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

Tim Dally, Carola Bilgen, Marek Werner and Kerstin Weinberg

A chapter in Modeling and Simulation in Engineering - Selected Problems from IntechOpen

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.

Keywords: Split-Hopkinson bar experiment; UHPC; cohesive elements; phase-field fracture; inverse analysis; dynamic fracture; crack propagation; crack tracking algorithms (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C60 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/72052 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ito:pchaps:212134

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.92180

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Chapters from IntechOpen
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Slobodan Momcilovic ().