 1.…”
Section: Scenariomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the applications of the 12‐fold bimaterial enrichment functions are somewhat limited since these enrichment functions require more degrees of freedom (DOFs) and most often yield worse conditioning of the algebraic system than the approximate 4‐fold ones, especially in 3‐dimensional cases. There is some confusion as to whether it is necessary to use the 12‐fold bimaterial enrichment for interface cracks: Some XFEM studies adopted the bimaterial enrichment functions whereas others stick with the approximate 4‐fold ones. Huynh and Belytschko studied interface fracture in composite materials using both types of enrichment functions and found that less but still good accuracy can be obtained with the 4‐fold homogeneous enrichment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared with the standard FEM, the XFEM offers two superior capabilities: (i) a more accurate representation of fields in the vicinity of the crack tip singularity and (ii) alleviation of the need for costly re-meshing as the crack is propagating in the structure [25,26]. These favorable features have been exploited in [27,28,29,30,31] by combining XFEM and optimization algorithms for deterministic and probabilistic flaw detection in structures. In [31], the Bayesian approach [32,33,34,35] was used to quantify uncertainties from modeling errors and measurement noise, leading to the probability distributions of the flaw parameters.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%