Advertisement

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 548–557 | Cite as

Peridynamics versus XFEM: a comparative study for quasi-static crack problems

  • Jinhai Zhao
  • Hesheng TangEmail author
  • Songtao Xue
Research Article
  • 132 Downloads

Abstract

Peridynamics (PD) is a nonlocal continuum theory based on integro-differential equations without spatial derivatives. The fracture criterion is implicitly incorporated in the PD theory and fracture is a natural outcome of the simulation. However, capturing of complex mixed-mode crack patterns has been proven to be difficult with PD. On the other hand, the extended finite element method (XFEM) is one of the most popular methods for fracture which allows crack propagation with minimal remeshing. It requires a fracture criterion which is independent of the underlying discretization though a certain refinement is needed in order to obtain suitable results. This article presents a comparative study between XFEM and PD. Therefore, two examples are studied. The first example is crack propagation in a double notched specimen under uniaxial tension with different crack spacings in loading direction. The second example is the specimens with two center cracks. The results show that PD as well as XFEM are well suited to capture this type of behaviour.

Keywords

XFEM peridynamic bilateral crack parallel double cracks nonlocal theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (No. SLDRCE14-B-03) and Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (No. 17ZR1431900).

References

  1. 1.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T, Msekh M. Phase-field analysis of finite-strain plates and shells including element subdivision. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2016, 312: 322–350MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Areias P, Msekh M A, Rabczuk T. Damage and fracture algorithm using the screened Poisson equation and local remeshing. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2016, 158: 116–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Areias PMA, Rabczuk T, Camanho P P. Finite strain fracture of 2D problems with injected anisotropic softening elements. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 72: 50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T, Dias-da-Costa D. Element-wise fracture algorithm based on rotation of edges. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2013, 110: 113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T, Camanho P P. Initially rigid cohesive laws and fracture based on edge rotations. Computational Mechanics, 2013, 52(4): 931–947CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T. Finite strain fracture of plates and shells with configurational forces and edge rotation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2013, 94(12): 1099–1122MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belytschko T, Black T. Elastic crack growth in finite elements with minimal remeshing. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1999, 45(5): 601–620CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daux C, Moës N, Dolbow J, Sukumar N, Belytschko T. Arbitrary branched and intersecting cracks with the extended finite element method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2000, 48(12): 1741–1760CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nagashima T, Omoto Y, Tani S. Stress intensity factor analysis of interface cracks using X-FEM. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2003, 56(8): 1151–1173CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fang X, Jin F, Wang J. Cohesive crack model based on extended finite element method. Journal of Tsinghua University, 2007, 47(3): 344–347Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fang X, Jin F, Wang J. Seismic fracture simulation of the Koyna gravity dam using an extended finite element method. Journal of Tsinghua University, 2008, 48(12): 2065–2069Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Song J H, Areias PMA, Belytschko T. A method for dynamic crack and shear band propagation with phantom nodes. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2006, 67(6): 868–893CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansbo A, Hansbo P. A finite element method for the simulation of strong and weak discontinuities in solid mechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2004, 193(33–35): 3523–3540MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Areias P M A, Belytschko T. A comment on the article “A finite element method for simulation of strong and weak discontinuities in solid mechanics” by A. Hansbo and P. Hansbo [Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 193 (2004) 3523–3540]. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics & Engineering, 2006, 195: 1275–1276MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G, Gerstenberger A, Wall W A. A new crack tip element for the phantom node method with arbitrary cohesive cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2008, 75(5): 577–599CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chau-Dinh T, Zi G, Lee P S, Rabczuk T, Song J H. Phantom-node method for shell models with arbitrary cracks. Computers & Structures, 2012, 92: 242–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amiri F, Anitescu C, Arroyo M, Bordas S, Rabczuk T. XLME interpolants, a seamless bridge between XFEM and enriched meshless methods. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(1): 45–57MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rabczuk T, Areias P M A. A meshfree thin shell for arbitrary evolving cracks based on an extrinsic basis. Cmes Computer Modeling in Engineering & Ences, 2006, 16(2): 115–130Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rabczuk T, Bordas S, Zi G. A three-dimensional meshfree method for continuous multiple-crack initiation, propagation and junction in statics and dynamics. Computational Mechanics, 2007, 40(3): 473–495CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabczuk T, Areias P M A, Belytschko T. A meshfree thin shell method for nonlinear dynamic fracture. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2007, 72(5): 524–548MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G. A meshfree method based on the local partition of unity for cohesive cracks. Computational Mechanics, 2007, 39(6): 743–760CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rabczuk T, Bordas S, Zi G. On three-dimensional modelling of crack growth using partition of unity methods. Computers & Structures, 2010, 88(23–24): 1391–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A geometrically nonlinear three dimensional cohesive crack method for reinforced concrete structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2008, 75(16): 4740–4758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rabczuk T, Gracie R, Song J H, Ted B. Immersed particle method for fluid-structure interaction. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2010, 81(1): 48–71MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bordas S, Rabczuk T, Zi G. Three-dimensional crack initiation, propagation, branching and junction in non-linear materials by an extended meshfree method without asymptotic enrichment. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2008, 75(5): 943–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhuang X, Augarde C, Mathisen K. Fracture modelling using meshless methods and level sets in 3D: framework and modelling. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2012, 92(11): 969–998MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhuang X, Zhu H, Augarde C. An improved meshless Shepard and least square method possessing the delta property and requiring no singular weight function. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(2): 343–357MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhuang X, Cai Y, Augarde C. A meshless sub-region radial point interpolation method for accurate calculation of crack tip fields. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 69: 118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Cracking particles: a simplified meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 61(13): 2316–2343CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. A three dimensional large deformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 196(29–30): 2777–2799MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A simple and robust three-dimensional cracking-particle method without enrichment. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 199(37–40): 2437–2455CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ganzenmüller G C, Hiermaier S, May M. On the similarity of meshless discretizations of peridynamics and Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Computers & Structures, 2015, 150: 71–78CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bessa M A, Foster J T, Belytschko T, Liu W K. A meshfree unification: reproducing kernel peridynamics. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(6): 1251–1264MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Silling S A. Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 2000, 48(1): 175–209MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Silling S A, Zimmermann M, Abeyaratne R. Deformation of a peridynamic bar. Journal of Elasticity, 2003, 73(1–3): 173–190MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Silling S A, Askari E. A meshfree method based on the peridynamic model of solid mechanics. Computers & Structures, 2005, 83(17–18): 1526–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ren H, Zhuang X, Cai Y, Rabczuk T. Dual-horizon peridynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2016, 108(12): 1451–1476MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Silling S A, Bobaru F. Peridynamic modeling of membranes and fibers. International Journal of Non-linear Mechanics, 2005, 40(2–3): 395–409CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Silani M, Talebi H, Hamouda A S, Rabczuk T. Nonlocal damage modelling in clay/epoxy nanocomposites using a multiscale approach. Journal of Computational Science, 2016, 15: 18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Talebi H, Silani M, Rabczuk T. Concurrent multiscale modelling of three dimensional crack and dislocation propagation. Advances in Engineering Software, 2015, 80: 82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Silani M, Talebi H, Ziaei-Rad S, Hamouda AM, Zi G, Rabczuk T. A three dimensional extended arlequin method for dynamic fracture. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96: 425–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Silani M, Ziaei-Rad S, Talebi H, Rabczuk T. A semi-concurrent multiscale approach for modeling damage in nanocomposites. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 74: 30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Talebi H, Silani M, Bordas S P A, Kerfriden P, Rabczuk T. A computational library for multiscale modelling of material failure. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(5): 1047–1071MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Talebi H, Silani M, Bordas S P A, Kerfriden P, Rabczuk T. Molecular dynamics/XFEM coupling by a three-dimensional extended bridging domain with applications to dynamic brittle fracture. International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering, 2013, 11(6): 527–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yang S W, Budarapu P R, Mahapatra D R, Bordas S P A, Zi G, Rabczuk T. A meshless adaptive multiscale method for fracture. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96: 382–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Budarapu P, Gracie R, Bordas S, Rabczuk T. An adaptive multiscale method for quasi-static crack growth. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(6): 1129–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Budarapu P R, Gracie R, Yang SW, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Efficient coarse graining in multiscale modeling of fracture. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 69: 126–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Costa T, Bond S, Littlewood D, Moore S. Peridynamic Multiscale Finite Element Methods. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), 2015, SAND2015–10472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jung J, Seok J. Fatigue crack growth analysis in layered heterogeneous material systems using peridynamic approach. Composite Structures, 2016, 152: 403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shen F, Zhang Q, Huang D. Damage and failure process of concrete structure under uni-axial tension based on peridynamics modeling. Chin J Comput Mech, 2013, 30: 79–83Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gu X, Zhou X P. The numerical simulation of tensile plate with circular hole using peridynamic theory. Chin J Comput Mech, 2015, 36(5): 376–383Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cheng Z, Liu J. Fracture analysis of functionally graded materials under impact loading based on peridynamics. Chinese Journal of Applied Mechanics, 2016, (4): 634–639Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhou X, Shou Y. Numerical simulation of failure of rock-like material subjected to compressive loads using improved peridynamic method. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2017, 17(3): 04016086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ren H, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A new peridynamic formulation with shear deformation for elastic solid. Journal of Micromechanics and Molecular Physics, 2016, 01(02): 1650009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zeng S. Bilateral crack growth behavior of Q345 steel under uniaxial tensile load. Dissertation for master degree. Guangxi University, 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster ReductionTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention in Civil EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations