Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 46 references

Ductile fracture in functionally graded materials: Insight into crack behavior within the gradient interface

T0 review · 5 major / 7 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 Crack behavior in ductile functionally graded materials falls into three regimes—deflection, continued propagation, and arrest—determined only by gradient geometry, with accumulated plastic strain predicting the path.

desk verdict Clean computational study with a plausible three-regime map that currently rests on twelve qualitative simulations; deserves review but needs more evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18642 v2 pith:RLVWQM6C submitted 2024-11-25 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Katherine Piper , Vinamra Agrawal This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords phasefieldfractureductilefunctionallygradedmaterialsJ2plasticitycrackdeflectionarrestdirectedenergydepositionaccumulatedplasticstrain
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 tries to establish that cracks running through the graded interface of a ductile functionally graded metal behave differently from cracks in brittle graded materials, and that the difference is large enough that plasticity cannot be left out of fracture predictions. Using phase-field simulations of a Mode-I crack crossing a gradient between two aluminum alloys, the authors find exactly three behaviors—deflection, continued propagation, and arrest—and argue that these regimes are set only by two geometric parameters: the crack's angle of incidence to the gradient and the gradient's width. They further claim that the time history of accumulated plastic strain carries a recognizable signature for each regime, so plastic strain can be used to predict the crack path. If this is right, narrow gradients with steep property changes can be engineered to deflect or arrest cracks in additively manufactured metal components, while wide gradients are unlikely to deflect cracks at all.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a phase-field ductile fracture model coupled to J2 plasticity with linear hardening. A regularized field $c(x)$ smooths the sharp crack over a length scale $\xi$; the energy functional splits strain energy into tensile and compressive parts, subtracts plastic strain from elastic strain, and adds a plastic-dissipation term $(\sigma_Y + \frac{1}{2}H\alpha)\alpha$ to the fracture energy. Plastic strain $\alpha$ evolves through a radial-return algorithm. The crack field is driven by a relaxational evolution equation whose driving force is tensile strain energy plus plastic dissipation minus fracture resistance, with irreversibility enforced by a history field. A near-singular finite difference solver with block-structured adaptive mesh refinement resolves the crack tip and the gradient interface at the required scale. The output that carries the argument is the accumulated plastic strain field $\alpha$: its time history is what separates deflection, propagation, and arrest.

What would settle it

Measure the actual property profile across a directed-energy-deposition aluminum gradient and rerun the same phase-field simulations at $\theta = 45^\circ$ and $W/L = 1/3$; if the crack no longer continues through the gradient, or the plastic-strain signature changes, the geometry-only regime classification is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a geometry-based classification of crack behavior inside ductile functionally graded materials. In a Mode-I phase-field fracture model with J2 plasticity and linear hardening, a crack entering a gradient from the more brittle side toward the tougher side either turns back before crossing, keeps growing straight through the gradient, or stops entirely. The same geometry and loading without plasticity can produce a different outcome: in one illustrative case a brittle crack deflects while the ductile crack continues through, so plastic dissipation changes the crack driving force. Across twelve parameter combinations (three incidence angles and four gradient widths), the three regimes occupy separated regions of the angle–width plane, and each has a distinct accumulated-plastic-strain signature: a rise then fall for deflection, a mild inflection then sustained rise for propagation, and a sharp rise then drop for arrest. The authors conclude that resistance to plastic strain accumulation is a defining driving factor in crack behavior and that variance in plastic strain can be used to predict crack path.

Load-bearing premise

The entire regime map assumes that all mechanical properties vary linearly across the gradient interface, while real manufactured gradient interfaces are known to vary nonlinearly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Plasticity must be included in fracture predictions for ductile FGMs: a brittle-only model can predict crack deflection where the ductile simulation shows continued propagation through the gradient.
  • Narrow gradients with a high rate of change in material properties are the route to engineered crack-deflection or crack-arrest behavior in additively manufactured ductile FGMs.
  • Wide gradients reduce crack deflection, so laminate-like narrow gradient structures hold more promise than wide graded regions for crack-resistant design.
  • Accumulated plastic strain can be used as a predictive diagnostic: the qualitative shape of its time history tells which regime a crack is entering before the path is fully decided.
  • For common nonstructural FGM uses such as coefficient-of-thermal-expansion matching or magnetic tailoring, the bulk fracture behavior is not substantially affected by the gradient when the gradient is wide.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the regime map is as geometry-dominated as claimed, it implies a design chart for additively manufactured part certification: for a fixed alloy pair, angle and width alone select the expected failure mode, which could be checked with instrumented fracture tests.
  • The linear property interpolation is the assumption most likely to break the map; real directed-energy-deposition gradients can have sigmoidal or locally sharp property profiles, and those profiles could shift or blur the regime boundaries, especially for narrow widths.
  • The plastic-strain signature suggests an experimental bridge: full-field strain measurements could classify crack outcome by matching the rise-fall or rise-drop pattern before visible deflection or arrest occurs.
  • The regime separation rests on only twelve parameter combinations, so a denser sweep or an analytical energy-balance criterion could test whether the boundaries are as sharp as claimed.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper develops a phase-field ductile fracture model with J2 plasticity implemented in the Alamo finite-difference solver and applies it to mode-I crack propagation through a functionally graded interface between two aluminum alloys (Al 3003 and Al 7075). The parametric study varies the interface angle θ (18°, 45°, 72°) and gradient width W/L (1/6, 1/3, 1, 2), and reports three crack behaviors: deflection, continued propagation, and arrest. The authors claim these regimes are separated only by material geometry, and that the variance of accumulated plastic strain can be used to predict the crack path. The paper also demonstrates one qualitative difference between brittle and ductile predictions for a single geometry.

Significance. If the three-regime map is established, it would provide practically useful guidance for designing ductile FGM interfaces that deflect or arrest cracks. The work addresses an understudied problem, uses material constants from published alloy data rather than fitting parameters to match crack paths, and provides a qualitative brittle-versus-ductile comparison. However, the evidence presented is currently insufficient to support the geometry-only claim: the study is purely numerical, has no experimental validation, no mesh-convergence study, and no objective classification criterion for the reported regimes.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Fig. 7] The central claim of three geometry-defined regimes is based on only 12 simulations, yet the paper does not report which (θ, W/L) pair produced which outcome. The text says there were two deflections, eight propagations, and two arrests, but without a table or labeled scatter plot the boundaries drawn in Figure 7 cannot be checked. Please include a table listing all 12 cases with their observed outcome.
  2. [§3, §2.2.1] No mesh-convergence or phase-field length-scale convergence study is presented. The regularization length ξ = 1.0×10^-5 is fixed and the base mesh is 64×64; with six AMR levels the effective resolution near the crack is not quantified. Since the classification into deflection, propagation, and arrest depends on whether the crack tip advances or turns, the outcomes could change with discretization or with ξ. A convergence study (varying ξ and mesh refinement) is required to support the regime map.
  3. [§4.2] The classification of crack behavior into deflection, continued propagation, and arrest is made qualitatively from plots of plastic strain. No quantitative criterion is defined, so different readers could classify borderline cases differently. Please provide an objective rule (for example, based on final crack-tip position, crack deflection angle, or a threshold in crack advance) and apply it consistently to all 12 simulations.
  4. [§5 vs. §4.3] The conclusion states that the observed behavior 'also depends on the choice of materials', whereas Section 4.3 claims the regimes are 'defined and separated only by material geometry'. These statements are in tension. If material choice is an additional governing parameter, the regime map should be presented as valid for the specific Al-3003/Al-7075 pair studied here, and a broader parameter study is needed before claiming geometry-only separation.
  5. [§3] The linear interpolation of all mechanical properties across the gradient is acknowledged as a simplification, and the paper correctly cites experimental studies showing nonlinear property variation. However, because the entire regime map is derived from this property profile, the sensitivity of the deflection/propagation/arrest boundaries to the interpolation choice should be tested (for example, by repeating a subset of simulations with a nonlinear profile). Without such a test, the geometry-only claim is contingent on a modeling assumption that the authors themselves flag as uncertain.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§1] The sentence 'Phase field (PF) modeling has been shown to robust at predicting crack growth' contains a grammatical error; 'to robust' should be 'to be robust'.
  2. [§3, Fig. 1] The angle θ is described as the 'angle of interface' in Section 3 but as the 'angle with which the crack approaches the gradient' in Section 4.3. Please define the angle consistently in the setup and label it clearly in Figure 1.
  3. [§4.1, Fig. 2] The caption of Figure 2 says 'Variance in phase field crack growth' but the figure compares a brittle simulation and a ductile simulation; the caption should state that comparison explicitly.
  4. [§4.2] The text refers to 'the more brittle of materials' without identifying which material that is. Since Material 1 has the lower fracture energy Gc, it should be named as the brittle/less-tough material and Material 2 as the tougher material.
  5. [§2.1, Eq. (6)-(7)] The hardening modulus is introduced as H̄ in Eq. (6) but appears as H in the plastic-energy term of Eq. (7); please unify the notation.
  6. [§4.3, Fig. 7] Figure 7 is a schematic regime diagram. Please add axis labels and, if possible, plot the 12 data points on it so that the reader can see which cases support the inferred boundaries.
  7. [General] The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass for typographical and grammatical issues (for example, 'arresting' versus 'arrest', and inconsistent use of 'gradient' and 'interface').

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Plastic-strain 'prediction' is partly built into the crack-driving force and behavior classification; the geometry-only regime map is an independent output.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1, Eqs. (7) and (10); Section 5, Conclusion]
    "We update the energy functional for ductile failure with plastic energy as ... Lductile(u, α, c) = ... + ∫ (g(c)+η)(σY + 1/2 Hα)α dx ... ˙c = −M( g′(c)H+ − Gc(...) + g′(c)(σY + 1/2 Hα)α )"

    The crack evolution equation explicitly includes accumulated plastic strain α as a term in the crack driving force. Therefore, the conclusion that 'variance in plastic strain can be used to predict crack path' is not an independent emergent correlation but is built into the model by construction. The crack path is still solved, but the predictive link from α to crack growth is assumed in the governing equation, making the reported prediction partly a restatement of the model input.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.2 and Section 5, Conclusion]
    "These behaviors are clearly defined by a plot of the total plastic strain present throughout the cycle. ... These behaviors correspond to features of plastic strain, and, conversely, variance in plastic strain can be used to predict crack path."

    The three crack behaviors (deflection, propagation, arrest) are identified by their plastic-strain signatures in Section 4.2, and then plastic-strain variance is proposed as a predictor of crack path in the Conclusion. The predictor and the classification variable are the same, so the 'prediction' is definitional with respect to the classification scheme. The underlying crack paths and regime map are still independent observations, so this is partial circularity rather than a fully forced result.

full rationale

The central regime-map claim (Section 4.3) is not circular: the material constants come from published ASM alloy data, no parameter is fitted to reproduce the reported crack paths, and the brittle-versus-ductile comparison is a genuine model prediction from the phase-field equations. The geometry-only boundaries in Figure 7 are independent outputs, though their robustness is limited by the small number of simulations. However, two related steps do reduce partially by construction. First, the plastic-energy term is inserted directly into the crack driving force in Eqs. (7) and (10), so concluding that accumulated plastic strain 'predicts' crack path is partly restating the constitutive input rather than discovering a new correlation. Second, the three crack behaviors are defined in Section 4.2 by features of the plastic-strain plots, and the Conclusion then offers plastic-strain variance as a predictor; the predictor and the classification variable coincide. These issues affect a secondary claim, not the main geometry-only regime map, so the paper is not wholly circular, but the plastic-strain prediction is partially self-definitional. No load-bearing self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems are invoked.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central regime map rests on six modeling choices, none of which is independently validated: the tensile-compressive split, linear property interpolation across the interface, J2 hardening with theta=1, the gradient-descent interpretation of crack evolution, the phase-field regularization parameters, and the 2D Mode-I representation. Material constants are sourced from published alloy data, which is the only external anchor. The phase-field field c is a standard mathematical construct, not a new physical entity.

free parameters (4)
  • crack mobility M = not reported
    Controls the explicit crack-field evolution step size in Equation 10; the paper states it is chosen only to respect CFL conditions, but no value is given and the regime outcomes could depend on this numerical choice.
  • regularization parameter eta = 1e-4
    Introduced in Equation 7 for computational stability; small enough to be benign but still a chosen numerical constant affecting conditioning.
  • phase-field length scale xi = 1e-5 for both materials
    Sets the diffuse crack width; chosen from numerical resolution considerations rather than from an independent experimental measurement.
  • hardening weighting theta = 1
    Used in Equation 6 to weight the hardening contribution to yield strength; the paper assumes full hardening without calibrating to the specific alloys.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Strain energy can be split into tensile and compressive parts by spectral decomposition, with only the tensile part driving fracture (Equation 2).
    Standard phase-field fracture convention, but a modeling choice not validated against FGM experiments.
  • domain assumption Linear interpolation of lambda, mu, Gc, sigma_Y, and H across the gradient represents the real FGM property profile.
    Stated in Section 3; the paper itself notes experiments show nonlinear variation, making this assumption load-bearing and unverified.
  • domain assumption J2 plasticity with linear isotropic hardening and theta=1 describes the ductile response of both aluminum alloys.
    Used throughout the simulations; no calibration or experimental stress-strain comparison is provided.
  • domain assumption The crack-field evolution in Equation 10 is a pure gradient-descent surrogate and does not introduce physical kinetics.
    The authors state this explicitly; if the dynamics were physical, the arrest and deflection conclusions would need reinterpretation.
  • domain assumption The phase-field length scale xi and six-level BSAMR mesh are sufficient for convergence.
    No mesh-convergence or xi-sensitivity study is reported, despite the regime map being drawn from resolved crack paths.
  • domain assumption A 2D square domain with a horizontal edge notch and fixed vertical displacement represents Mode-I fracture in the FGM.
    The paper does not state plane stress or plane strain, and no comparison shows the 2D model reproduces 3D fracture behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ductile fracture in functionally graded materials: Insight into crack behavior within the gradient interface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RLVWQM6C

@misc{pith2026241118642,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ductile fracture in functionally graded materials: Insight into crack behavior within the gradient interface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RLVWQM6C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18642}
}
read the original abstract

Despite advances in manufacturing making metal functionally graded materials (FGMs) more common, numerical methods for predicting fracture in ductile functionally graded materials remain limited. In this work we study the crack propagation in ductile FGMs, specifically focusing on crack propagation within the gradient region of an FGM. We investigate the direct effects of plasticity, and the exact correlations between accumulated plastic strain and crack growth patterns in an FGM. Through this, we determine key differences in crack growth patterns between well-studied brittle FGMs, and more recently developed ductile FGMs. We provide substantial insight on the influence of both the angle of incidence and the width of the gradient, and expose potential pathways for engineering crack-arresting behavior in ductile FGMs

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18642 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Parameter Space in a Phase-Field Fracture study of a functionally graded ductile material study the evolution of plastic strain as the crack propagates and highlight the correlation between plastic strain and crack behavior. Finally, we present the results of our parametric study on crack behavior for varying gradient interface design. 4.1. Impact of Plasticity Substantial previous work has provided valuable insight… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variance in phase field crack growth given identical material properties and loading conditions, one case run as a brittle simulation and one case run as a ductile simulation. This simulation is conducted over a square domain of x ∈ [−0.06, 0.06] × [−0.06, 0.06]. 4.2. Plastic Strain Evolution In this section, we investigate the plastic strain evolution during crack propagation through the gradient region. During our… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variance in the norm of the strain tensor between ductile and brittle models for crack propagation, with identical geometries and boundary conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plastic Strain around a crack which deflects upon approach to a material gradient 4.3. Parametric Study Here, we discuss the results of a parametrization study on the gradation. We modified two parameters - the angle θ with which the crack approaches the gradient and t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plastic Strain around a crack which continues to propagate through a material gradient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plastic Strain around a crack which is arrested by a material gradient our parameter space, we observed deflection in two simulations, continued propagation in eight simulations, and arresting behavior in two simulations. The grouping of these behaviors, and the condit…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Diagram of crack behavior based on geometric conditions of the parameter space, we found substantially more variance in crack propagation for narrow gradients. Three representative cases of the behaviors in crack propagation are in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Varying behavior in crack propagation across three simulations 5. Conclusion In this work, we develop and demonstrate a phase field model for fracture in ductile functionally graded materials. Using this model, we identify specific crack propagation behaviors which var…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Recent progress in gradient-structured metals and alloys,

    W. Ji, R. Zhou, P. Vivegananthan, M. See Wu, H. Gao, and K. Zhou, “Recent progress in gradient-structured metals and alloys,” Progress in Materials Science, vol. 140, p. 101194, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Nanostructured surface layer on metallic materials induced by surface mechanical attrition treatment,

    K. Lu and J. Lu, “Nanostructured surface layer on metallic materials induced by surface mechanical attrition treatment,” Materials Science and Engineering: A , vol. 375-377, pp. 38–45, 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Developing gradient metal alloys through radial deposition additive manufac- turing,

    D. Hoffmann, “Developing gradient metal alloys through radial deposition additive manufac- turing,” Scientific Reports, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Copper-nickel func- tionally magnetic gradient material fabricated via directed energy deposition,

    M. Grandhi, V. Nguyen, Z. Liu, C.-O. Romo-De-La-cruz, and X. Song, “Copper-nickel func- tionally magnetic gradient material fabricated via directed energy deposition,” Journal of Manufacturing Processes, vol. 100, pp. 47–54, 2023. 11

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Directed energy deposition additive manufacturing of functionally graded al-w composites,

    J. Kelly, J. Elmer, F. Ryerson, J. Lee, and J. Haslam, “Directed energy deposition additive manufacturing of functionally graded al-w composites,” Additive Manufacturing , vol. 39, p. 101845, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Directed energy deposition (ded) additive manufacturing: Physical characteristics, defects, challenges and applications,

    D. Svetlizky, M. Das, B. Zheng, A. L. Vyatskikh, S. Bose, A. Bandyopadhyay, J. M. Schoenung, E. J. Lavernia, and N. Eliaz, “Directed energy deposition (ded) additive manufacturing: Physical characteristics, defects, challenges and applications,” Materials Today, vol. 49, pp. 271–295, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Functionally graded ti6al4v-mo alloy manufactured with ded-clad ® process,

    C. Schneider-Maunoury, L. Weiss, P. Acquier, D. Boisselier, and P. Laheurte, “Functionally graded ti6al4v-mo alloy manufactured with ded-clad ® process,” Additive Manufacturing , vol. 17, pp. 55–66, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Directed energy deposition process development for functionally gradient copper-inconel 718 materials,

    M. Balkan, E. Aydogan, M. Isik, B. Dein, and B. Koc, “Directed energy deposition process development for functionally gradient copper-inconel 718 materials,” Journal of Additive Manufacturing Technologies, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Direct metal additive manufacturing processes and their sustainable applications for green technology: A review,

    D. G. Ahn, “Direct metal additive manufacturing processes and their sustainable applications for green technology: A review,” International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing- Green Technology, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Applications of laser assisted metal rapid tooling process to manufacture of molding & forming tools—state of the art.,

    D. G. Ahn, “Applications of laser assisted metal rapid tooling process to manufacture of molding & forming tools—state of the art.,” International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing , 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    An overview of functionally graded additive manufacturing,

    G. H. Loh, E. Pei, D. Harrison, and M. D. Monz´ on, “An overview of functionally graded additive manufacturing,” Additive Manufacturing, vol. 23, pp. 34–44, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Structural optimized design of a powder mixer for multi-material directed energy deposition based on cfd-dpm,

    G. Gao, X. Zhang, M. Xu, Y. Han, J. Ao, Y. Cai, and J. Wang, “Structural optimized design of a powder mixer for multi-material directed energy deposition based on cfd-dpm,” Coatings, vol. 13, no. 4, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Poisson’s ratio and modern materials,

    G. N. Greages, A. L. Greer, R. S. Lakes, and T. Rouxel, “Poisson’s ratio and modern materials,” Nature Materials, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    Metal additive manufacturing in aerospace: A review,

    B. Blakey-Milner, P. Gradl, G. Snedden, M. Brooks, J. Pitot, E. Lopez, M. Leary, F. Berto, and A. du Plessis, “Metal additive manufacturing in aerospace: A review,” Materials & Design , vol. 209, p. 110008, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    An assessment of phase field fracture: crack initiation and growth,

    P. Kristensen, C. Niordson, and E. Mart ´ ınez Pa˜ neda, “An assessment of phase field fracture: crack initiation and growth,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A , 03 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    A phase-field formulation for fracture in ductile materials: Finite deformation balance law derivation, plastic degradation, and stress triaxiality effects,

    M. J. Borden, T. J. Hughes, C. M. Landis, A. Anvari, and I. J. Lee, “A phase-field formulation for fracture in ductile materials: Finite deformation balance law derivation, plastic degradation, and stress triaxiality effects,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer...

    2016

  9. [17]

    Phase field modeling of ductile fracture at finite strains: A variational gradient-extended plasticity-damage theory,

    C. Miehe, F. Aldakheel, and A. Raina, “Phase field modeling of ductile fracture at finite strains: A variational gradient-extended plasticity-damage theory,” International Journal of Plasticity , vol. 84, pp. 1–32, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Phase-field modeling of ductile fracture,

    A. Gerasimov and D. Lorenzis, “Phase-field modeling of ductile fracture,” Computational Mechanics, pp. 1–3, 2015. 12

    2015

  11. [19]

    A phase- field model for ductile fracture with shear bands: A parallel implementation,

    C. Samaniego, J. Ulloa, P. Rodr ´ ıguez, G. Houzeaux, M. V´ azquez, and E. Samaniego, “A phase- field model for ductile fracture with shear bands: A parallel implementation,” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences , vol. 200, p. 106424, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Phase field modeling of fracture in multi-physics problems. part ii. coupled brittle-to-ductile failure criteria and crack propagation in thermo-elastic–plastic solids,

    C. Miehe, M. Hofacker, L.-M. Sch¨ anzel, and F. Aldakheel, “Phase field modeling of fracture in multi-physics problems. part ii. coupled brittle-to-ductile failure criteria and crack propagation in thermo-elastic–plastic solids,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engin...

    2015

  13. [21]

    Phase field modeling of fracture in multi-physics problems. part iii. crack driving forces in hydro-poro-elasticity and hydraulic fracturing of fluid-saturated porous media,

    C. Miehe and S. Mauthe, “Phase field modeling of fracture in multi-physics problems. part iii. crack driving forces in hydro-poro-elasticity and hydraulic fracturing of fluid-saturated porous media,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 304, pp. 619–655, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    A phase-field model for ductile fracture at finite strains and its experimental verification,

    M. Ambati, R. Kruse, and L. D. Lorenis, “A phase-field model for ductile fracture at finite strains and its experimental verification,” Computational Mechanics, p. All, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Vi. the phenomena of rupture and flow in solids,

    A. Griffith, “Vi. the phenomena of rupture and flow in solids,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , p. All, 1921

    1921

  16. [24]

    Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem,

    G. Francfort and J.-J. Marigo, “Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1319–1342, 1998

    1998

  17. [25]

    Robust, strong form mechanics on an adaptive structured grid: ef- ficiently solving variable-geometry near-singular problems with diffuse interface,

    V. Agrawal and B. Runnels, “Robust, strong form mechanics on an adaptive structured grid: ef- ficiently solving variable-geometry near-singular problems with diffuse interface,”Computational Mechanics, pp. 1–3, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Phase field modelling of crack propagation in functionally graded materials,

    Hirshikesh, S. Natarajan, R. K. Annabattula, and E. Mart ´ ınez-Pa˜ neda, “Phase field modelling of crack propagation in functionally graded materials,” Composites Part B: Engineering , vol. 169, pp. 239–248, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Probabilistic investigation into brittle fracture of functionally graded materials using phase-field method,

    R. Aravind, K. Jayakumar, and R. K. Annabattula, “Probabilistic investigation into brittle fracture of functionally graded materials using phase-field method,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 288, p. 109344, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Phase-field modeling of thermal shock fracture in functionally graded materials,

    Y. Pang, P. Li, D. Li, X. Zhou, H. Fan, and Q. Wang, “Phase-field modeling of thermal shock fracture in functionally graded materials,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 307, p. 110286, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Adaptive analysis for phase-field model of brittle fracture of functionally graded materials,

    Y. Shao, Q. Duan, and S. Qiu, “Adaptive analysis for phase-field model of brittle fracture of functionally graded materials,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 251, p. 107783, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Simulation of crack propagation in functionally graded materials under mixed-mode and non-proportional loading,

    J. Kim and G. Paulino, “Simulation of crack propagation in functionally graded materials under mixed-mode and non-proportional loading,” Mechanics and Materials In Design , p. 2, 2005

    2005

  23. [31]

    Massively parallel finite difference elasticity using block-structured adaptive mesh refinement with a geometric multigrid solver,

    B. Runnels, V. Agrawal, W. Zhang, and A. Almgren, “Massively parallel finite difference elasticity using block-structured adaptive mesh refinement with a geometric multigrid solver,” Journal of Computational Physics , vol. 427, p. 110065, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Functionally graded material of 304l stainless steel and inconel 625 fabricated by directed energy deposition: Characterization and thermodynamic modeling,

    B. E. Carroll, R. A. Otis, J. P. Borgonia, J. ook Suh, R. P. Dillon, A. A. Shapiro, D. C. Hofmann, Z.-K. Liu, and A. M. Beese, “Functionally graded material of 304l stainless steel and inconel 625 fabricated by directed energy deposition: Characterization and thermodynamic mod...

    2016

  25. [33]

    Microstructure and mechanical properties of functionally graded ticp/ti6al4v composite fabricated by laser melting deposition,

    L. Li, J. Wang, P. Lin, and H. Liu, “Microstructure and mechanical properties of functionally graded ticp/ti6al4v composite fabricated by laser melting deposition,” Ceramics International, vol. 43, no. 18, pp. 16638–16651, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Case study of a functionally graded aluminum part,

    E. Fracchia, S. Lombardo, and M. Rosso, “Case study of a functionally graded aluminum part,” Applied Sciences, vol. 8, no. 7, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Design of functionally graded ti–al alloy with adjustable mechanical properties: a molecular dynamics insights,

    Y. Gao, Q. Xie, T. Gao, W. Yang, Q. Chen, Z. Tian, L. Li, Y. Liang, and B. Wang, “Design of functionally graded ti–al alloy with adjustable mechanical properties: a molecular dynamics insights,” Journal of Materials Research and Technology , vol. 23, pp. 258–267, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Investigation on the mechanical properties of functionally graded nickel and aluminium alloy by molecular dynamics study,

    S. Mitra, H. Rahman, mohammad Motalab, T. Rakib, and P. Bose, “Investigation on the mechanical properties of functionally graded nickel and aluminium alloy by molecular dynamics study,” arXiv: Materials Science , 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Phase-field ductile fracture analysis of multi-materials and functionally graded composites through numerical and experimental methods,

    E. Azinpour, S. Rzepa, D. Melzer, A. Reis, J. Dˇ zugan, and J. Cesar de Sa, “Phase-field ductile fracture analysis of multi-materials and functionally graded composites through numerical and experimental methods,” Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, vol. 125, p. 103906, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Phase field disconnections: A continuum method for disconnection- mediated grain boundary motion,

    B. Runnels and V. Agrawal, “Phase field disconnections: A continuum method for disconnection- mediated grain boundary motion,” Scripta Materialia , vol. 186, pp. 6–10, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Block structured adaptive mesh refinement and strong form elasticity approach to phase field fracture with applications to delamination, crack branching and crack deflection,

    V. Agrawal and B. Runnels, “Block structured adaptive mesh refinement and strong form elasticity approach to phase field fracture with applications to delamination, crack branching and crack deflection,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 385, p. 114011, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Finite kinematics diffuse interface mechanics coupled to solid composite propellant deflagration,

    M. Meier and B. Runnels, “Finite kinematics diffuse interface mechanics coupled to solid composite propellant deflagration,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , vol. 427, p. 117040, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    On degradation functions in phase field fracture models,

    C. Kuhn, A. Schl¨ uter, and R. M¨ uller, “On degradation functions in phase field fracture models,” Computational Materials Science , vol. 108, pp. 374–384, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    J. C. Simo and T. J. Hughes, Computational inelasticity , vol. 7. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    A. H. Committee, Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose Materials . ASM International, 01 1990

    1990

  36. [44]

    Gradient material mechanics: perspectives and prospects,

    E. C. Aifantis, “Gradient material mechanics: perspectives and prospects,” Acta Mechanica, vol. 225, pp. 999–1012, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Fracture behavior of bio-inspired functionally graded soft–hard composites made by multi-material 3d printing: The case of colinear cracks,

    M. J. Mirzaali, “Fracture behavior of bio-inspired functionally graded soft–hard composites made by multi-material 3d printing: The case of colinear cracks,” Materials (Basel) , 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Phase field modeling of fracture in functionally graded materials: Gamma-convergence and mechanical insight on the effect of grading,

    P. Asur Vijaya Kumar, A. Dean, J. Reinoso, P. Lenarda, and M. Paggi, “Phase field modeling of fracture in functionally graded materials: Gamma-convergence and mechanical insight on the effect of grading,” Thin-Walled Structures, vol. 159, p. 107234, 2021. 14

    2021

Pith tools

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