2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.06.227
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling of Nonlinear Crack Growth in Steel and Aluminum Alloys by the Element Free Galerkin Method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The crack trajectory using the developed program and Ansys ends up in excellent agreement with experimental data presented in the literature [47,48], numerical results using the coupled extended meshfree-smoothed meshfree method presented by Knowles and Sternberg [51], and XFEM results obtained by Zhang and Tabiei [21]. Numerical results obtained by Kanth et al [14] using a polygonal XFEM with numerical integration as shown in Figure 13 A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively. The results of this simulation for dimensionless stress factors by using the developed program and Ansys are shown in Figure 14, which are almost identical to each other.…”
Section: Three Holes Single Edge Cracked Platesupporting
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The crack trajectory using the developed program and Ansys ends up in excellent agreement with experimental data presented in the literature [47,48], numerical results using the coupled extended meshfree-smoothed meshfree method presented by Knowles and Sternberg [51], and XFEM results obtained by Zhang and Tabiei [21]. Numerical results obtained by Kanth et al [14] using a polygonal XFEM with numerical integration as shown in Figure 13 A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively. The results of this simulation for dimensionless stress factors by using the developed program and Ansys are shown in Figure 14, which are almost identical to each other.…”
Section: Three Holes Single Edge Cracked Platesupporting
confidence: 76%
“…Numerical simulations typically calculate the energy derivatives in the first order concerning crack length or the equivalent SIFs. Meanwhile, new approaches and methods in several areas of study have been suggested and developed rapidly, including the finite element method (FEM), discrete element method (DEM) [11][12][13], element free Galerkin (EFG) method [14], extended finite element method (XFEM) [15][16][17][18], cohesive element method [19,20], and phase-field method [21]. Nevertheless, as a versatile method to simulate crack propagation, the FEM is still prevalent.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many researchers have focused on using analytical or computational formulations to investigate dynamic fracture mechanics. Numerous numerical approaches for simulating crack propagation have been used, including the finite element method (FEM) [ 1 ], Discrete Element Method (DEM) [ 2 , 3 , 4 ], Element Free Galerkin method (EFGM) [ 5 ], extended finite element method (XFEM) [ 6 , 7 ], Cohesive Element Method (CEM) [ 8 , 9 ], Boundary Element Method (BEM) [ 10 ], meshless method [ 11 , 12 ] and Phase-Field Method (PFM) [ 13 ]. Most fracture mechanics models in the literature are developed within the framework of the finite element method (FEM), as this method is robust, reliable and deals with complex geometries [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another alternative is to switch to numerical models due to the problem's complexity, since there are certain cases where the experimental setup is too complicated to be viable. Over the years, several works for using numerical techniques have been developed: Finite Element Method (FEM), Discrete Element Method (DEM) [10][11][12], the Element Free Galerkin (EFG) method [13], Extended Finite Element Method (XFEM) [14,15], cohesive element method [16], and phase-field method [17]. Most problems in crack propagation involving mixed-mode requires predicting crack path and growth while updating the model as the geometry changes; several studies predict crack growth with a high degree of precision [18,19].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%