Evaluating the effects of nonlocality and numerical discretization in peridynamic solutions for quasi-static elasticity and fracture.

• Performances of influence functions with different nonlocalities are compared. • The dependence of numerical discretization- and nonlocality-induced differences on the influence functions is discussed. • The effects of nonlocality and numerical discretization in peridynamic quasi-static solutions are evaluated. • Influence functions with weaker nonlocalities leads to solutions closer to the classical ones. The difference between the computational peridynamic results and the corresponding exact classical solutions is contributed by the error induced by numerical discretization and the nonlocality-induced difference. To evaluate and compare these contributions and investigate their dependence on the peridynamic influence functions, in this paper, we apply different peridynamic influence functions and different horizon factors (m , the ratio between the horizon size and the grid spacing) to conduct static (or quasi-static) tensile numerical tests. We calculate the difference between the peridynamic solutions and the corresponding classical solutions for static uniaxial tension of thin plates with or without hole, the J-integral of a single crack under Mode I loading condition, and the quasi-static fracture in a perforated thin plate. For the case of uniaxial tension in a thin, homogeneous plate, we separate the effects of nonlocality and numerical discretization by implementing the boundary conditions in different ways. The numerical results show that both the effects of nonlocality and numerical discretization correspond to the nonlocal constants of the influence functions (with few exceptions). For problems with the presence of the peridynamic surface effect, such as holes, influence function with weaker nonlocality is a better choice to obtain more accurate results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]