Linearization of quasistatic fracture evolution in brittle materials

Kerrek Stinson; Manuel Friedrich; Pascal Steinke

Linearization of quasistatic fracture evolution in brittle materials

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For very stiff 2D brittle materials, time-discretized nonlinear quasistatic crack growth converges to the linear Griffith evolution, with no assumptions on crack geometry.

desk verdict Solid, genuinely new evolutionary linearization theorem; the nonsimple-material assumption is real but explicitly declared and doesn't undermine the result as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13446 v1 pith:NFZACRIB submitted 2024-11-20 math.AP math.FA

Manuel Friedrich , Pascal Steinke , Kerrek Stinson This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.APmath.FA MSC 49J4570G7574B1074B2074G6574R10

keywords brittlematerialsvariationalfracturefreediscontinuityproblemquasistaticevolutionlinearizationΓ-convergencenonsimpleGSBD

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 proves that in two dimensions, crack growth in a very stiff nonlinear elastic material is rigorously approximated by the standard linear Griffith model of brittle fracture. The authors show that rescaled deformations from a time-discretized nonlinear quasistatic evolution converge, as the stiffness tends to infinity, to a linear quasistatic fracture evolution: the limiting crack is the union of the jump sets of the limiting displacement, and the total energies converge at every time. This is the evolutionary counterpart of a known static linearization result, and it removes earlier restrictions that forced the crack to lie on a line segment or on finitely many regular arcs. The proof requires the nonlinear energy to penalize the second gradient of the deformation, a technical condition that disappears in the limit. The result matters because it justifies using linear theory to predict crack paths in stiff materials, even when the crack is tortuous and arbitrarily shaped.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a refined jump transfer lemma in the space GSBD of functions of bounded deformation, adapted from the linear fracture existence theory, together with a rotation decomposition into Caccioppoli pieces and a cut-off construction. The jump transfer lemma lets the authors move the unilateral global minimality of the nonlinear discrete minimizers to the linear limiting displacement: a competitor for the linear problem is lifted to a competitor for the nonlinear problem without creating jumps outside the accumulated crack, and errors are controlled by a quantitative almost-minimality estimate. The rotation decomposition, with cut-off sets $\omega_\varepsilon$, isolates on each piece the rigid rotation about which the deformation is linearized, while the cut-off removes the vanishingly small region where the rescaled gradient is too large for a Taylor expansion.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to construct, for some $\beta\in(2/3,1)$ and a sequence of time-discretized minimizers of the energy (2.4) with well-prepared initial data and uniformly bounded energies, a case where no subsequence of the rescaled displacements converges in measure on the good set, or where a cluster point violates the unilateral minimality inequality of Definition 2.1(iv). A numerical experiment with a branching crack in a stiff two-dimensional specimen could settle the question by exhibiting such a failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.2: given approximate nonlinear quasistatic evolutions $y_\varepsilon$ built by time-discretized minimization of $E_\varepsilon$, with well-prepared initial data, there is a linear quasistatic fracture evolution $(u(t),\Gamma(t))$ such that $\Gamma(t)=\bigcup_{\tau\in I^t_\infty} Ju(\tau)$ and, up to a subsequence, $y_\varepsilon\rightsquigarrow u$, with $E_\varepsilon(t)\to E(t)$ for all $t\in[0,1]$. The convergence is understood on the 'good set' attached to the Dirichlet boundary; broken-off pieces relax to rigid motions and carry no elastic energy in the limit. No a priori geometric restriction on the crack set is imposed.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the nonlinear energy being nonsimple: it must contain a second-gradient (Hessian) penalty with exponent $\beta\in(2/3,1)$, because without that term the rotation decomposition and cut-off construction used to linearize break down; purely first-gradient nonlinear models are therefore not covered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

No crack-shape assumptions: previous linearization results that pinned the crack to a line segment or to finitely many regular arcs are superseded in the two-dimensional nonsimple setting.
The limit crack is exactly the union of the jump sets of the linear displacement up to that time, so crack growth is determined by the linearized displacement field.
The total energy of the nonlinear evolution converges to the linear Griffith energy at every time, with separate convergence of elastic and crack contributions.
The limiting linear evolution satisfies irreversibility, unilateral global minimality, and the energy balance, so it is a quasistatic fracture solution in the sense of Definition 2.1.
The vanishing Hessian term shows the effective limit model is purely first-order linear Griffith elasticity, not a strain-gradient model.

Reading between the lines

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

Since the proof never uses a genuine continuous-time nonlinear solution and lets the time step and stiffness parameter go to zero independently, one likely extension is to full time-continuous nonlinear evolutions once existence and compactness are established.
The same machinery may transfer to anisotropic or heterogeneous crack growth, because the linear target enters only through the quadratic form $Q$ and the GSBD tools are model-independent.
For simulation practice, the result implies that linear-elastic fracture computations can be trusted to reproduce the crack path of a very stiff nonlinear material even when the crack is irregular; this is a testable prediction for stiff brittle sheets.
The Hessian term is currently load-bearing, so the theorem indicates where a counterexample to linearization without second-gradient regularization would have to come from; a first-gradient-only model needs a new rigidity mechanism.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The punchline: this is the right paper at the right time. It gives the evolutionary counterpart of Friedrich's static linearization result for brittle fracture, and it does so without any a priori crack-geometry assumptions, which is exactly what was missing since Negri-Zanini and Negri-Toader. If the main theorem is correct—and I saw no fatal gap—this closes a natural open problem in the linearization program.

What is genuinely new: the convergence of time-discrete nonlinear quasistatic evolutions to a linear Griffith evolution, with simultaneous convergence of rescaled displacements on the 'good set' and of crack sets. The technical backbone is a refined jump transfer lemma in GSBD, a rotation-correction step that controls the region where the linearization is valid, and a stability-of-minimality argument that survives the limit. The paper also handles the broken-off pieces carefully via the bad set B(t), and Lemma 6.1 shows those pieces relax and do not pollute the energy balance. The energy convergence is proved for every time, not just a.e.

The soft spots are real but declared. The nonsimple-material assumption (second-gradient penalty with exponent beta in (2/3,1)) is load-bearing for the rotation decomposition and the cut-off construction; the paper says so plainly, and the stress-test note confirms it is an explicit hypothesis, not a hidden gap. It does mean the theorem does not apply to a purely first-gradient nonlinear energy, and removing it will likely need new rigidity ideas. Likewise, the 2D restriction comes from the piecewise Korn inequality, and the authors say higher dimensions need a new jump transfer lemma. The use of time-discrete approximate solutions rather than a true nonlinear evolution is also stated openly; this is more a feature than a bug, since the theorem is exactly about the discrete scheme, but it is worth flagging when citing.

I did not verify every estimate line-by-line—that would take a GSBD specialist—but the proof structure is coherent and the cited tools are the right ones. The paper is honest about its limitations, which makes the result more credible, not less.

For anyone working on variational fracture or linearization, this is an important reference and deserves a serious referee. I would send it out without hesitation and expect it to be accepted, probably with minor revision.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves an evolutionary linearization theorem for quasistatic fracture in two dimensions. For nonsimple nonlinear energies with a second-gradient penalization of order ε^{-2β}, β∈(2/3,1), the time-discrete approximate evolutions y_ε defined in (2.8) are shown to converge, after rescaling (y_ε−id)/ε, to a linear quasistatic Griffith evolution in the sense of Definition 2.1. The limit crack is exactly the union of the jump sets of the limit displacement at a countable dense set of times, and the total energies converge. No a priori assumptions on the geometry of the crack set are needed. The proof combines a priori estimates, a rotation decomposition, a cut-off construction, GSBD compactness and jump transfer, stability of unilateral minimality, and an approximate energy balance.

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial advance: it removes the restrictive crack-geometry assumptions of Negri–Zanini and Negri–Toader and supplies the evolutionary counterpart of the static Γ-limit in [Fri20]. The paper is unusually honest about its scope: the nonsimple-material hypothesis, the restriction to two dimensions, the absence of non-interpenetration, and the use of time-discrete approximate solutions rather than true nonlinear evolutions are all stated explicitly. The proof is organized as a detailed chain of lemmas with explicit rates and constants, and the cited external results are used as tools rather than as equivalent versions of the target claim. I found no circularity and no load-bearing gap.

minor comments (5)

[§5.3, proof of Lemma 5.4] The displayed identity "Jφ \ Jˆu(t) = J_{ˆu(t)+φ} \ Jˆu(t)" is not true in general; only the inclusion "⊆" is needed and is valid, since a point where φ has a jump and ˆu has no jump is necessarily a jump point of ˆu+φ. Please replace the equality by the inclusion.
[§3, Lemma 3.4] The proof that the reflected extension satisfies H^1(J∇φ̂ \ Jφ̂)=0 is compressed to a single sentence. Since this property is essential for the refined jump transfer lemma, please expand the argument: after reflecting, the jump set of ∇φ̂ is contained in the reflected copies of J∇φ, and the hypothesis H^1(J∇φ \ Jφ)=0 ensures these are contained in the reflected copies of Jφ, which are contained in Jφ̂.
[§2.4, Theorem 2.2] The statement says "up to a subsequence in ε (not relabeled), y_ε ↝ u", but the proof establishes the convergence for each t along possibly t-dependent subsequences and then upgrades it to the whole sequence using uniqueness of the limit. If this is intended, the wording could be made more precise so that readers do not expect a single subsequence working simultaneously for all t without the later identification argument.
[§5.4, proof of Corollary 5.5] The diagonal argument that produces the sequence n(ε)→∞ is only sketched. A short explicit description of how n(ε) is chosen after combining (5.24) and (5.25) would improve the readability of this key convergence step.
[§1 and Abstract] The abstract says that crack growth in nonlinear elasticity is approximated by crack growth in linear elasticity, while the precise result concerns time-discrete approximate evolutions. The introduction later clarifies this point, but the abstract could be slightly more explicit that the convergence is proved for the discrete-in-time approximate evolutions defined in (2.8).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the evolutionary linearization theorem is derived constructively from compactness, minimality transfer, and energy-balance estimates, with prior static results used only as independent tools.

full rationale

The paper does not assume its conclusion. The limit displacement u is obtained by compactness arguments (Theorem 3.1 and the proof in Sections 4–5), and the limiting crack is then defined as Γ(t) := ∪_{τ∈I∞^t} Ju(τ) in Definition 4.5. The equality Γ(t) = ∪ Ju(τ) appearing in Theorem 2.2 is therefore true by construction, but the substantive content of the theorem is that this pair (u, Γ) satisfies the linear quasistatic evolution conditions of Definition 2.1 and that yε ↝ u with convergence of total energies. Those properties are proved through the almost-minimality estimate (Lemma 5.1), the jump-transfer-based minimality transfer (Lemma 5.4), the elastic-energy convergence (Corollary 5.5), the approximate energy-balance inequalities (Lemmas 6.1 and 6.2), and the final identification of strains and jumps (Lemma 7.1 and the proof of Theorem 2.2). The cited works [Fri20] and [FS18] are used as previously established technical tools—static Γ-convergence, compactness, and the GSBD jump-transfer lemma—rather than as equivalent formulations or proofs of the target evolutionary result. These are external, independently stated results with their own proofs, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The nonsimple-material Hessian term is an explicit modeling assumption that restricts scope, not an input that by itself forces the linear evolution; indeed Corollary 5.5 shows the Hessian contribution vanishes in the limit. No load-bearing step reduces by definition to its inputs, so the paper is non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the model assumptions (nonsimple material, 2D, Lipschitz domains, W regularity) and on standard theorems from GSBD theory. The auxiliary exponents beta and gamma are introduced for the proof. No new entities are postulated and no data are fitted.

free parameters (2)

beta = beta in (2/3,1)
Exponent of the second-gradient term in the nonlinear energy (2.4). The proof requires this range for the estimates in Lemma 4.3 and Section 5; it is a model parameter chosen by hand rather than fitted to data.
gamma = gamma in (2/3,beta)
Auxiliary exponent used in the rotation decomposition and cut-off construction, see (4.11) and Lemma 4.3. The final theorem does not depend on the specific value, so it is a proof parameter introduced ad hoc.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption W satisfies (W1)-(W3): locally Lipschitz with growth condition, frame indifferent, coercive with zeros exactly on SO(2).
Defines the class of nonlinear elastic energies; used throughout the proof (e.g., in the a priori estimate Lemma 4.1 and the Taylor expansions in Section 5).
domain assumption The energy is nonsimple: it includes a second-gradient term with exponent beta in (2/3,1).
Used to control rotations and obtain compactness for the rescaled displacements; without it the result is not proven (Section 1 caveat, energy (2.4)).
domain assumption The domain is two-dimensional with Lipschitz boundaries: Omega subset Omega' subset R^2 and Omega' \ Omega Lipschitz.
The proof relies on the piecewise Korn inequality [Fri18] and the GSBD jump transfer lemma, which are only available in the plane (Sections 1 and 3).
domain assumption The stored energy does not blow up as det nabla y goes to 0, and non-interpenetration is not enforced.
The authors explicitly state this limitation in the introduction; it simplifies the analysis but excludes some physical situations.
domain assumption Initial data are well-prepared: (y0_epsilon - id)/epsilon converges to u0 in measure and limsup E_epsilon(y0_epsilon) <= E(u0).
Assumed in Theorem 2.2; existence for such sequences follows from the static Gamma-convergence result [Fri20, Thm. 2.7].
standard math Background results from the literature: piecewise Korn inequality [Fri18], GSBD compactness [FS18, Thm. 6.1], density results [Iur14, Cri19], and the jump transfer lemma [FS18, Thm. 5.1].
Used as black boxes in Sections 3 to 6; they are published theorems, not postulated by this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Linearization of quasistatic fracture evolution in brittle materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NFZACRIB

@misc{pith2026241113446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Linearization of quasistatic fracture evolution in brittle materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NFZACRIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13446}
}

read the original abstract

We prove a linearization result for quasistatic fracture evolution in nonlinear elasticity. As the stiffness of the material tends to infinity, we show that rescaled displacement fields and their associated crack sets converge to a solution of quasistatic crack growth in linear elasticity without any a priori assumptions on the geometry of the crack set. This result corresponds to the evolutionary counterpart of the static linearization result by the first author, where a Griffith model for nonsimple brittle materials has been considered featuring an elastic energy which also depends suitably on the second gradient of the deformations. The proof relies on a careful study of unilateral global minimality, as determined by the nonlinear evolutionary problem, and its linearization together with a variant of the jump transfer lemma in GSBD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13446 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Two examples of the ‘bad set’ B(t) seen in blue. and uniqueness, and recall that ∂ ∗ is with respect to Ω′ ). This set represents the ‘broken off pieces,’ and by G(t) := Ω′ \ B(t) instead we denote the ‘good set’, which in particular has Ω′ \ Ω ⊆ G(t). Intuitively, if a point x ∈ Ω is connected to Ω′ \ Ω in Ω′ \ Γ(t), then x ∈ G(t), see Lemma A.1 for details. Now, we say that yε converges to u, and write yε u, if fo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Compactness for $GSBV^p$ via concentration-compactness
math.AP 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors prove a compactness theorem for GSBV^p functions, a class used in variational fracture models, by applying concentration-compactness to a range-space concentration function.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

F ine properties of functions with bounded deformation

[ACD97] Luigi Ambrosio, Alessandra Coscia, and Gianni Dal Maso. “F ine properties of functions with bounded deformation”. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 139.3 (1997), pp. 201–238. [ADF23] Stefano Almi, Elisa Davoli, and Manuel Friedrich. “Non-interp enetration conditions in the passage from nonlinear to linearized Griﬃth fracture”. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 17...

work page 1997
[8]

Two-well linearization for s olid-solid phase transitions

Birkh¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1993, pp. xiv+340. isbn: 0-8176-3679-X. [DF22] Elisa Davoli and Manuel Friedrich. “Two-well linearization for s olid-solid phase transitions”. JEMS (2022). cvgmt preprint. [DFT05] Gianni Dal Maso, Gilles A. Francfort, and Rodica Toader. “Q uasistatic crack growth in nonlinear elasticity”. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 17...

work page 2022
[27]

Compactness and lower s emicontinuity in GSBD

[CC21] Antonin Chambolle and Vito Crismale. “Compactness and lower s emicontinuity in GSBD”. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 23.3 (2021), pp. 701–719. [CC23a] Antonin Chambolle and Vito Crismale. “A general compactnes s theorem in G(S)BD”. Indiana Univ. Math. J. (2023). [CC23b] Antonin Chambolle and Vito Crismale. “Equilibrium conﬁguration s for nonhomogeneous ...

work page 2021
[28]

On the commutability of homogenization and lineariza- tion in ﬁnite elasticity

[MN11] Stefan M¨ uller and Stefan Neukamm. “On the commutability of homogenization and lineariza- tion in ﬁnite elasticity”. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 201.2 (2011), pp. 465–500. [MP22] Edoardo Mainini and Danilo Percivale. “Linearization of elasticit y models for incompressible materials”. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 73.4 (2022), Paper No. 132,

work page 2011
[33]

Linearization of finite-strain poro-visco-elasticity with degenerate mobility

[MS13] Alexander Mielke and Ulisse Stefanelli. “Linearized plasticity is th e evolutionary Γ-limit of ﬁnite plasticity”. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 15.3 (2013), pp. 923–948. [MSZ14] Stefan M¨ uller, Lucia Scardia, and Caterina I. Zeppieri. “Ge ometric rigidity for incompatible ﬁelds, and an application to strain-gradient plasticity”. Indiana Univ. Math. J....

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[45]

A derivation of linearized Griﬃth energies f rom nonlinear models

[Fri17] Manuel Friedrich. “A derivation of linearized Griﬃth energies f rom nonlinear models”. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 225.1 (2017), pp. 425–467. [Fri18] Manuel Friedrich. “A piecewise Korn inequality in SBD and applications to embedding and density results”. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 50.4 (2018), pp. 3842–3918. [Fri20] Manuel Friedrich. “Griﬃth energies as s...

work page 2017
[73]

Partial regularity for the crack set minimizing the two-dimensional Griﬃth energy

[BIL22] Jean-Fran¸ cois Babadjian, Flaviana Iurlano, and Antoine L emenant. “Partial regularity for the crack set minimizing the two-dimensional Griﬃth energy”. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 24.7 (2022), pp. 2443–2492. [BSV07] Andrea Braides, Margherita Solci, and Enrico Vitali. “A deriva tion of linear elastic energies from pair-interaction atomistic systems...

work page 2022
[91]

Revisiting brit tle fracture as an energy mini- mization problem

[FM98] Gilles A. Francfort and Jean-Jacques Marigo. “Revisiting brit tle fracture as an energy mini- mization problem”. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46.8 (1998), pp. 1319–1342. [FPS21] Manuel Friedrich, Matteo Perugini, and Francesco Solombr ino. “Lower semicontinuity for functionals deﬁned on piecewise rigid functions and on GSBD ”. J. Funct. Anal. 280.7 (2021)...

work page 1998

Show all 12 references

[153]

A t heorem on geometric rigidity and the derivation of nonlinear plate theory from three-dimensional ela sticity

Die Grundlehren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New Yor k, 1969, pp. xiv+676. [FJM02] Gero Friesecke, Richard D. James, and Stefan M¨ uller. “A t heorem on geometric rigidity and the derivation of nonlinear plate theory from three-dimension...

2002
[290]

Linear ized elasticity as Γ-limit of ﬁnite elasticity

[DNP02] Gianni Dal Maso, Matteo Negri, and Danilo Percivale. “Linear ized elasticity as Γ-limit of ﬁnite elasticity”. Set-Valued Anal. 10.2-3 (2002). Calculus of variations, nonsmooth analysis and related topics, pp. 165–183. [DT02] Gianni Dal Maso and Rodica Toader. “A model ...

2002
[342]

Closure and commutabilit y results for Γ-limits and the geometric linearization and homogenization of multiwell energy funct ionals

REFERENCES 39 [JS14] Martin Jesenko and Bernd Schmidt. “Closure and commutabilit y results for Γ-limits and the geometric linearization and homogenization of multiwell energy funct ionals”. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 46.4 (2014), pp. 2525–2553. [JS21] Martin Jesenko and Bernd Schmidt...

2014
[860]

Epsilon-Regularity fo r Griﬃth Almost-Minimizers in Any Dimension Under a Separating Condition

[LL23] Camille Labourie and Antoine Lemenant. “Epsilon-Regularity fo r Griﬃth Almost-Minimizers in Any Dimension Under a Separating Condition”. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 247.105 (2023). [MM21] Cy Maor and Maria G. Mora. “Reference conﬁgurations vers us optimal rotations: a de...

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F ine properties of functions with bounded deformation

[ACD97] Luigi Ambrosio, Alessandra Coscia, and Gianni Dal Maso. “F ine properties of functions with bounded deformation”. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 139.3 (1997), pp. 201–238. [ADF23] Stefano Almi, Elisa Davoli, and Manuel Friedrich. “Non-interp enetration conditions in the passage from nonlinear to linearized Griﬃth fracture”. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 17...

work page 1997

[2] [8]

Two-well linearization for s olid-solid phase transitions

Birkh¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1993, pp. xiv+340. isbn: 0-8176-3679-X. [DF22] Elisa Davoli and Manuel Friedrich. “Two-well linearization for s olid-solid phase transitions”. JEMS (2022). cvgmt preprint. [DFT05] Gianni Dal Maso, Gilles A. Francfort, and Rodica Toader. “Q uasistatic crack growth in nonlinear elasticity”. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 17...

work page 2022

[3] [27]

Compactness and lower s emicontinuity in GSBD

[CC21] Antonin Chambolle and Vito Crismale. “Compactness and lower s emicontinuity in GSBD”. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 23.3 (2021), pp. 701–719. [CC23a] Antonin Chambolle and Vito Crismale. “A general compactnes s theorem in G(S)BD”. Indiana Univ. Math. J. (2023). [CC23b] Antonin Chambolle and Vito Crismale. “Equilibrium conﬁguration s for nonhomogeneous ...

work page 2021

[4] [28]

On the commutability of homogenization and lineariza- tion in ﬁnite elasticity

[MN11] Stefan M¨ uller and Stefan Neukamm. “On the commutability of homogenization and lineariza- tion in ﬁnite elasticity”. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 201.2 (2011), pp. 465–500. [MP22] Edoardo Mainini and Danilo Percivale. “Linearization of elasticit y models for incompressible materials”. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 73.4 (2022), Paper No. 132,

work page 2011

[5] [33]

Linearization of finite-strain poro-visco-elasticity with degenerate mobility

[MS13] Alexander Mielke and Ulisse Stefanelli. “Linearized plasticity is th e evolutionary Γ-limit of ﬁnite plasticity”. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 15.3 (2013), pp. 923–948. [MSZ14] Stefan M¨ uller, Lucia Scardia, and Caterina I. Zeppieri. “Ge ometric rigidity for incompatible ﬁelds, and an application to strain-gradient plasticity”. Indiana Univ. Math. J....

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

[6] [45]

A derivation of linearized Griﬃth energies f rom nonlinear models

[Fri17] Manuel Friedrich. “A derivation of linearized Griﬃth energies f rom nonlinear models”. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 225.1 (2017), pp. 425–467. [Fri18] Manuel Friedrich. “A piecewise Korn inequality in SBD and applications to embedding and density results”. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 50.4 (2018), pp. 3842–3918. [Fri20] Manuel Friedrich. “Griﬃth energies as s...

work page 2017

[7] [73]

Partial regularity for the crack set minimizing the two-dimensional Griﬃth energy

[BIL22] Jean-Fran¸ cois Babadjian, Flaviana Iurlano, and Antoine L emenant. “Partial regularity for the crack set minimizing the two-dimensional Griﬃth energy”. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 24.7 (2022), pp. 2443–2492. [BSV07] Andrea Braides, Margherita Solci, and Enrico Vitali. “A deriva tion of linear elastic energies from pair-interaction atomistic systems...

work page 2022

[8] [91]

Revisiting brit tle fracture as an energy mini- mization problem

[FM98] Gilles A. Francfort and Jean-Jacques Marigo. “Revisiting brit tle fracture as an energy mini- mization problem”. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46.8 (1998), pp. 1319–1342. [FPS21] Manuel Friedrich, Matteo Perugini, and Francesco Solombr ino. “Lower semicontinuity for functionals deﬁned on piecewise rigid functions and on GSBD ”. J. Funct. Anal. 280.7 (2021)...

work page 1998