iMechanica - Comments for "A Problem in Nature Of XFEM Approximation"
https://imechanica.org/node/6640
Comments for "A Problem in Nature Of XFEM Approximation"enXFEM
https://imechanica.org/comment/12231#comment-12231
<a id="comment-12231"></a>
<p><em>In reply to <a href="https://imechanica.org/node/6640">A Problem in Nature Of XFEM Approximation</a></em></p>
<div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>
I suppose what you do have with heaviside function as enrichment is that your displacements corresponding to your enrichment are independent not the first part of your solution. <br />
I mean the second term of the solution is independent because if you omit it you will get the same results as ordinary finite element. Therefore you have dependant solution for the first term but independent solution for the second term.
</p>
<p>
Furthermore, what one can surely say is that with heaviside function you have strongly discontinuous solutuion with both different derivative and value at one point andthis is what we mean by independent. In the cases when you need to compromise for the parasitic terms in blending elements you impose dependecy on the solution by using lagrange mutiplier.
</p>
<p>
I am not an expert in XFEM but I have had a course in this field so every comment is appreciated.
</p>
</div></div></div><ul class="links inline"><li class="comment_forbidden first last"><span><a href="/user/login?destination=node/6640%23comment-form">Log in</a> or <a href="/user/register?destination=node/6640%23comment-form">register</a> to post comments</span></li>
</ul>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:16:24 +0000sepehr.saroukhanicomment 12231 at https://imechanica.org