Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

On the effects of material strength in dynamic fracture: A phase-field study

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 A phase-field fracture theory that treats material strength as an independent property, extended to include inertia, reproduces the crack angles and nucleation sites measured in dynamic impact experiments on steel, basalt, and glass.

desk verdict A solid dynamic extension of the strength-aware phase-field theory with convincing benchmark evidence that the strength surface governs dynamic crack paths; the main caveats are the assumed dynamic driving force and some calibrated loads. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16393 v1 pith:M5DRUJLD submitted 2024-11-25 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yangyuanchen Liu , Oscar Lopez-Pamies , John E. Dolbow This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci MSC 74R1074S05
keywords dynamicfracturephase-fieldmaterialstrengthsurfacecracknucleationpropagationbranchingDrucker-PragerKalthoff-Winklerbenchmark
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

The paper extends the Griffith phase-field theory of fracture with material strength — the idea that a material's strength surface is an independent macroscopic property, separate from elasticity and toughness — to dynamic loading by adding inertia to the balance of linear momentum. The central question is whether the strength surface still governs crack nucleation and propagation when loads change rapidly and stress waves matter. Using a Drucker-Prager strength surface, the model reproduces the Kalthoff-Winkler crack angle, the interior crack nucleation observed in dynamic Brazilian tests on basalt, and the branching angles measured in soda-lime glass, while classical phase-field and cohesive models develop spurious branches or nucleate at the wrong location. The practical stakes are that dynamic fracture simulations which omit an independent strength surface can get both where cracks start and which way they grow wrong.

What carries the argument

The central object is the material strength surface, $F(\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3)=0$, the set of critical stress states at which the material fractures under spatially uniform stress; here it is a Drucker-Prager surface with uniaxial tensile strength $\sigma_{ts}$ and hydrostatic strength $\sigma_{hs}$ as independent inputs. The theory encodes this surface in the phase-field evolution through a driving force $c_e(X,t)$ and a coefficient $\delta_\ell$ chosen so that, in the sharp-interface limit, the phase-field model's own strength surface reduces to the prescribed one. The coupled system consists of a hyperbolic linear-momentum balance with inertia $\rho \ddot{u}$ and an elliptic phase-field evolution with irreversibility constraints, discretized in space by adaptive finite elements and in time by an implicit scheme. The strength surface does double duty: under uniform stress it delays fracture until the surface is crossed, and near stress concentrators it suppresses crack growth into compressive regions that would otherwise produce spurious branches.

What would settle it

Take a brittle material whose tensile and compressive strengths have been measured independently under multiaxial quasi-static loading, run a dynamic Brazilian test with high-speed imaging, and compare where the crack first appears and the angle it grows. If cracks initiate at the compressive loading platens before the independently measured strength surface is exceeded, or if the crack path deviates from the centered horizontal crack the model predicts, the dynamic strength-surface extension is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the dynamic regime the material strength surface remains an independent macroscopic material property on par with elasticity and toughness, and that inertia enters the theory simply by adding mass density to the momentum balance of the earlier quasi-static formulation. In concrete terms, the proposed model — a hyperbolic momentum equation coupled to an elliptic phase-field evolution — reproduces the roughly 70 degree crack path in Kalthoff-Winkler impact experiments, nucleates the dynamic Brazilian fracture of basalt in the specimen interior rather than at the compressive contacts, and produces soda-lime glass branching at 54 and 44 degrees, bracketing the experimental 47 to 55 degree range. Classical variational phase-field and cohesive models fail at least one of these benchmarks because their effective strength surfaces are locked to elasticity and toughness and cannot, for example, set compressive strength independently of tensile strength. That the correct crack paths emerge only when the strength surface is represented accurately is taken as evidence that strength governs propagation as well as nucleation under dynamic conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the set of stresses at which a material breaks in slow, uniform laboratory tests is the same set that governs fracture in the fast, nonuniform stress fields of an impact, so that the only dynamic change needed is adding inertia to the momentum balance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The strength surface must be treated as an independently measured input in dynamic fracture simulations, alongside elastic moduli, toughness, and mass density.
  • Crack nucleation sites under impact are set by the strength surface: in dynamic Brazilian tests the crack forms in the specimen interior rather than at the compressive contacts when the surface is represented accurately.
  • Spurious lower branches in Kalthoff-Winkler simulations — a known artifact in some classical models — disappear once the effective strength surface matches the material's actual one.
  • The model brackets the observed soda-lime glass branching angles, with branching time matching experiments when a tangential load is included at the impact surface.
  • The same framework extends to three-dimensional fragmentation, as demonstrated by the pressurized hollow-sphere simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests the same construction could be used to import arbitrary experimentally measured strength surfaces, not just Drucker-Prager, into dynamic fracture simulations.
  • If the dynamic extension holds, part of the historical scatter among cohesive, phase-field, and peridynamic predictions of dynamic fracture may reflect each model's implicit strength surface rather than genuine differences in material behavior.
  • A natural use would be inverse identification: dynamic Brazilian or impact tests, matched by this model, could extract the compressive branch of the strength surface for materials that are difficult to test under uniform multiaxial compression.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends a phase-field theory of fracture that incorporates an independent material strength surface (Drucker-Prager) to the dynamic regime by adding inertia to the momentum balance and retaining the quasi-static phase-field evolution equation. The authors present an adaptive finite-element and implicit time-stepping scheme implemented in RACCOON, and apply it to a single-edge notched specimen, the Kalthoff-Winkler experiment, a pressurized hollow sphere, dynamic Brazilian tests on basalt, and impact experiments on soda-lime glass. The central claim is that accounting for the material strength surface is essential for reproducing experimentally observed crack paths and branching angles in dynamic fracture, whereas classical phase-field models that lack an independent strength surface fail.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful computational framework and a series of instructive benchmark comparisons that support the notion that material strength is an independent macroscopic property in dynamic fracture. The work is notable for making the RACCOON implementation available, for explicitly comparing the effective strength surfaces of competing phase-field models, for demonstrating regularization-length insensitivity in the single-edge notch problem, and for producing quantitative comparisons with experimental crack paths, branching angles, and crack speeds. The main caveat is that the dynamic extension is assumed rather than derived, and several loads are calibrated to experiment, so the predictive claims should be read with those qualifications in mind.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (24)] The dynamic extension is assumed, not derived: inertia enters only in the momentum balance, while the driving force ce (Eq. 13) and coefficient δℓ (Eq. 14) are imported unchanged from the quasi-static theory and are validated only for uniform stress states in Fig. 2 via Eq. (17). The paper applies these pointwise in transient, nonuniform, gradient-dominated stress fields without a derivation or a numerical check. Because the central claim relies on crack paths and nucleation locations produced by this model, the authors should either provide a derivation/justification for the dynamic form of the phase-field equation or supply a specific numerical validation (e.g., a dynamic homogeneous-stress test or a convergence study in ℓ) that ties nucleation events back to the intended strength surface.
  2. [Section 5.1, Eq. (24)] The prescribed displacement amplitude u0 in the Brazilian simulation is calibrated to match the experimentally measured fracture stress using an elastodynamic simulation without fracture (text preceding Eq. 24). As a result, the agreement between the simulated and experimental central crack nucleation is not a fully predictive test of the strength surface. The authors should report the sensitivity of nucleation location and time to u0 and explicitly state which features of the comparison are predictive as opposed to fitted.
  3. [Section 5.2, Fig. 18(b) and Eq. (26)] The pressure profile applied to the V-notch in the soda-lime glass simulations is adjusted based on a wave-propagation estimate, and the friction coefficient of 0.35 is assumed rather than measured. Since the reported branching angles and times depend on these choices, the claim that the model captures branching angles requires a sensitivity study with respect to the pressure duration and friction coefficient, or independent justification of those values.
  4. [Section 2.3, Eq. (17)] The effective strength surface F^PF in Eq. (17) is constructed, through the choices of ce and δℓ, to converge to the input Drucker-Prager surface; hence the agreement in Fig. 2 is by construction and does not independently validate the strength-surface concept. The actual support for the central claim must come from the dynamic benchmark comparisons. The manuscript should state this distinction explicitly and, ideally, provide a test that separates the role of the macroscopic strength surface from the specific pointwise prescription of ce.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract states that the discretized equations are solved in a staggered manner, but Section 3 describes a fixed-point iteration scheme; please align the two descriptions.
  2. [Tables 2, 3, 5] The parameter ψc (nucleation energy) is listed for the cohesive model but is not used by the NucCe models; please clarify its role in the table and in the text where it appears.
  3. [Figure 7] The text and figure use 'Coh2019 (V-D)' while Table 1 uses 'Vol./Dev.'; please make the label for the volumetric-deviatoric split consistent throughout.
  4. [Section 4.2, Fig. 10] The text states that the spurious branch vanishes at ℓ=0.2 mm, but Fig. 10 shows NucCe2020 only; please include results for the same regularization lengths for the NucCe2024 model for a complete comparison.
  5. [Section 4.1, Eq. (18)] The dissipated energy D = W − K − U is defined as a residual; because the model contains an explicit external driving force ce, please comment on the accuracy of this energy-balance definition in the presence of the driving force term.
  6. [References] Reference [41] lists the author as 'Tipper, H.V.'; this appears to be a typo for 'Tippur, H.V.' and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Only a by-construction consistency check for the effective strength surface; the central experimental predictions are independently grounded.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3, Eq. (17), Fig. 2]
    "Under states of uniform stress σ (and hence uniform strain E) in the body, the phase-field theory (8)-(11) predicts the strength surface F PF(σ1, σ2, σ3) = tr σ2 D 2µ + (tr σ)2 9κ − bce(I1, J2, 0; ℓ) − 3δℓGc 8ℓ = 0. (17) For the case of driving force (13) and coefficient (14), Figure 2 compares the strength surface (17) predicted by the phase-field theory with the actual Drucker-Prager strength surface (12) of a representative material for various values of the regularization length ℓ."

    The coefficients α1, α2 and δℓ in Eqs. (13)-(15) are explicit functions of the same material strengths σts and σhs that define the input Drucker-Prager surface (12). The homogeneous phase-field equilibrium condition is used to select/verify these coefficients, so Eq. (17) reproducing Eq. (12) is a designed consistency check rather than an independent first-principles prediction. This step is not load-bearing for the paper's experimental conclusions: the strength inputs are independent material data, and the benchmark outputs (crack angles, nucleation sites, branching angles) are not fitted to the effective surface.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that an independent material strength surface is essential in dynamic fracture—is supported by genuine experimental comparisons. For the Kalthoff-Winkler problem, the steel strength parameters (σts, σcs) are specified as material properties and the simulated crack angle is an output, not a fitted target; the contrast between NucCe2020 and NucCe2024 further isolates the effect of the strength-surface representation. In the Brazilian basalt case, the load amplitude u0 is calibrated to the experimentally observed fracture stress, but the distinguishing prediction is that nucleation occurs away from the contact region; that outcome is controlled by the independently chosen compressive-to-tensile strength ratio, not by the calibration. The soda-lime glass simulations use a pressure profile from a separate LS-DYNA model and predict branching angles (44-54 deg) that bracket the experiments without fitting those angles. The paper's self-citations to prior work by the same authors motivate the framework, but the benchmarks provide independent evidence for the conclusions. The only by-construction element is the verification that the chosen ce and δℓ reproduce the input Drucker-Prager surface under uniform stress, which is a consistency check, not a scientific prediction. Therefore the circularity is minor and does not undermine the central derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities; its central claim rests on the existence and accurate input of an independent strength surface, on an assumed dynamic extension, and on a driving-force prescription taken from prior work. The listed free parameters are load calibrations and numerical choices that affect the simulated comparisons.

free parameters (5)
  • u0 (prescribed displacement amplitude in Brazilian test) = 1 mm
    Determined by matching the experimentally observed stress at fracture in an elastodynamic simulation without fracture (Section 5.1); this calibrates the load and influences where and when the crack nucleates.
  • Friction coefficient for tangential V-notch load = 0.35
    Assumed to account for frictional traction between glass and impact bar (Section 5.2); no independent measurement is provided.
  • Pressure profile p(t) applied at V-notch = See Figure 18(b)
    Extracted from an LS-DYNA model of the impact bar and adjusted in duration based on wave travel time (Section 5.2); a load calibration rather than a measured boundary condition.
  • Random strength perturbation field (hollow sphere) = sigma_ts/sigma_ts and sigma_hs/sigma_hs in {0.95, 1.0, 1.05} over patches of about 5*l
    Chosen to seed crack localization in an otherwise symmetric problem (Section 4.3); the specific realization is arbitrary.
  • Regularization length l = 0.375-0.625 mm (SEN), 0.75 mm (KW), 1.25 mm (Brazilian), 0.25 mm (glass), 1 mm (sphere)
    A numerical regularization parameter selected small relative to structural length scales; insensitivity to l is demonstrated only over a limited range (Figs. 4, 5, 10, 13).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A material strength surface exists as an independent macroscopic property, separate from elasticity and toughness.
    Postulated in the authors' prior quasi-static works [20,21,23] and assumed here; the paper's central thesis rests on this.
  • domain assumption The dynamic governing equations are the quasi-static equations with inertial term rho*u_tt added to the momentum balance (Eq. 8).
    Stated in Section 2.2 as 'one simply needs to account for the presence of inertial effects'; no explicit variational derivation with kinetic energy is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The driving force ce (Eq. 13) and coefficient delta_l (Eq. 14) imported from Kamarei et al. [18] remain valid under dynamic, transient, nonuniform stress states.
    Justified via asymptotic reproduction of the uniform-stress strength surface (Fig. 2); the paper assumes this extends to propagating crack tips and compressive-dominated regions.
  • domain assumption The phase-field regularization with AT1 geometric function w(d)=d and degradation g(d)=(1-d)^2 converges to the sharp-crack theory as l approaches 0.
    Standard assumption in phase-field fracture, inherited from prior work; the paper relies on it when claiming l-insensitivity.
  • domain assumption Contact conditions with rigid bars in the Brazilian test and symmetry planes in the various specimens are appropriate idealizations.
    Used without sensitivity analysis in Sections 4.2, 5.1, and 5.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the effects of material strength in dynamic fracture: A phase-field study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M5DRUJLD

@misc{pith2026241116393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the effects of material strength in dynamic fracture: A phase-field study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M5DRUJLD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16393}
}
abstract

Over the past seven years, full-field analyses of a wide range of classical as well as modern quasi-static fracture experiments on nominally elastic brittle materials -- ranging from hard ceramics to soft elastomers -- have repeatedly identified the material strength surface as one of the key material properties that governs not only the nucleation of cracks, but also their propagation. Central to these analyses are the results generated by the Griffith phase-field fracture theory with material strength introduced in [21,23,20]. The first of two objectives of this paper is to extend this theory to account for inertia, this for the basic case of isotropic linear elastic brittle materials. From an applications point of view, the theory amounts to solving an initial-boundary-value problem comprised of a hyperbolic PDE coupled with an elliptic PDE for the displacement field $\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{X},t)$ and the phase field $d(\mathbf{X},t)$. A robust scheme is presented to generate solutions for these equations that is based on an adaptive finite-element discretization of space and an implicit finite-difference discretization of time. %At every time increment $t_m$, the resulting discretized equations are solved separately in a staggered manner for $\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{X},t_m)$ and $d(\mathbf{X},t_m)$ by means of Newton-Raphson schemes. The second objective is to illustrate the descriptive and predictive capabilities of the proposed theory via simulations of benchmark problems and experiments. These include problems involving fracture nucleation from large pre-existing cracks, such as the classical Kalthoff-Winkler experiments, as well as problems involving fracture nucleation within the bulk, such as the dynamic Brazilian fracture experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of a body Ω, in its undeformed stress-free configuration at time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparisons between the experimental strength data for graphite by Sato et al. [37], the Drucker-Prager strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Schematic of the single edge notched test (dimenssions in mm). (b) Displacement profile applied at the top and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Contour plots of the phase field d resulting from simulations of the single edge notched test with a series of regular￾ization lengths. 0 10 20 30 Time, t (µs) 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 External work, W (mJ) 0 10 20 30 Time, t (µs) 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Strain e…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the various energies during single-edge notched tests: external work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Domain and boundary conditions for the Kalthoff-Winkler problem (dimensions in mm). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Contour plots of the phase field d in the Kalthoff-Winkler experiments from Coh2019 (Spectral), Coh2019 (VD), NucCe2020, and NucCe2024 at selected time steps. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic of crack paths near the tip of the initial notch in the Kalthoff-Winkler simulations. The lower tip element [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Two-dimensional contours of the strength surfaces (for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Contour plots of the phase field d resulting from NucCe2020 at t = 80 µs with a series of regularization lengths. the effective strength surfaces in principal stress space for the various models. On the right, the stress trajectories in the lower tip element (X1, X2) …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) The initial mesh used to simulate the fragmentation of a hollow sphere, and (b) a spatially random tensile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Contour plots of the phase field d for a pressurized, hollow sphere using the NucCe2024 model, viewed from the interior (a)-(c) and exterior (d)-(f) of the sphere at selected time steps. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time, t (µs) 0 100 200 300 400 500 Pressure, p (MPa) Baseline …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the average degraded pressure and the baseline pressure on the inner spherical surface, as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) Schematic of the dynamic Brazilian fracture experiments (dimensions in mm), and (b) the finite element mesh. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Contour plots of the phase field d from simulations of dynamic Brazilian fracture experiments using a cohesive model with a spectral split (top row), the NucCe2020 model (center row), and the NucCe2024 model (bottom row), at selected time steps. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IM…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of (a) experimental results from [42] to (b) phase field contours from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Two-dimensional contours of effective strength surfaces (for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a) Schematic of the soda-lime glass impact experiment (dimensions in mm). (b) Pressure profile applied on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Contour plots of the phase field d in the soda-lime impact tests for cases without tangential load, (a)-(c), and with tangential load, (d)-(f), at selected time steps. The plots are mirrored along the axis of symmetry for visualization purposes. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Comparison of the final phase field contour for (a) the case without tangential load and (b) the case with tangential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Comparison of crack tip speeds from experiments in [40] and the phase field simulations with and without tangential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Dynamic phase-field model for brittle fracture in grounded glaciers

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gravity-driven crevasse propagation in glaciers is a dynamic instability; only a dynamic phase-field model with degraded mass density produces sharp, localized cracks.

  2. A comparison of phase field models of brittle fracture incorporating strength: I -- Mixed-mode loading

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under mixed-mode loading, the complete nucleation phase-field model matches benchmarks, the star-convex variational model produces spurious compressive cracks, and the hybrid cohesive-zone model propagates at an incor...

  3. On the construction of explicit analytical driving forces for crack nucleation in the phase field approach to brittle fracture with application to Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager strength surfaces

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An explicit analytical driving force makes phase field fracture models reproduce any material strength surface that is linear in its material coefficients, illustrated on Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager surfaces.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [32]

    On validating peridynamic models and a phase-field model for dynamic brittle fracture in glass

    Mehrmashhadi, J., Bahadori, M., Bobaru, F., 2020. On validating peridynamic models and a phase-field model for dynamic brittle fracture in glass. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 240, 107355

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical experiments

    Amor, H., Marigo, J.J., Maurini, C., 2009. Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical experiments. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 57, 1209–1229. 22

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    Munson, 2006

    Benson, S.J., Todd S. Munson, 2006. Flexible complementarity solvers for large-scale applications. Optimization Methods and Software 21, 155–168

    work page 2006

  4. [3]

    A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture

    Borden, M.J., Verhoosel, C.V., Scott, M.A., Hughes, T.J., Landis, C.M., 2012. A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 217-220, 77–95

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture

    Bourdin, B., Francfort, G.A., Marigo, J.J., 2000. Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48, 797–826

    2000

  6. [5]

    A time-discrete model for dynamic fracture based on crack regularization

    Bourdin, B., Larsen, C., Richardson, C., 2011. A time-discrete model for dynamic fracture based on crack regularization. International Journal of Fracture , 133–143

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials

    Camacho, G., Ortiz, M., 1996. Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials. International Journal of Solids and Structures 33, 2899–2938

    work page 1996

  8. [7]

    Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design

    Drucker, D.C., Prager, W., 1952. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Quarterly of applied mathematics 10, 157–165

    work page 1952

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem

    Francfort, G.A., Marigo, J.J., 1998. Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 46, 1319–1342

    1998

  2. [9]

    A phase-field formulation for dynamic cohesive fracture

    Geelen, R.J., Liu, Y., Hu, T., Tupek, M.R., Dolbow, J.E., 2019. A phase-field formulation for dynamic cohesive fracture. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 348

    2019

  3. [10]

    A primal-dual active set method and predictor-corrector mesh adaptivity for computing fracture propagation using a phase-field approach

    Heister, T., Wheeler, M.F., Wick, T., 2015. A primal-dual active set method and predictor-corrector mesh adaptivity for computing fracture propagation using a phase-field approach. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 290, 466–495

    2015

  4. [11]

    Continuum phase field modeling of dynamic fracture: variational principles and staggered fe implementation

    Hofacker, M., Miehe, C., 2012. Continuum phase field modeling of dynamic fracture: variational principles and staggered fe implementation. International journal of fracture 178, 113–129

    2012

  5. [12]

    A phase field model of dynamic fracture: Robust field updates for the analysis of complex crack patterns

    Hofacker, M., Miehe, C., 2013. A phase field model of dynamic fracture: Robust field updates for the analysis of complex crack patterns. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 93, 276–301

    2013

  6. [13]

    Hu, T., 2022. RACCOON. URL: https://github.com/hugary1995/raccoon

    2022

  7. [14]

    A phase-field model of fracture with frictionless contact and random fracture properties: Application to thin-film fracture and soil desiccation

    Hu, T., Guilleminot, J., Dolbow, J.E., 2020. A phase-field model of fracture with frictionless contact and random fracture properties: Application to thin-film fracture and soil desiccation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 368, 113106

    2020

  8. [15]

    The finite element method:Linear static and dynamic finite element analysis

    Hughes, T.J.R., 2000. The finite element method:Linear static and dynamic finite element analysis. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY

    2000

  9. [16]

    Dynamic crack propagation with a variational phase-field model: limiting speed, crack branching and velocity

    J, B., C, R.L., J-F., M., 2017. Dynamic crack propagation with a variational phase-field model: limiting speed, crack branching and velocity. Int J Fract 204, 79–100

    2017

  10. [17]

    Failure mode transition at high rates of shear loading

    Kalthoff, J., Winkler, S., 1988. Failure mode transition at high rates of shear loading. DGM Informationsgesellschaft mbH, Impact Loading and Dynamic Behavior of Materials 1, 185–195

    1988

  11. [18]

    The poker-chip experiments of synthetic elastomers explained

    Kamarei, F., Kumar, A., Lopez-Pamies, O., 2024. The poker-chip experiments of synthetic elastomers explained. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 188, 105683

    2024

  12. [19]

    Nucleation of fracture: The first-octant evidence against classical variational phase-field models

    Kamarei, F., O, Dolbow, J., Lopez-Pamies, O., 2025. Nucleation of fracture: The first-octant evidence against classical variational phase-field models. Journal of Applied Mechanics In press

    2025

  13. [20]

    Revisiting nucleation in the phase-field approach to brittle fracture

    Kumar, A., Bourdin, B., Francfort, G.A., Lopez-Pamies, O., 2020. Revisiting nucleation in the phase-field approach to brittle fracture. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 142, 104027

    2020

  14. [21]

    Fracture and healing of elastomers: A phase-transition theory and numerical implementation

    Kumar, A., Francfort, G.A., Lopez-Pamies, O., 2018a. Fracture and healing of elastomers: A phase-transition theory and numerical implementation. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 112, 523–551

  15. [22]

    The strength of the Brazilian fracture test

    Kumar, A., Liu, Y., Dolbow, J.E., Lopez-Pamies, O., 2024. The strength of the Brazilian fracture test. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 182, 105473

    2024

  16. [23]

    The phase-field approach to self-healable fracture of elastomers: A model accounting for fracture nucleation at large, with application to a class of conspicuous experiments

    Kumar, A., Lopez-Pamies, O., 2020. The phase-field approach to self-healable fracture of elastomers: A model accounting for fracture nucleation at large, with application to a class of conspicuous experiments. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 107, 102550

    2020

  17. [24]

    The poker-chip experiments of Gent and Lindley (1959) explained

    Kumar, A., Lopez-Pamies, O., 2021. The poker-chip experiments of Gent and Lindley (1959) explained. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 150, 104359

    1959

  18. [25]

    The configurational-forces view of fracture and healing in elastomers as a phase transition

    Kumar, A., Ravi-Chandar, K., Lopez-Pamies, O., 2018b. The configurational-forces view of fracture and healing in elastomers as a phase transition. International Journal of Fracture 213, 1–16

  19. [26]

    The revisited phase-field approach to brittle fracture: Application to indentation and notch problems

    Kumar, A., Ravi-Chandar, K., Lopez-Pamies, O., 2022. The revisited phase-field approach to brittle fracture: Application to indentation and notch problems. International Journal of Fracture 237, 83–100

    2022

  20. [27]

    A variational formulation of Griffith phase-field fracture with material strength

    Larsen, C., Dolbow, J., Lopez-Pamies, O., 2024. A variational formulation of Griffith phase-field fracture with material strength. International Journal of Fracture , 1–9

    2024

  21. [28]

    Existence of solutions to a regularized model of dynamic fracture

    Larsen, C., Ortner, C., S¨ uli, E., 2010. Existence of solutions to a regularized model of dynamic fracture. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , 1021–1048

    2010

  22. [29]

    Classical variational phase-field models cannot predict fracture nucleation

    Lopez-Pamies, O., Dolbow, J., Francfort, G., Larsen, C., 2025. Classical variational phase-field models cannot predict fracture nucleation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 433, 117520

    2025

  23. [30]

    Convergence of a gradient damage model toward a cohesive zone model

    Lorentz, E., Cuvilliez, S., Kazymyrenko, K., 2011. Convergence of a gradient damage model toward a cohesive zone model. Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique 339, 20–26

    2011

  24. [31]

    Evaluation of variational phase-field models for dynamic brittle fracture

    Mandal, T.K., Nguyen, V.P., Wu, J.Y., 2020. Evaluation of variational phase-field models for dynamic brittle fracture. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 235, 107169

    2020

  25. [33]

    Uncovering the dynamic fracture behavior of pmma with peridynamics: 23 The importance of softening at the crack tip

    Mehrmashhadi, J., Wang, L., Bobaru, F., 2019. Uncovering the dynamic fracture behavior of pmma with peridynamics: 23 The importance of softening at the crack tip. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 219, 106617

    2019

  26. [34]

    A phase field model for rate-independent crack propagation: Robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits

    Miehe, C., Hofacker, M., Welschinger, F., 2010a. A phase field model for rate-independent crack propagation: Robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 199, 2765–2778

  27. [35]

    Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: Variational principles and multi-field fe implementations

    Miehe, C., Welschinger, F., Hofacker, M., 2010b. Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: Variational principles and multi-field fe implementations. International journal for numerical methods in engineering 83, 1273–1311

  28. [36]

    MOOSE: Enabling massively parallel multiphysics simulation

    Permann, C.J., Gaston, D.R., Andrˇ s, D., Carlsen, R.W., Kong, F., Lindsay, A.D., Miller, J.M., Peterson, J.W., Slaughter, A.E., Stogner, R.H., Martineau, R.C., 2020. MOOSE: Enabling massively parallel multiphysics simulation. SoftwareX 11, 100430

    2020

  29. [37]

    Fracture criteria of reactor graphite under multiaxial stesses

    Sato, S., Awaji, H., Kawamata, K., Kurumada, A., Oku, T., 1987. Fracture criteria of reactor graphite under multiaxial stesses. Nuclear Engineering and Design 103, 291–300

    1987

  30. [38]

    Eigenfracture: An eigendeformation approach to variational fracture

    Schmidt, B., Fraternali, F., Ortiz, M., 2009. Eigenfracture: An eigendeformation approach to variational fracture. SIAM Multiscale Modeling and Simulation 7, 1237–1266

    2009

  31. [39]

    Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces

    Silling, S., 2000. Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48, 175–209

    2000

  32. [40]

    Dynamic fracture of soda-lime glass: A full-field optical investigation of crack initiation, propagation and branching

    Sundaram, B.M., Tippur, H.V., 2018. Dynamic fracture of soda-lime glass: A full-field optical investigation of crack initiation, propagation and branching. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 120, 132–153

    2018

  33. [41]

    Tipper, H.V., Dondeti, S., 2020. Experimental identification of dynamic crack branching precursors in soda-lime silicate glass., in: presented at the Experimental and Computational Fracture Mechanics, Baton Rouge, LA

    2020

  34. [42]

    Determination of Dynamic Tensile Strength of Microwave-Induced Basalt Using Brazilian Test

    Yin, T., Wu, B., Wang, C., Wu, Y., 2022. Determination of Dynamic Tensile Strength of Microwave-Induced Basalt Using Brazilian Test. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 55. 24

    2022

Pith tools

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