Abstract
The computation of crack severity parameters in the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) modeling is strongly dependent on the local quality of the approximated stress fields right at the crack tip vicinity. This work investigates the behavior of extrinsically enriched smooth mesh-based approximations, obtained via \(C^{k}\)-GFEM framework (Duarte et al. in Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196:33–56, 2006), in the computation of \(\mathcal {J}\)-integral in both pure mode I and mixed-mode loadings for two-dimensional problems of the LEFM. The method of configurational forces is used for this purpose as shown in Steinmann et al. (Int J Solids Struct 38:5509–5526, 2001), for instance, by performing some adaptations according to Häusler et al. (Int J Numer Methods Eng 85:1522–1542, 2011). As such method provides vector quantities, it is also possible to compute the angle \(\theta _{{\mathrm{ADV}}}\) of probable crack advance. The \(C^{k}\)-GFEM is quite versatile and shares similar features with the standard FEM regarding the domain partition and numerical integration (Mendonça et al. in Finite Elem Anal Des 47:698–717, 2011). The tests were conducted using three-noded triangular element meshes and numerical integrations were performed using only global coordinates. The evaluations combined different schemes of polynomial and discontinuous/singular (Moës et al. in Int J Numer Methods Eng 46:131–150, 1999) enrichments. The use of a smooth partition of unity (PoU) can influence the accuracy of computed crack severity parameters. The configurational forces computation is favored by the smoothness, reducing the dependence on the way the crack severity parameters are evaluated.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Following the terminology from GFEM / XFEM literature, the enrichment is said to be extrinsic if new unknowns are added to the nodes and, on the contrary, the enrichment could be intrinsically done (Fries and Belytschko 2006), similar as in the element-free Galerkin method (Belytschko et al. 1994), via moving least squares, for instance.
Such a \(C^{k}\)-PoU needs to be enriched with linear polynomials in order to be able of to represent rigid body rotations.
References
Anderson TL (2005) Fracture Mechanics: fundamentals and applications, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Babuska I, Banerjee U (2012) Stable generalized finite element method (SGFEM). Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 201–204:91–111
Babuška I, Melenk JM (1997) The partition of unity method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 40:727–758
Babuška I, Whiteman JR, Strouboulis T (2011) Finite elements: an introduction to the method and error estimation. Oxford University Press, New York
Banks-Sills L, Sherman D (1992) On the computation of stress intensity factors for three-dimensional geometries by means of the stiffness derivative and J-integral methods. Int J Fract 53:1–20
Barsoum RS (1974) Application of quadratic isoparametric element in linear fracture mechanics. Int J Fract 10:603–605
Béchet E, Minnebo H, Moës N, Burgardt B (2005) Improved implementation and robustness study of the XFEM for stress analysis around cracks. Int J Numer Methods Eng 64:1033–1056
Belytschko T, Black T (1999) Elastic crack growth in finite elements with minimal remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng 45:601–620
Belytschko T, LU YY, Gu L (1994) Element-free Galerkin method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 37:229–256
Belytschko T, Moës N, Usui S, Parimi C (2001) Arbitrary discontinuities in finite elements. Int J Numer Methods Eng 50:993–1013
Belytschko T, Gracie R, Ventura G (2009) A review of extended / generalized finite element methods for material modeling. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 17:043001
Boresi AP, Chong KP, Lee JD (2011) Elasticity in engineering mechanics, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken
Braun M (2005) Structural optimization by material forces, In: Steinmann P, Maugin GA, Mechanics of material forces. Advances in mechanics and mathematics, vol 11. p 211–218, Springer, Berlin
Braun M (1997) Configurational forces induced by finite-element discretizations. Proc Estonian Acad Sci Phys Math 46:24–31
Braun M (2007) Configurational forces in discrete elastic systems. Arch Appl Mech 77:85–93
Brebbia CA, Telles JCF, Wrobel LC (1984) Boundary element techniques: theory and applications in engineering. Springer, Berlin
Chahine E, Laborde P, Renard Y (2008) Crack tip enrichment in the XFEM using a cutoff function. Int J Numer Methods Eng 75:629–646
Chang JH, Wu DJ (2007) Stress intensity factor computation along a non-planar curved crack in three dimensions. Int J Solids Struct 44:371–386
Cherepanov G (1967) Rasprostranenie trechin v sploshnoi srede. Prikladnaja Matematika i Mekhanica 31:478–488
Chessa J, Wang H, Belytschko T (2003) On the construction of blending elements for local partition of unity enriched finite elements. Int J Numer Methods Eng 57:1015–1038
de Barcellos CS, Mendonça PTR, Duarte CA (2009) A \(C^{k}\) continuous generalized finite element formulations applied to laminated Kirchhoff plate model. Comput Mech 44:377–393
deLorenzi HG (1982) On the energy release rate and the J-integral for 3-D crack configurations. Int J Fract 19:183–193
deLorenzi HG (1985) Energy release rate calculations by the finite element method. Eng Fract Mech 21:129–143
Denzer R, Barth FJ, Steinmann P (2003) Studies in elastic fracture mechanics based on the material force method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 58:1817–1835
Duarte CA, Migliano DQ, Baker EB (2005) A technique to combine meshfree- and finite element-based partition of unity approximations. Technical Report, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Duarte CA, Babuška I (2002) Mesh-independent p-orthotropic enrichment using the generalized finite element method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 55:1477–1492
Duarte CA, Babuška I, Oden JT (2000) Generalized finite element method for three-dimensional structural mechanics problems. Comput Struct 77:215–232
Duarte CA, Hamzeh ON, Liszka TJ, Tworzydlo WW (2001) A generalized finite element method for the simulation of three-dimensional dynamic crack propagation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:2227–2262
Duarte CA, Kim D-J, Quaresma DM (2006) Arbitrarily smooth generalized finite element approximations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196:33–56
Edwards HC (1996) \(C^{\infty }\) finite element basis functions. Technical Report, TICAM Report, The University of Texas at Austin, p 96-45
Eischen JW (1987) An improved method for computing the \(J_{2}\) integral. Eng Fract Mech 26:691–700
Eshelby JD (1951) The force on an elastic singularity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 244:87–112
Eshelby JD (1975) The elastic energy-momentum tensor. J Elast 5:321–335
Freitas A, Torres DAF, Mendonça PTR (2015) Comparative analysis of \(C^{k}\)- and \(C^{0}\)-GFEM applied to two-dimensional problems of confined plasticity. Lat Am J Solids Struct 12(5):861–882
Fries T-P, Belytschko T (2006) The intrinsic XFEM: a method for arbitrary discontinuities without additional unknowns. Int J Numer Methods Eng 68:1358–1385
Fries TP, Belytschko T (2010) The extended / generalized finite element method: an overview of the method and its application. Int J Numer Methods Eng 84:253–304
Giner E, Fuenmayor FJ, Besa AJ, Tur M (2002) An implementation of the stiffness derivative method as a discrete analytical sensitivity analysis and its application to mixed mode in LEFM. Eng Fract Mech 69:2051–2071
Glaser J, Steinmann P (2006) On material forces within the extended finite element method. In: Benallal A, Botsis J, Fleck NA et al (eds) Proceedings of the sixth European solid mechanics conference ESMC, August 2006, Budapest, Hungary
Glaser J, Steinmann P (2007) Material force method within the framework of the XFEM - distribution of nodal material forces. In: Proceedings in applied mathematics and mechanics, Sixth international congress on industrial applied mathematics (ICIAM07) and GAMM annual meeting, vol 7. Zrich, p 4030017-4030018
Gross D, Mueller R, Kolling S (2002) Configurational forces - morphology evolution and finite elements. Mech Res Commun 29:529–536
Gupta V, Duarte CA, Babuška I, Banerjee U (2013) A stable and optimally convergent generalized FEM (SGFEM) for linear elastic fracture mechanics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 266:23–39
Gurtin ME (2000) Configurational forces as basic concepts of continuum physics. Springer, New York
Häusler SM, Lindhorst K, Horst P (2011) Combination of the material force concept and the extended finite element method for mixed mode crack growth simulations. Int J Numer Methods Eng 85:1522–1542
Heintz P, Larsson F, Hansbo P, Runesson K (2004) Adaptive strategies and error control for computing material forces in fracture mechanics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 60:1287–1299
Hellen TK (1975) On the method of virtual crack extensions. Int J Numer Methods Eng 9:187–207
Hwang CG, Wawrzynek PA, Tayebi AK, Ingraffea AR (1998) On the virtual crack extension method for calculation of the rates or energy release rate. Eng Fract Mech 59:521–542
Irwin GR (1956) Onset of fast crack propagation in high strength steel and aluminum alloys, Research Report, Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research - Washington, D.C
Irwin GR (1957) Analysis of stress and strains near the end of a crack traversing a plate. J Appl Mech 24:361–364
Ishikawa H, Kitagawa H, Okamura H (1979) \(J\)-integral of a mixed-mode crack and its application. In: Miller K, Smith R (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international conference of mechanical behaviors of materials. ICM 3, vol 3. The Netherlands, p 447–455
Kienzler R, Herrmann G (2000) Mechanics in material space with applications to defect and fracture mechanics. Springer, Berlin
Kim D-J, Pereira JP, Duarte CA (2010) Analysis of three-dimensional fracture mechanics problems: a two-scale approach using coarse generalized FEM meshes. Int J Numer Methods Eng 81:335–365
Kreyszig E (1989) Introductory functional analysis with applications. Wiley, Hoboken
Kuna M (2013) Finite elements in fracture mechanics: theory, numerics, applications. Springer, Berlin
Laborde P, Pommier J, Renard Y, Salaun M (2005) High-order extended finite element method for cracked domains. Int J Numer Methods Eng 64:354–381
Lachat JC, Watson JO (1976) Effective numerical treatment of boundary integral equations: a formulation for three dimensional elastostatic. Int J Numer Methods Eng 10:991–1005
Larsson R, Fagerström M (2005) A framework for fracture modelling based on the material forces concept with XFEM kinematics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 62:1763–1788
Li S, Wang G (2008) Introduction to micromechanics and nanomechanics. World Scientific, Singapore
Li FZ, Shih CF, Needleman A (1985) A comparison of methods for calculating energy release rates. Eng Fract Mech 21:405–421
Lin SC, Abel J (1988) Variational approach for a new direct-integration form of the virtual crack extension method. Int J Fract 38:217–235
Materna D, Barthold F-J (2008) On variational sensitivity analysis and configurational mechanics. Comput Mech 41:661–681
Maugin GA (1993) Material inhomogeneities in elasticity. Chapmann and Hall, London
Maugin GA (1995) Material forces: concepts and applications. Appl Mech Rev 48:213–245
Mendonça PTR, de Barcellos CS, Torres DAF (2011) Analysis of anisotropic Mindlin plate model by continuous and non-continuous GFEM. Finite Elem Anal Des 47:698–717
Mendonça PTR, de Barcellos CS, Torres DAF (2013) Robust \(C^{k}/C^{0}\) generalized FEM approximations for higher-order conformity requirements: application to Reddy’s HSDT model for anisotropic laminated plates. Compos Struct 96:332–345
Miehe C, Gürses E (2007) A robust algorithm for configurational-force-driven brittle crack propagation with r-adaptive mesh alignment. Int J Numer Methods Eng 72:127–155
Miehe C, Gürses E, Birkle M (2007) A computational framework of configurational-force-driven brittle fracture based on incremental energy minimization. Int J Fract 145:245–259
Moës N, Dolbow J, Belytschko T (1999) A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng 46:131–150
Moran B, Shih CF (1987) A general treatment of crack tip contour integrals. Int J Fract 35:295–310
Mueller R, Maugin GA (2002) On material forces and finite element discretizations. Comput Mech 29:52–60
Mueller R, Kolling S, Gross D (2002) On configurational forces in the context of the finite element method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 53:1557–1574
Nishioka T, Atluri N (1984) On the computation of mixed-mode \(K\)-factors for a dynamically propagating crack, using path-independent integrals \(J^{^{\prime }}_{k}\). Eng Fract Mech 20:193–208
Oden JT, Reddy JN (1976) An introduction to the mathematical theory of finite elements. Wiley, New York
Parks DM (1974) A stiffness derivative finite element technique for determination of crack tip stress intensity factors. Int J Fract 10:487–502
Qian G, González-Albuixech VF, Niffenegger M, Giner E (2016) Comparison of \(K_{I}\) calculation methods. Eng Fract Mech 156:52–67
Rice JR (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech 35:379–386
Rvachev VL (1982) Theory of \(R\)-functions and some of its applications. Naukova Dumka (in Russian)
Rvachev VL, Sheiko TI (1995) \(R\)-functions in boundary value problems in mechanics. Appl Mech Rev 48:151–188
Schweitzer MA (2008) Meshfree and generalized finite element methods (Habilitation thesis), R. F. -W. Universität Bonn
Shapiro V (2007) Semi-analytic geometry with \(R\)-functions. Acta Numerica 16:239–303
Shepard D (1968) A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM national conference - ACM’68, New York, p 517-524
Shih CF, Moran B, Nakamura T (1986) Energy release rate along a three-dimensional crack front in a thermally stressed body. Int J Fract 30:79–102
Steinmann P (2000) Application of material forces to hyrelastostatic fracture mechanics. part I: continuum mechanics setting. Int J Solids Struct 37:7371–7391
Steinmann P, Ackermann D, Barth FJ (2001) Application of material forces to hyperelastostatic fracture mechanics. II. computational setting. Int J Solids Struct 38:5509–5526
Steinmann P, Scherer M, Denzer R (2009) Secret and joy of configurational mechanics: from foundations in continuum mechanics to applications in computational mechanics. J Appl Math Mech 89:614–630
Strouboulis T, Babuska I, Datta DK, Copps K, Gangaraj SK (2000) A posteriori estimation and adaptive control of the errors in the quantity of interest. Part I: a posteriori estimation of the error in the von Mises stress and tye stress intensity factor. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 181(2000):261–294
Sukumar N, Malsch EA (2006) Recent advances in the construction of polygonal finite element interpolants. Arch Comput Methods Eng 13:129–163
Sukumar N, Tabarraei A (2004) Conforming polygonal finite elements. Int J Numer Methods Eng 82:2045–2066
Szabó BA (1986) Estimation and control of error based on \(p\)-convergence. In: I. Babuška, Ed., Accuracy estimates and adpative refinements in finite element computations. Wiley Series in Numerical methods in Engineering, p 61–78
Szabó B, Babuška I (2011) Introductions to finite element method: formulation, verification and validation. Wiley series in computational mechanics. Wiley, Hoboken
Szabó BA, Yosibash Z (1996) Superconvergent extraction of flux intensity factors and first derivatives from finite element solutions. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 129:349–370
Talischi C, Paulino GH, Pereira A, Menezes IFM (2010) Polygonal finite elements for topology optimization: a unifying paradigm. Int J Numer Methods Eng 82:671–698
Tarancón JE, Vercher A, Giner E, Fuenmayor FJ (2009) Enhanced blending elements for XFEM applied to linear elastic fracture mechanics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 77:126–148
Torres DAF, Mendonça PTR (2010) Analysis of piezoelectric laminates by generalized finite element method and mixed layerwise-HSDT models. Smart Mater Struct 19:035004
Torres DAF, Mendonça PTR, de Barcellos CS (2011) Evaluation and verification of an HSDT-Layerwise generalized finite element formulation for adaptive piezoelectric laminated plates. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200:675–691
Verron E, Aït-Bachir M, Castaing P (2009) Some new properties of the Eshelby stress tensor. In: P. Steinmann, IUTAM symposium on progress in the theory and numerics of configurational mechanics, vol 17. p 27-35
Waismann H (2010) An analytical stiffness derivative extended finite element technique for extraction of crack tip strain energy release rates. Eng Fract Mech 77:3204–3215
Wandzura S, Xiao H (2003) Symmetric quadrature rules on a triangle. Comput Math Appl 45:1829–1840
Westergaard HM (1939) Bearing pressures and cracks. J Appl Mech 6:49–53
Xiao Q, Karihaloo B (2006) Improving the accuracy of XFEM crack tip fields using higher order quadrature and statically admissible stress recovery. Int J Numer Methods Eng 66:1378–1410
Yosibash Z (2012) Singularities in elliptic boundary value problems and elasticity and their connections with failure initiation. Springer, Berlin
Acknowledgements
Diego A. F. Torres, Clovis S. de Barcellos and Paulo T. R. Mendonça gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Brazilian government agency National Council for Scientific and Technological Development–CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for this research, under research Grants 163.461/2012-0, 304.698/2013-0 and 304.702/2013-7, respectively. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the Grant provided by DIRPPG/UTFPR–Câmpus Londrina, through the DIRPPG 02/2017 Official Notice, for the final preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Similarities between the material force method and conventional ways to compute crack severity parameters
Similarities between the material force method and conventional ways to compute crack severity parameters
In LEFM, the stress field around a crack tip can be mainly described in terms of a single parameter, the stress intensity factor, which depends on the opening modes (Anderson 2005; Kuna 2013). The direct methods, also called field variable methods, compute the stress intensity factors from displacement or stress extrapolations near the crack tip (see Qian et al. (2016) for a list of references about such methods). There are other methods which consider the stress solution globally, i.e., by integral quantities related to the energy of the solution and, hence, are classified as energetic or indirect methods. These last methods are designed to compute the energy release rate \( \mathcal {G} \), and then the stress intensity factors are obtained from it.
One of the widely used energetic method is the J-integral. The classical \( \mathcal {J} \)-integral, in its contour version (Cherepanov 1967; Rice 1968), provides the energy release rate by a path-independent integral, applicable to both linear and non-linear problems. For 3D problems, the contour integral becomes a surface integral and its computational implementation may involve some difficulties.
A well-known modification to simplify the computation of the \( \mathcal {J} \)-integral is its domain version (Shih et al. 1986; Moran and Shih 1987), called Equivalent Domain Integral (EDI) method, which is applicable to time dependent or independent problems with linear or non-linear stress-strain relationships. The EDI is expressed as
using indicial notation, with \( \sigma _{ij} \) being cartesian components of stress, \( u_{j} \) being the displacement components and \( \mathfrak {W} \) the strain energy density per unit of volume. In (37), the 1-direction is tangent to the crack faces, and the function q is an arbitrary, but smooth, scalar function that should vary from 0 to 1, going from the outer boundary to the inner one of \(\varOmega ^{*}\). Notably, its implementation is simpler than the original version of Rice (1968), even in 3D problems, it is theoretically insensitive to the actual selection of the prescribed virtual material displacement and to the integration domain (Steinmann et al. 2001). In contrast, in GFEM / XFEM implementations, the results are generally sensitive to the enrichment strategy and to the selection of extraction domains (Qian et al. 2016). It is interesting to note the similarity between the terms in parentheses in (37) and (18), even though different notations have been used in these equations.
The EDI is strongly related to the prior Virtual Crack Extension (VCE) method, in a continuum form (deLorenzi 1982, 1985; Lin and Abel 1988), in which the energy release rate \( \mathcal {G} \) is obtained by
where \( \varDelta a \) is the virtual crack extension and \( \varDelta x_{1} \) is the material point translation, that vary from 0 to \( \varDelta a \) between the outer and inner boundary of \( \varOmega ^{*} \), the integration domain. Additionally, \( \partial \varDelta x_{1} / \partial x_{i} = 0 \) outside this domain. The VCE (Hwang et al. 1998) is an attempt to generalize the Stiffness Derivative (SD) method (Parks 1974; Hellen 1975).
In the SD method, in turn, the energy release rate is obtained by the change in the global potential energy due to an increment in the crack extension, explicitly in terms of a discretized formulation. The total potential energy of a discretized system \( \widetilde{\varPi } = \varPi ( \widetilde{\varvec{u}} ) \), given by
is differentiated with respect to the crack extension a, considering fixed load (Irwin 1956)
where the first term on the right hand side is zero due to the equilibrium condition, and considering absence of tractions on the crack faces the third term also vanishes. The vector \( \varvec{U} \) contains the nodal parameters related with the displacement field [see (10)], and \( \varvec{K} \) and \( \varvec{F} \) are the stiffness matrix and the load vector, respectively, resulting from the computation of (7) and (8) in the discretized version.
Hence, the energy release rate \( \mathcal {G} \) is given by
noting that the minus signal is in accordance with the Griffith’s physical reasoning (Rice 1968) since such portion of potential energy goes into dissipation, and, therefore, the crack cannot self-repair (Maugin 1993, 1995).
Banks-Sills and Sherman (1992) and Giner et al. (2002) showed the equivalence between the Stiffness Derivative Method and the Equivalent Domain Integral method (EDI) implemented with isoparametric finite elements.
Although the energetic methods yield more accurate estimates, one major drawback related to them is the need of uncoupling the strain energy release rate contributions from each crack opening mode in mixed-mode problems. In this regard, field decomposition technique (Ishikawa et al. 1979) consists in separating the displacement and stress fields into their symmetric and antisymmetric parts, in order to uncouple the modes I and II of a mixed-mode problem in LEFM.
The EDI method yields good results, but Giner et al. (2002) showed that the SD method gives more accurate estimates. The reason may be due to the fact that SD method only explicitly takes into account the discretized displacement field. The EDI method needs both the decomposition of displacements and stress, whereas the discrete analytical approach of the SD method of Giner et al. (2002) needs only the decomposition of the displacement field and performs better in computations of stress intensity parameters when using arbitrary meshes.
As the VCE concept, the SD can be interpreted as a Shape Design Sensitivity Analysis. A crack extension increment \( \partial a \) in (41) and (40) may be interpreted as a change in a design variable, the crack length a, which causes a shape change and a corresponding variation of the structural response.
For the discrete semi-analytical method of Giner et al. (2002) for shape design sensitivity analysis, the sensitivity with respect to the spatial coordinates is treated as a velocity field in analogy with the continuum mechanics. Such velocity field must be as regular as the displacement field of the discretized equilibrium problem, and the velocity field is required to depend linearly on the shape design variable, the crack advance. Therefore, only the velocity component in the tangent direction of the crack faces are non zero.
In the work of Waismann (2010), the crack is embedded in the mathematical formulation of the stiffness matrix, and thus, the derivatives may be computed directly. In order to extract the mixed-mode strain energy release rate, a mutual potential representation based on Betti’s reciprocal theorem is employed.
From this observation, the node positions \( \varvec{x}_{\alpha } \) in a finite element mesh can be viewed as design variables and, therefore, it is possible to apply techniques from variational design sensitivity analysis to mesh optimization (Materna and Barthold 2008). Thus, the relation between the design sensitivity analysis and the configurational mechanics may be noted (Mueller and Maugin 2002; Gurtin 2000; Braun 2005, 2007; Miehe et al. 2007; Miehe and Gürses 2007; Steinmann et al. 2009). In other words, the first sensitivity of the energy functional \( \widetilde{\varPi } \) with respect to changes in the design leads to the well-known weak form of the material or configurational forces equilibrium, whereas the second sensitivity of \( \widetilde{\varPi } \) provides information about the sensitivity of the energy release rate \( \mathcal {G} \).
Consequently, as configurational forces \( \varvec{G}_{\alpha } \) (26) are related to the energy release rate resulting from a configurational change (Mueller and Maugin 2002; Gross et al. 2002; Kienzler and Herrmann 2000; Gurtin 2000; Steinmann et al. 2009), since it can be shown that its physical meaning is
with \( \varvec{x}_{\alpha } \) being the position of the node \( \alpha \). If the node position moves in the opposite direction of the configurational force the total potential energy will be smaller, then the nodal configurational force \( \varvec{G}_{\alpha } \) can be understood as
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Torres, D.A.F., de Barcellos, C.S. & Mendonça, P.d.T.R. Smooth Generalized/eXtended FEM approximations in the computation of configurational forces in linear elastic fracture mechanics. Int J Fract 216, 185–210 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-019-00353-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-019-00353-1