zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Geometry Search for the term Geometry in any field. Queries are case-independent.
Funct* Wildcard queries are specified by * (e.g. functions, functorial, etc.). Otherwise the search is exact.
"Topological group" Phrases (multi-words) should be set in "straight quotation marks".
au: Bourbaki & ti: Algebra Search for author and title. The and-operator & is default and can be omitted.
Chebyshev | Tschebyscheff The or-operator | allows to search for Chebyshev or Tschebyscheff.
"Quasi* map*" py: 1989 The resulting documents have publication year 1989.
so: Eur* J* Mat* Soc* cc: 14 Search for publications in a particular source with a Mathematics Subject Classification code (cc) in 14.
"Partial diff* eq*" ! elliptic The not-operator ! eliminates all results containing the word elliptic.
dt: b & au: Hilbert The document type is set to books; alternatively: j for journal articles, a for book articles.
py: 2000-2015 cc: (94A | 11T) Number ranges are accepted. Terms can be grouped within (parentheses).
la: chinese Find documents in a given language. ISO 639-1 language codes can also be used.

a & b logic and
a | b logic or
!ab logic not
abc* right wildcard
"ab c" phrase
(ab c) parentheses
any anywhere an internal document identifier
au author, editor ai internal author identifier
ti title la language
so source ab review, abstract
py publication year rv reviewer
cc MSC code ut uncontrolled term
dt document type (j: journal article; b: book; a: book article)
A comparative study on finite elements for capturing strong discontinuities: E-FEM vs X-FEM. (English) Zbl 1144.74043
Summary: We present a comparative study on finite elements for capturing strong discontinuities by means of elemental (E-FEM) or nodal enrichments (X-FEM). Based on the same constitutive model (continuum damage) and linear elements (triangles and tetrahedra), optimized implementations of both types of enrichments in the same nonlinear code are tested for a representative set of 2D and 3D crack propagation examples. It is shown that both methods provide the same qualitative and quantitative results for enough refined meshes. For the performed tests, E-FEM exhibited, in general, a higher accuracy, mostly for coarse meshes, whereas, convergence rate with mesh refinement, which is super-linear, showed slightly higher for X-FEM. As for the computational costs for single crack modelling X-FEM showed, depending on the case, from 1.1 to about 2.5 times more expensive than E-FEM. For multiple cracks, the computational cost of E-FEM keeps constant, whereas the cost associated to X-FEM increases linearly with the number of modelled cracks.
74S05Finite element methods in solid mechanics
74R10Brittle fracture