2018
DOI: 10.1007/s11831-018-9274-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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 el… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
20
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 251 publications
(431 reference statements)
0
20
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…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.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%