Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

A Practical Finite Element Approach for Simulating Dynamic Crack Growth in Cu/Ultra Low-k Interconnect Structures

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces the Crack Element Method, an ES-FEM-based element-splitting scheme whose local fracture-energy-release-rate criterion reproduces dynamic crack angles, dissipated energy, and crack-tip velocities in quasi-brittle solids.

desk verdict A practical element-splitting crack method with good benchmark fits, but the central energy-release-rate criterion is asserted rather than derived, so the energy basis is weakly supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00193 v1 pith:WH4YAH7U submitted 2025-07-31 cs.CE cs.SYeess.SY

Yuxi Xie , Ethan J. Wu , Lu Xu , Jimmy Perez , Shaofan Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CEcs.SYeess.SY
keywords dynamicfractureCrackElementMethodES-FEMelement-splittingalgorithmenergyreleaseratequasi-brittlematerialsCu/ultralow-kinterconnectchip-packageinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper puts forward the Crack Element Method, a finite-element scheme for tracking dynamic cracks in two-dimensional quasi-brittle solids. The method splits elements along their edges rather than adding new nodes or smearing damage over a region, and it decides where the crack goes by comparing a locally computed fracture energy release rate with the material's critical value. The paper demonstrates on three benchmark problems that the scheme reproduces experimental crack angles, curved crack paths, dissipated fracture energy, and crack-tip velocities, and it shows a patterned Cu/ultra low-k interconnect layout cracking under mechanical and thermal loads. The claim is that this topological, energy-based rule keeps accuracy on coarse and irregular meshes and extends naturally to three-dimensional problems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the element-splitting algorithm implemented on the Edge-based Smoothed Finite Element Method (ES-FEM), in which strains are averaged over edge-based smoothing domains. Crack tips are identified with edge quadrature points; at each step the method enumerates the two candidate next tip locations in a triangle or the three in a quadrilateral, computes the candidate energy release rates through Eq. (24), and splits the element along the winning edge. The fracture criterion is the product of the normal-projected maximum principal stress at the candidate point and half the Heaviside-weighted stretch of the current crack-tip edge, so the only bookkeeping required is the evolving topology of split elements. This topology-based rule replaces the J-integral and turns crack advance into a local comparison with $G_c$.

What would settle it

Compute, in one simulated split, the actual drop in total potential energy of the entire domain divided by the area of the newly created crack surface, and compare it with the value of Eq. (24) that triggered the split; if the two disagree beyond discretization error, the energy-release-rate interpretation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that dynamic crack growth in quasi-brittle solids can be driven by a purely local, element-topology-based energy criterion instead of a path integral or a diffused damage field. When the crack tip sits at an edge quadrature point $G_0$ of an ES-FEM mesh, the method evaluates, for each candidate next edge point $G_i$, the quantity $G_{G_0} = \sigma^{\perp}_{G_i}\delta_d / 2$, where $\delta_d$ is the stretch of the current crack-tip edge and $\sigma^{\perp}_{G_i}$ is the component of the maximum principal stress at $G_i$ perpendicular to the candidate crack line. If $G_{G_0}$ exceeds the material's critical fracture energy release rate $G_c$, the crack advances to $G_i$; when a quadrilateral element is only partially split, it degenerates into triangle elements that continue the computation. The paper reports that this rule, without enrichment functions or a cohesive law, gives a shear-impact crack angle near 70 degrees, a critical notch-offset threshold of 0.765 versus the 0.77 measured in the concrete beam experiment, and curved PMMA crack paths matching reference simulations, with crack-tip speeds staying below roughly 60 percent of the Rayleigh wave speed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that Eq. (24) really measures the energy released per unit of new crack surface when the crack advances; the paper asserts this equality rather than deriving it from the variation of potential energy with crack area, and if it fails under mixed-mode dynamic loading the crack-advance decisions lose their energetic basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A coarse triangle mesh with 434 nodes still produces a shear-impact crack path near 70 degrees, so the method does not require the fine meshes that smeared crack approaches typically need.
  • The critical notch offset 0.765 reproduces the measured 0.77 transition between pure mode-I and mixed-mode cracking in the concrete beam, without an artificially inserted mid-span notch.
  • In the PMMA compact compression case the curved arc-shaped crack path and the crack-tip speed history, peaking near 700 m/s and staying below about 60 percent of the Rayleigh wave speed, are reproduced with three different mesh densities.
  • The same formulation captures mechanically and thermally induced crack propagation in a patterned Cu/ultra low-k interconnect layout, matching the qualitative failure patterns used as reference.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Although Eq. (24) is built from a mode-I-style normal stress, it performs well on mixed-mode benchmarks; this suggests the opening component dominates in those cases, and a future sliding-mode term may be needed for shear-dominated crack growth.
  • Because the method tracks only element topology, it could be combined with adaptive refinement of the band of elements near the crack tip, reducing cost further while preserving local stress resolution.
  • The formula resembles a crack-closure estimate that needs no predefined crack path; if it survives broader validation, it could serve as a cheap screening tool for comparing interconnect layouts and crack-stop structures in chip-package interaction studies.
  • The interconnect demonstration uses a periodic, conceptual layout, which hints that the method is cheap enough for statistical studies over many layout variants.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Crack Element Method (CEM) implemented within the Edge-based Smoothed Finite Element Method (ES-FEM) framework. The method tracks dynamic crack growth in 2D quasi-brittle solids by splitting elements along edge-quadrature-point paths and by using a locally computed fracture energy release rate (Eq. 24) to decide whether and where a crack advances. The approach is demonstrated on three classical dynamic fracture benchmarks (Kalthoff-Winkler plate, three-point bending concrete beam, compact-compression PMMA specimen) and on two Cu/Ultra Low-k interconnect case studies, with comparisons to experimental data and reference numerical solutions for crack paths, dissipated energy, and crack tip velocity.

Significance. If the central criterion is accepted, the paper offers a practically attractive alternative to phase-field, XFEM, and cohesive-zone methods: it avoids remeshing and damage smearing, works on coarse meshes, and uses material fracture energies taken from the literature rather than fitted to the validation benchmarks. The benchmark coverage, including the Kalthoff crack angle near 70°, the transition parameter γ_t = 0.765 versus the experimental 0.77, and the curved PMMA crack path, is a genuine strength. However, the energetic meaning of the crack advance criterion is not established, and the reported crack-tip velocities show noteworthy mesh dependence. The method's practical value is plausible, but the theoretical status of Eq. (24) must be clarified before the central claim of an 'energy-based formulation' can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III, Eq. (24)] The fracture energy release rate G_G0 = σ⊥_Gi · δd / 2 is presented as 'derived' from the topology of split elements, but no derivation from the variation of potential energy with respect to crack area (e.g., δL/δA or a crack-closure integral) is given. The quantity has the correct dimensions, yet the conjugacy is missing: δd (Eq. 23) is the stretch of the current crack-tip edge, while σ⊥_Gi is the normal projection of the maximum principal stress at a candidate edge quadrature point ahead of the tip. These are not the traction and opening associated with the same virtual crack extension. Since every crack advance decision in Eqs. (25) and (26) compares this quantity with G_c, and since the dissipated-energy comparisons in Figs. 7(a) and 13(a) inherit its meaning, the method's energy basis and its predicted direction and timing both hinge on Eq. (24) being a true energy release rate. The authors should either provide a proper derivation (e.g., from the discrete variation of the total potential energy when an element is split) or explicitly state that Eq. (24) is a heuristic criterion and then treat the benchmark agreement as empirical validation of that heuristic. As written, the claim that CEM is an 'energy-based formulation' is not supported.
  2. [§III, Eq. (24) and benchmarks IV.A–IV.C] Eq. (24) contains only the normal projection of the maximum principal stress and therefore has no explicit mode-II contribution. The Kalthoff-Winkler, three-point bending, and compact-compression problems are all mixed-mode to varying degrees, and the conclusion itself acknowledges that the formulation is based solely on mode-I fracture mechanics. If Eq. (24) is intended to represent the total energy release rate in mixed-mode conditions, the absence of shear traction work must be justified. If it is a mode-I-only criterion, then the good agreement with mixed-mode benchmark paths needs an explanation beyond the assertion in the conclusion, because the crack direction is selected by maximizing σ⊥ among candidate points, which is a maximum-principal-stress direction condition rather than an energy-balance direction condition.
  3. [§IV.A, Fig. 7(b)] The crack-tip velocity comparison shows a material mesh dependence: the regular fine mesh crack-tip velocity decreases after 35 µs, while the coarse and irregular meshes increase to about 1600 m/s. The authors offer a qualitative explanation (straighter path in the regular mesh), but the claim that CEM 'accurately captures' crack tip velocities requires a quantitative assessment: what is the spread relative to the reference solution, and is a 1600 m/s versus a decreasing velocity within the expected accuracy of the method? At minimum, the authors should provide the reference velocity data from [30] in the same plot and quantify the discrepancy.
  4. [§II.B, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) is labeled as a 'diagonal mass matrix' but the displayed expression is a consistent (non-diagonal) element mass matrix, since it is the outer product of shape function vectors integrated over the element. If a diagonal/lumped mass matrix is used in the explicit time integration of Eq. (20), the lumping scheme must be described or referenced. As written, the formulation is internally inconsistent: a non-diagonal mass matrix would not allow the 'without equation solving' statement following Eq. (20).
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III, Eq. (23)] The definition of δd uses the Heaviside function H(·) of (‖x_N2 − x_N1‖/‖X_N2 − X_N1‖ − 1). When the edge is in compression, δd = 0, so the criterion predicts no crack advance even under large compressive stretch along the edge. This should be stated and justified, as it affects the interpretation of the crack path under mixed-mode loading.
  2. [§II.B, Eq. (11)] The notation in Eq. (11) is confusing: the symbols N_gi^e, L_gi^e, M_Aj^n, and A_j are introduced in the text but the equation combines them in a way that is hard to parse. Please define all symbols directly below the equation and clarify the meaning of the quotient term (the area weight).
  3. [§III, Fig. 3(b) and text] There is a typo 'to to G3' in the description of crack pattern II in the QUAD element; also, the phrase 'from G0 to to G3' should read 'from G0 to G3.'
  4. [§IV.A] The text states that the crack angle in the proposed method is 'around 65°∼70°,' while the experimental value is 70°. Given that the crack path is digitized from figures, please provide a quantitative measurement of the final crack angle for each mesh and state the precise deviation from 70°.
  5. [§IV.D, mechanically-induced loads] The qualitative comparison between the simulated crack pattern and the fab image in Fig. 15(b) is not sufficient to 'confirm the ability of the proposed CEM to model the fracturing process.' A quantitative metric (e.g., crack path length, deviation from the layer interface, or comparison with a reference simulation) would strengthen the claim.
  6. [General] The manuscript contains several typographical errors: 'Possion' for 'Poisson,' 'detedction' for 'detection,' 'the reason why more energy is dissipated... may come from discrepancy' should be 'may come from the discrepancy,' and 'making it as a strong alternative' should be 'making it a strong alternative.' A careful proofread is recommended.
Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an ansatz for the energy release rate, a mesh-edge-restricted crack path, linear elastic assumptions, and hand-chosen time steps and meshes. No parameters are fitted to the validation benchmarks, so the method is not circular, but it is not first-principles either.

free parameters (2)
  • Time step Delta_t per benchmark = e.g., 1e-8 s for the PMMA specimen, 0.1 micro-s for the concrete beam
    Chosen by hand; no stability or convergence analysis is reported. Crack-tip velocity results may depend on this choice.
  • Mesh discretization (node/element counts) = e.g., 434 to 14158 elements for the Kalthoff plate
    Chosen by hand; the paper uses several meshes to argue path stability, but crack-tip velocity varies noticeably across meshes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Linear elastic, small-strain constitutive model with traction-free crack faces
    Used in Section II, Eq. (5); no plasticity or rate dependence is modeled despite the quasi-brittle material framing.
  • standard math Hamilton's principle and ES-FEM strain smoothing provide a valid weak form for the cracked domain
    Section II.A-B; standard variational finite element background.
  • ad hoc to paper Cracks can only advance from one edge quadrature point to another within a single element
    Section III and Figures 3-4; this restricts crack paths to element-edge topology, so the claimed orientation-independence is only approximate.
  • ad hoc to paper Eq. (24), G = sigma_perp * delta_d / 2, defines the fracture energy release rate
    Section III, after Eq. (23); the formula is asserted as a derivation but is not obtained from differentiating potential energy.
  • domain assumption The maximum principal stress direction selects crack growth direction, with mode-II contributions neglected
    Section III defines sigma_perp via maximum principal stress, and the conclusion admits the formulation is based solely on mode-I fracture mechanics.
  • domain assumption Crack initiation at midspan in the concrete beam uses a tensile strength criterion
    Section IV.B uses a material fracture strength ft to initiate a crack where no pre-notch exists, without a detailed derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Practical Finite Element Approach for Simulating Dynamic Crack Growth in Cu/Ultra Low-k Interconnect Structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WH4YAH7U

@misc{pith2026250800193,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Practical Finite Element Approach for Simulating Dynamic Crack Growth in Cu/Ultra Low-k Interconnect Structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WH4YAH7U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00193}
}
read the original abstract

This work presents a practical finite element modeling strategy, the Crack Element Method (CEM), for simulating the dynamic crack propagation in two-dimensional structures. The method employs an element-splitting algorithm based on the Edge-based Smoothed Finite Element Method (ES-FEM) to capture the element-wise crack growth while reducing the formation of poorly shaped elements that can compromise numerical accuracy and computational performance. A fracture energy release rate formulation is also developed based on the evolving topology of the split elements. The proposed approach is validated through a series of classical benchmark problems, demonstrating its accuracy and robustness in addressing dynamic fracture scenarios. Finally, the applicability of the CEM is illustrated in a case study involving patterned Cu/Ultra Low-k interconnect structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00193 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of concepts and notations in Lagrangian dynamics and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The studied domain is discretized by red points while black points are skipped. Notation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Element-wise crack type: (a). crack type of Constant Strain Triangle element; (b). crack type of bilinear Quadrilateral element, in which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Intra- and inter-element crack propagation and cracked element reformulation in the CEM: (a). crack propagation in Constant Strain Triangle (CST) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The whole geometry, boundary condition of Kalthoff-Winkler plate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Three representative triangle meshes are illustrated: (a). irregular fine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of (a). dissipated energy and (b). crack tip velocity among [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Grids of three-point support bending beam model and crack patterns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Animation of crack path progressing at the case of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a). The model geometric dimensions (unit: mm) and boundary con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Crack path evolution and maximum principal stress contour with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a). Dissipated energy evolution during crack propagation; (b). crack [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: (a). The geometry of Cu/ultra low-k multilevel interconnect model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a). The geometry of Cu/Ultra low-k multilevel interconnect model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Revisit of Two-dimensional CEM on Crack Branching: from Single Crack-tip Tracking to Multiple Crack-tips Tracking

    cs.CE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multiple crack-tip tracking algorithm added to the 2D Crack Element Model reproduces crack branching and fragmentation in benchmark dynamic fracture tests.

  2. A GPU-Accelerated Three-Dimensional Crack Element Method for Transient Dynamic Fracture Simulation

    cs.CE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 3D element-splitting method predicts dynamic crack paths and branching by removing elements whose computed fracture energy release rate exceeds a critical value, with GPU acceleration.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    Simulation of dynamic brittle and quasi-brittle fracture: a revisited local damage approach,

    T. Q. Bui, H. T. Tran, X. Hu, and C. T. Wu, “Simulation of dynamic brittle and quasi-brittle fracture: a revisited local damage approach,” International Journal of Fracture , vol. 236, no. 1, pp. 59–85, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    An experimental investigation into dynamic fracture: Iii. on steady-state crack propagation and crack branching,

    K. Ravi-Chandar and W. G. Knauss, “An experimental investigation into dynamic fracture: Iii. on steady-state crack propagation and crack branching,” International Journal of fracture , vol. 26, pp. 141–154, 1984

    work page 1984

  3. [2]

    T. L. Anderson and T. L. Anderson, Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications. CRC press, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [3]

    Progress in the development and understanding of advanced low k and ultralow k dielectrics for very large-scale integrated interconnects—state of the art,

    A. Grill, S. M. Gates, T. E. Ryan, S. V . Nguyen, and D. Priyadarshini, “Progress in the development and understanding of advanced low k and ultralow k dielectrics for very large-scale integrated interconnects—state of the art,” Applied Physics Reviews , vol. 1, no. 1, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    Chip-packaging interaction: a critical concern for cu/low k packaging,

    G. Wang, P. S. Ho, and S. Groothuis, “Chip-packaging interaction: a critical concern for cu/low k packaging,” Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 45, no. 7-8, pp. 1079–1093, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [5]

    Chip-package interaction and crackstop study for cu/ultra low-k interconnects,

    X. Zhang, R. S. Smith, R. Huang, and P. S. Ho, “Chip-package interaction and crackstop study for cu/ultra low-k interconnects,” in AIP Conference Proceedings , vol. 1143, no. 1. American Institute of Physics, 2009, pp. 197–203

    work page 2009

  7. [6]

    A comparative study on finite element methods for dynamic fracture,

    J.-H. Song, H. Wang, and T. Belytschko, “A comparative study on finite element methods for dynamic fracture,” Computational Mechanics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 239–250, 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [7]

    A meshfree continuous– discontinuous approach for the ductile fracture modeling in explicit dynamics analysis,

    C. T. Wu, N. Ma, K. Takada, and H. Okada, “A meshfree continuous– discontinuous approach for the ductile fracture modeling in explicit dynamics analysis,” Computational Mechanics, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 391– 409, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Modes of dynamic shear failure in solids,

    J. F. Kalthoff, “Modes of dynamic shear failure in solids,” International Journal of fracture, vol. 101, pp. 1–31, 2000

    2000

  2. [9]

    Modern topics and challenges in dynamic fracture,

    B. N. Cox, H. Gao, D. Gross, and D. Rittel, “Modern topics and challenges in dynamic fracture,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 565–596, 2005

    2005

  3. [10]

    A rate-dependent hybrid phase field model for dynamic crack propagation,

    D. H. Doan, T. Q. Bui, T. Van Do, and N. D. Duc, “A rate-dependent hybrid phase field model for dynamic crack propagation,” Journal of applied Physics, vol. 122, no. 11, 2017

    2017

  4. [11]

    Vi. the phenomena of rupture and flow in solids,

    A. A. Griffith, “Vi. the phenomena of rupture and flow in solids,” Philosophical transactions of the royal society of london. Series A, containing papers of a mathematical or physical character , vol. 221, no. 582-593, pp. 163–198, 1921

    1921

  5. [12]

    A theory of crack initiation and growth in viscoelastic media: I. theoretical development,

    R. A. Schapery, “A theory of crack initiation and growth in viscoelastic media: I. theoretical development,” International Journal of fracture , vol. 11, pp. 141–159, 1975

    1975

  6. [13]

    Application of the crack layer theory to modeling of slow crack growth in polyethylene,

    A. Chudnovsky and Y . Shulkin, “Application of the crack layer theory to modeling of slow crack growth in polyethylene,” International journal of fracture, vol. 97, pp. 83–102, 1999

    1999

  7. [14]

    Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams,

    D. Ngo and A. C. Scordelis, “Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams,” in Journal Proceedings, vol. 64, no. 3, 1967, pp. 152– 163

    1967

  8. [15]

    Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete by the finite element method,

    A. H. Nilson, “Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete by the finite element method,” in Journal Proceedings, vol. 65, no. 9, 1968, pp. 757– 766

    1968

  9. [16]

    Ultimate strength analysis of prestressed concrete pres- sure vessels,

    Y . R. Rashid, “Ultimate strength analysis of prestressed concrete pres- sure vessels,” Nuclear engineering and design , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 334– 344, 1968

    1968

  10. [17]

    Effect of finite element choice in blunt crack band analysis,

    L. Cedolin and Z. P. Ba ˇzant, “Effect of finite element choice in blunt crack band analysis,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 305–316, 1980

    1980

  11. [18]

    Numerical analysis of elastic-plastic compression of pillars accounting for material hardening and softening,

    S. Pietruszczak and Z. Mroz, “Numerical analysis of elastic-plastic compression of pillars accounting for material hardening and softening,” in International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 17, no. 4. Elsevier, 1980, pp. 199–207

    1980

  12. [19]

    An edge-based smoothed finite element method (es-fem) for static, free and forced vibration analyses of solids,

    G. Liu, T. Nguyen-Thoi, and K. Lam, “An edge-based smoothed finite element method (es-fem) for static, free and forced vibration analyses of solids,” Journal of Sound and Vibration , vol. 320, no. 4-5, pp. 1100– 1130, 2009

    2009

  13. [20]

    O. C. Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor, and J. Z. Zhu, The finite element method: its basis and fundamentals . Elsevier, 2005

    2005

  14. [21]

    A finite element calculation of stress intensity factors by a modified crack closure integral,

    E. F. Rybicki and M. F. Kanninen, “A finite element calculation of stress intensity factors by a modified crack closure integral,”Engineering fracture mechanics, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 931–938, 1977

    1977

  15. [22]

    The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture,

    G. I. Barenblatt, “The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture,” Advances in applied mechanics , vol. 7, pp. 55–129, 1962

    1962

  16. [23]

    Yielding of steel sheets containing slits,

    D. S. Dugdale, “Yielding of steel sheets containing slits,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 100–104, 1960

    1960

  17. [24]

    The relation between crack growth resistance and fracture process parameters in elastic-plastic solids,

    V . Tvergaard and J. W. Hutchinson, “The relation between crack growth resistance and fracture process parameters in elastic-plastic solids,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1377–1397, 1992

    1992

  18. [25]

    A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing,

    N. Mo ¨es, J. Dolbow, and T. Belytschko, “A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing,” International journal for numerical methods in engineering , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 131–150, 1999

    1999

  19. [26]

    Failure mode transition at high rates of shear loading,

    J. Kalthoff, “Failure mode transition at high rates of shear loading,” Impact Load Dyn Behav Mater , vol. 1, p. 185, 1988

    1988

  20. [27]

    Discontinuous modelling of shear bands using adaptive meshfree methods,

    T. Rabczuk and E. Samaniego, “Discontinuous modelling of shear bands using adaptive meshfree methods,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 197, no. 6-8, pp. 641–658, 2008

    2008

  21. [28]

    Cracking node method for dynamic fracture with finite elements,

    J.-H. Song and T. Belytschko, “Cracking node method for dynamic fracture with finite elements,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 360–385, 2009

    2009

  22. [29]

    A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture,

    M. J. Borden, C. V . Verhoosel, M. A. Scott, T. J. Hughes, and C. M. Landis, “A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture,”Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 217, pp. 77–95, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Mixed-mode fracture of concrete subjected to impact loading,

    R. John and S. P. Shah, “Mixed-mode fracture of concrete subjected to impact loading,” Journal of Structural Engineering , vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 585–602, 1990. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 14

    1990

  24. [32]

    Element-free galerkin meth- ods for dynamic fracture in concrete,

    T. Belytschko, D. Organ, and C. Gerlach, “Element-free galerkin meth- ods for dynamic fracture in concrete,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 187, no. 3-4, pp. 385–399, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    The extended finite element method for dynamic fractures,

    G. Zi, H. Chen, J. Xu, and T. Belytschko, “The extended finite element method for dynamic fractures,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–23, 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    Three-dimensional cohesive modeling of dynamic mixed-mode fracture,

    G. Ruiz, A. Pandolfi, and M. Ortiz, “Three-dimensional cohesive modeling of dynamic mixed-mode fracture,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , vol. 52, no. 1-2, pp. 97–120, 2001

    2001

  27. [35]

    An investigation of dynamic crack initiation in pmma,

    D. Rittel and H. Maigre, “An investigation of dynamic crack initiation in pmma,” Mechanics of Materials , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 229–239, 1996

    1996

  28. [36]

    Adaptive dynamic cohesive fracture simulation using nodal perturbation and edge-swap operators,

    G. H. Paulino, K. Park, W. Celes, and R. Espinha, “Adaptive dynamic cohesive fracture simulation using nodal perturbation and edge-swap operators,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 84, no. 11, pp. 1303–1343, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    A general mass lumping scheme for the variants of the extended finite element method,

    I. Asareh, J.-H. Song, R. L. Mullen, and Y . Qian, “A general mass lumping scheme for the variants of the extended finite element method,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , vol. 121, no. 10, pp. 2262–2284, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Mass lumping strategies for x-fem explicit dynamics: application to crack propagation,

    T. Menouillard, J. R ´ethor´e, N. Moes, A. Combescure, and H. Bung, “Mass lumping strategies for x-fem explicit dynamics: application to crack propagation,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 447–474, 2008

    2008

  31. [39]

    Efficient explicit time stepping for the extended finite element method (x-fem),

    T. Menouillard, J. Rethore, A. Combescure, and H. Bung, “Efficient explicit time stepping for the extended finite element method (x-fem),” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 911–939, 2006

    2006

  32. [40]

    A nonlocal gradient damage model with energy limiter for dynamic brittle fracture,

    H. T. Tran and T. Q. Bui, “A nonlocal gradient damage model with energy limiter for dynamic brittle fracture,” Computational Mechanics, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 831–856, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Delamination of plasticized devices in dynamic service environments,

    W. Tian, X. Chen, G. Zhang, Y . Chen, and J. Luo, “Delamination of plasticized devices in dynamic service environments,” Micromachines, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 376, 2024. Yuxi Xie received the B.S. degree in civil engineering from Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuha...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.