Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 31 references

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

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives an explicit analytical driving force that makes modified phase-field fracture models reproduce any material strength surface linear in its material parameters, exactly at $n$ chosen stress states for finite…

desk verdict Clean algebraic generalization with a genuine convergence gap: the cited delta_epsilon calibration does not satisfy the scaling the consistency proof requires. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13700 v2 pith:IGXXJRGL submitted 2024-12-18 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.other

Chockalingam Senthilnathan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.other MSC 74R10
keywords phase-fieldfracturecracknucleationdrivingforcebrittleMohr-CoulombstrengthsurfaceDrucker-Pragereffectivetoughness
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

Phase-field fracture models describe how existing cracks grow, but they need an additional, carefully chosen driving force to predict when a crack first nucleates in pristine material. This paper gives a closed-form recipe for that driving force, valid for any strength surface whose failure condition is linear in its material parameters: the model matches the true strength surface exactly at $n$ chosen stress states for every regularization length $\varepsilon$, and matches the whole surface as $\varepsilon\to 0$. The recipe is worked out explicitly for Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager strength surfaces, with two different anchor-state choices for each, so it covers tensile, compressive, shear, and biaxial calibrations. If correct, it removes the need to re-derive the driving force for each new strength criterion and gives phase-field models a direct route to predicting nucleation in pressure-sensitive brittle materials such as concrete, rock, and ceramics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the shifted parameter vector $\beta^\varepsilon = \beta + \Delta\beta^\varepsilon$ that appears inside the strength function $g$ when the driving force is assembled. Because $g$ is linear in $\beta$, the phase-field strength surface splits into two additive pieces: the strain-energy term $2\bar{W}^\varepsilon(\sigma)$, which vanishes as $\omega_\varepsilon\to\infty$, and the shifted material strength function $F(\sigma,\beta^\varepsilon)$. The shift $\Delta\beta^\varepsilon$ is obtained by solving an $n\times n$ linear system at $n$ distinct strength states $\sigma_{si}$, with 'distinct' meaning the matrix $\partial F_i/\partial \beta$ has linearly independent rows; this is what makes the finite-$\varepsilon$ match exact at those states. The same linear-system structure also expresses the original parameters $\beta$ from the chosen strength states. The construction's main structural consequence is the effective toughness $\hat{G}_c^\varepsilon = -\delta_\varepsilon F(\sigma,\beta^\varepsilon) G_c$, which replaces $G_c$ in the nucleation equation and thereby encodes strength through a state-dependent fracture energy.

What would settle it

Run a phase-field simulation of eqs. (2)--(3) with the proposed $c_e$ under a spatially uniform stress increment and record the stress at which $v$ first drops below $1$; if that stress does not pass through the $n$ chosen material strength states for finite $\varepsilon$, or does not approach the full strength surface as $\varepsilon\to 0$, the central claim is falsified. For the Mohr-Coulomb Case (a) calibration in Section 3.1, this means checking numerically that uniaxial tension and uniaxial compression nucleate exactly at $\sigma_{ts}$ and $\sigma_{cs}$ for a finite $\varepsilon$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a material strength surface written as $F(\sigma,\beta) = g(\sigma,\beta) - 1 = 0$, with $g$ linear in the dimensionless parameters $\beta$, can be built into the modified phase-field theory through the explicit driving force $c_e = -\frac{3}{8}\frac{\delta_\varepsilon G_c}{\varepsilon} g(\sigma,\beta + \Delta\beta^\varepsilon)$. Here $\Delta\beta^\varepsilon = -\frac{16}{3}\frac{\varepsilon}{\delta_\varepsilon}\frac{\sigma_*}{G_c}\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial \beta}\right)^{-1} W$, evaluated at $n$ distinct strength states $\sigma_{si}$: $W$ collects the strain energies $W(\sigma_{si})$ and $\partial F/\partial \beta$ collects the derivatives of $F$ at those states. Substituting this $c_e$ into the phase-field strength surface $2W - c_e - \omega_\varepsilon = 0$, with $\omega_\varepsilon = \frac{3}{8}\frac{\delta_\varepsilon G_c}{\varepsilon}$, makes the predicted locus pass through the $n$ chosen strength states for every $\varepsilon$ and reduces to the material strength surface as $\varepsilon\to 0$, provided $\delta_\varepsilon$ is calibrated so that $\omega_\varepsilon\to\infty$. The paper also shows that the nucleation equation can be rewritten with a stress-dependent effective toughness $\hat{G}_c^\varepsilon = -\delta_\varepsilon F(\sigma,\beta^\varepsilon) G_c$ taking the place of $G_c$; this effective toughness is zero at strength-based initiation and reaches $\delta_\varepsilon G_c$ in the fully cracked state. Application to Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager surfaces, with two different choices of exact-match states for each, verifies the claim.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that crack nucleation under uniform monotonic stress is governed by the algebraic phase-field strength surface $2W - c_e - \omega_\varepsilon = 0$, and that $\delta_\varepsilon$ can be calibrated so that $\omega_\varepsilon \to \infty$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$ while Griffith crack propagation is preserved; the paper neither derives this criterion from the phase-field partial differential equations nor simulates a boundary value problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Given any strength surface of the form $F = g(\sigma,\beta) - 1 = 0$ with $g$ linear in $\beta$, the driving force is assembled directly from eqs. (29)--(30), so no case-by-case derivation is required.
  • For a finite regularization length, the phase-field strength surface passes exactly through the $n$ chosen strength states, letting a modeler anchor the prediction to the failure modes most relevant to the problem.
  • As $\varepsilon \to 0$, the phase-field strength surface converges to the full material strength surface, restoring the exact strength criterion in the sharp-interface limit.
  • The nucleation equation acquires a stress-dependent effective toughness that vanishes at strength-based initiation and rises to $\delta_\varepsilon G_c$ in the fully cracked state, which connects the modified theory to cohesive-zone thinking.
  • The explicit Mohr-Coulomb formulas, new for this theory, extend the approach to concrete, rock, and other pressure-sensitive brittle materials, and the Drucker-Prager cases cover tensile-shear and tensile-biaxial calibrations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $n$-state matching property suggests a calibration strategy not stated in the paper: choose the exact-match states to cover the dominant loading directions of a specific simulation, so the finite-$\varepsilon$ error is pushed away from the stress states that matter most.
  • Because the paper verifies only the algebraic strength surface, a natural next test is a full boundary-value simulation with the proposed $c_e$ under non-uniform stress; if the predicted nucleation stress deviates from the matched strength states, the algebraic criterion would need a dynamical justification.
  • The effective-toughness reading suggests that $\delta_\varepsilon$ could be calibrated from a traction-separation law rather than from a single pure-shear or edge-notch test, which would give the parameter a physical interpretation independent of the regularization.
  • For strength surfaces nonlinear in $\beta$, the paper notes its formula is only a first-order approximation and cannot be shown consistent; extending the closed-form shift to such surfaces would require a separate argument, for example by re-solving the matching system at each state.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives an explicit analytical construction of the crack-nucleation driving force c_e for modified phase-field brittle fracture models, for material strength surfaces of the form F(σ,β)=g(σ,β)-1 with g linear in the material coefficients β. The author sets c_e = -ω_ε g(σ,β+Δβ^ε) and chooses Δβ^ε so that the algebraic phase-field strength surface 2W^ε + F(σ,β^ε) = 0 coincides with the material strength surface at n prescribed stress states for every regularization length ε, while claiming that in the limit ε→0 the full material strength surface is recovered. Closed-form expressions for Δβ^ε and β^ε are given and applied to Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager strength surfaces, with plane-stress plots showing the finite-ε matching at the chosen calibration states.

Significance. If the convergence claim is valid, the paper provides a useful general recipe that replaces case-by-case derivations of the phase-field nucleation driving force, and it gives first explicit M-C results and new D-P calibration choices. The finite-ε matching construction is elegant: at the n chosen strength states the phase-field surface agrees with the material surface for all ε, and the algebra leading to Eqs. (29)-(30) is clean and internally consistent conditional on the stated scaling assumption ε/δ_ε→0. However, the central consistency statement depends on the regularization coefficient δ_ε, and the specific calibration Eq. (5) cited in the paper does not satisfy the required scaling. Because the paper neither supplies an alternative δ_ε nor verifies the phase-field PDEs in a boundary value problem, the central claim is not established in its current form.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Eqs. (5), (15), (20), (26)] Equation (20), namely F_ε→F as ε→0, is the load-bearing consistency statement. The text immediately after Eq. (20) asserts that the suggested calibration Eq. (5), δ_ε = 2/(5 + G_c/(fε)), satisfies the required property ε/δ_ε→0. This is false. For small ε, Eq. (5) gives δ_ε ≈ 2fε/G_c, so ε/δ_ε→G_c/(2f), a finite nonzero constant, and hence ω_ε→3f/4 rather than ∞. Consequently W^ε in Eq. (15) does not vanish in the limit, and Δβ^ε in Eq. (26) tends to the nonzero constant -(8/3)(σ*/f)J^{-1}W_vec, so β^ε does not converge to β. The phase-field strength surface therefore does not reduce to the material strength surface under the calibration cited by the author. The consistency claim can be restored only by providing a δ_ε with ε/δ_ε→0 that also preserves Griffith crack propagation, or by explicitly stating the result as conditional on such a δ_ε; the manuscript currently does neither.
  2. [§2.1–§2.3, Eq. (4)] The paper verifies only the algebraic phase-field strength surface, not the phase-field boundary value problem. The criterion in Eq. (4) is asserted by reference to prior work and stability discussions, but the constructed c_e depends on the true stress σ(F,v), and no simulation of Eqs. (2)-(3) is provided to show that the proposed c_e actually drives nucleation according to Eq. (4) in nonuniform fields. If Eq. (4) is not guaranteed to describe nucleation in arbitrary boundary value problems, then statements that the formulation predicts crack nucleation go beyond what is demonstrated. This is partly acknowledged in the author's caveat that preservation of large-crack Griffith physics relies on numerical calibration of δ_ε, but the gap is load-bearing for the claim that the construction is consistent for the phase-field theory, not merely for the algebraic strength surface.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (43)] W_bs is defined as W(α_bt ex⊗ey + α_bt ey⊗ex), which is a pure-shear stress state, but Case (b) is the biaxial tension state σ_s2 = α_bt(ex⊗ex + ey⊗ey); Eq. (44) is the correct biaxial-tension value. The argument in Eq. (43) should be corrected.
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (28)] The notation '#»W / ¯ω_ε' in Eq. (28) should be made consistent with the vector W^ε_i = W_i/¯ω_ε defined through Eqs. (14)-(15); as written it is easy to misread as a dimensionless stress vector divided by a stress-like quantity.
  3. [Figures 1 and 2] The captions refer to a common legend, but the legend values of ¯ω_ε and the distinction between the exact material surface and the phase-field surfaces are not described in the text; please state the plotted values of ¯ω_ε and the line styles in the captions.
  4. [Abstract and §3] The word 'verified' overstates the evidence: the paper presents algebraic surface comparisons only, not PDE simulations or experimental validation. 'Illustrated' or 'checked algebraically' would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The finite-ε strength matches are enforced by construction, and the ε→0 consistency is built into the chosen ansatz for ce; the cited δ_ε calibration also fails to supply the required limit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3, eqs. (21)-(26); Section 3 verification]
    "We choose #»∆β ε such that the phase field strength surface condition in eq. (19) is satisfied at n distinct (in a certain sense specified later) chosen stress states (¯σ si) that also satisfy the material strength surface condition in eq. (6). Thus at these stress states, the phase field strength surface coincides with the material strength surface irrespective of the value of ε. ..."

    The matrix system in eq. (24) is exactly the condition F_ε(σ̄_si)=0 (eq. 21) solved for ∆β^ε, with solution (26). Therefore the phase-field surface passes through the n chosen strength states by construction, for every ε; the Section 3 plots cannot fail this check. Presenting this enforced interpolation as a verification is a fitted parameter being exhibited as a prediction. The finite-ε claim is not an independent consequence of the phase-field equations; it is the defining equation used to determine the driving-force coefficients.

  2. self definitional [Section 2.3, eqs. (16)-(20)]
    "We choose the following form for the dimensionless driving force ¯ce (recall the function g from eq. (6)), ¯cε e = −g( ¯σ , # »β ε), # »β ε = # »β + # »∆ β ε ... Thus, using eq. (17) in eq. (19), we get F ε → F ≡ F ( ¯σ , # »β ) = 0 as ε → 0 ... Thus the prescription of any # »∆ β ε that satisfies eq. (17) completes the construction of a consistent crack nucleation driving force."

    With the chosen ansatz (16), the phase-field strength surface (19) reads F_ε = 2W̄^ε(σ̄) + F(σ̄, β^ε). The advertised consistency F_ε → F is therefore nothing more than the imposed conditions W̄^ε → 0 and β^ε → β (eq. 17); no physical content independently produces the material strength surface. The result is put into the definition of ce. The only substantive computation, solving for ∆β^ε, is the interpolation step of the prior item, not an independent derivation of the strength surface.

full rationale

The paper is transparent that its driving force is constructed to meet the phase-field strength surface and the finite-ε match requirement, so the central construction is coherent as an inverse or calibration recipe. The circularity is that the headline 'reproduces the material strength surface' is an enforced property of the ansatz rather than an independent prediction: eq. (24) solves for ∆β^ε precisely so that the n match points lie on F_ε=0, and eqs. (16)-(20) make the ε→0 limit follow from the assumed β^ε→β. Separately (a correctness issue, not a circularity), the limit argument is not actually supported by the paper's cited calibration: Eq. (5), δ_ε=2/(5+Gc/(fε)), gives δ_ε≈2fε/Gc for small ε, so ε/δ_ε→Gc/(2f) is finite, making ω̄_ε finite and ∆β^ε nonzero in the limit; the claimed W̄^ε→0 and F_ε→F require an additional scaling assumption that Eq. (5) contradicts. A boundary-value-problem demonstration against external nucleation data would be needed to give the construction independent predictive content; none is provided.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The construction introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are the calibration points, the regularization length, and the delta_epsilon coefficient inherited from prior work. The main assumptions are the algebraic nucleation criterion and the linear-in-coefficients form of the strength surface.

free parameters (3)
  • chosen calibration stress states sigma_si = uniaxial tension plus one other state (compression, shear, or biaxial tension)
    The user selects n distinct points on the strength surface at which the phase field strength surface is forced to match exactly. This is a calibration choice, not derived.
  • regularization length epsilon = not specified; finite in simulations
    The finite-epsilon behavior depends on epsilon; consistency is only in the limit epsilon to 0.
  • coefficient delta_epsilon = from prior phenomenological expression delta_epsilon = 2/5 + G_c/(f epsilon) with f unspecified
    The paper assumes a numerically calibrated delta_epsilon that makes omega_epsilon go to infinity as epsilon to 0 and preserves large-crack physics; this is borrowed from prior fitting, not derived.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Phase field strength surface under uniform monotonic loading is F_epsilon = 2W - c_e - omega_epsilon = 0
    Inherited from prior modified phase field theory [5,6]; the paper uses it without deriving it from the PDE system.
  • domain assumption The material strength surface is linear in its n material coefficients and g(0,beta) = 0
    Scope restriction; Remark 7 admits the method cannot establish consistency for nonlinear surfaces.
  • ad hoc to paper delta_epsilon is calibrated such that omega_epsilon goes to infinity as epsilon to 0 (i.e., epsilon/delta_epsilon to 0)
    Needed for the consistency limit; the examples rely on prior phenomenological equation (5).
  • standard math The chosen n stress states are linearly independent in the sense of Remark 6
    Required for invertibility of the derivative matrix in the construction.
invented entities (1)
  • effective toughness hat G_c^epsilon
    purpose: Reinterprets the nucleation term as a stress-dependent toughness that vanishes at strength failure and equals delta_epsilon G_c in the cracked state
    Introduced as an interpretive quantity with no independent experimental handle; it is derived from existing theory rather than postulated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 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." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IGXXJRGL

@misc{pith2026241213700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 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},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IGXXJRGL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13700}
}
abstract

A series of recent papers have modified the classical variational phase-field fracture models to successfully predict both the nucleation and propagation of cracks in brittle fracture under general loading conditions. This is done through the introduction of a consistent crack nucleation driving force in the phase field governing equations, which results in the model being able to capture both the strength surface and fracture toughness of the material. This driving force has been presented in the literature for the case of Drucker-Prager strength surface and specific choice of stress states on the strength surface that are captured exactly for finite values of the phase field regularization length parameter $\varepsilon$. Here we present an explicit analytical expression for this driving force given a general material strength surface when the functional form of the strength locus is linear in the material parameter coefficients. In the limit $\varepsilon \to 0$, the formulation reproduces the exact material strength surface and for finite $\varepsilon$ the strength surface is captured at any n 'distinct' points on the strength surface where n is the minimum number of material coefficients required to describe it. The presentation of the driving force in the current work facilitates the easy demonstration of its consistent nature. Further, in the equation governing crack nucleation, the toughness in the classical models is shown to be replaced by an effective toughness in the modified theory, that is dependent on the stress. The derived analytical expressions are verified via application to the widely employed Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager strength surfaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13700 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of phase field strength surface in eq. (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of phase field strength surface in eq. (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. A. Francfort, J.-J. Marigo, Revisiting brittle fract ure as an energy minimization problem, Journal of the Mechan ics and Physics of Solids 46 (1998) 1319–1342

    1998

  2. [2]

    Bourdin, G

    B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, J.-J. Marigo, Numerical exp eriments in revisited brittle fracture, Journal of the Mech anics and Physics of Solids 48 (2000) 797–826

    2000

  3. [3]

    Bourdin, G

    B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, J.-J. Marigo, The variation al approach to fracture, Journal of elasticity 91 (2008) 5–1 48

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Lopez-Pamies, J

    O. Lopez-Pamies, J. E. Dolbow, G. A. Francfort, C. J. Lars en, Classical variational phase-field models cannot predic t fracture nucleation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanic s and Engineering 433 (2025) 117520

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Kumar, G

    A. Kumar, G. A. Francfort, O. Lopez-Pamies, Fracture and healing of elastomers: A phase-transition theory and numer ical implementation, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Sol ids 112 (2018) 523–551

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Kumar, B

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

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Kamarei, J

    F. Kamarei, J. E. Dolbow, O. Lopez-Pamies, Nucleation of fracture: The first-octant evidence against classical vari ational phase-field models, Journal of Applied Mechanics 92 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Kumar, K

    A. Kumar, K. Ravi-Chandar, O. Lopez-Pamies, The configur ational-forces view of the nucleation and propagation of fracture and healing in elastomers as a phase transition, In ternational Journal of Fracture 213 (2018) 1–16

    work page 2018

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Kumar, O

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

    2020

  2. [10]

    Kumar, O

    A. Kumar, O. Lopez-Pamies, The poker-chip experiments of gent and lindley (1959) explained, Journal of the Mechani cs and Physics of Solids 150 (2021) 104359

    1959

  3. [11]

    Kumar, K

    A. Kumar, K. Ravi-Chandar, O. Lopez-Pamies, The revisi ted phase-field approach to brittle fracture: application t o indentation and notch problems, International Journal of F racture 237 (2022) 83–100

    2022

  4. [12]

    F. Fei, A. Costa, J. E. Dolbow, R. R. Settgast, M. Cusini, A phase-field model for hydraulic fracture nucleation and propagation in porous media, International Journal for Num erical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 47 (2023) 3065–3089

    2023

  5. [13]

    Y. Jia, O. Lopez-Pamies, X. S. Zhang, Controlling the fr acture response of structures via topology optimization: F rom delaying fracture nucleation to maximizing toughness, Jou rnal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 173 (2023) 105227

    2023

  6. [14]

    Kumar, Y

    A. Kumar, Y. Liu, J. E. Dolbow, O. Lopez-Pamies, The stre ngth of the brazilian fracture test, Journal of the Mechanic s and Physics of Solids 182 (2024) 105473

    2024

  7. [15]

    Kamarei, A

    F. Kamarei, A. Kumar, O. Lopez-Pamies, The poker-chip e xperiments of synthetic elastomers explained, Journal of t he Mechanics and Physics of Solids (2024) 105683

    2024

  8. [16]

    C. Liu, A. Kumar, Emergence of tension-compression asy mmetry from a complete phase-field approach to brittle fract ure, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00368 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Y. Liu, O. Lopez-Pamies, J. E. Dolbow, On the effects of ma terial strength in dynamic fracture: A phase-field study, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16393 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Larsen, J

    C. Larsen, J. Dolbow, O. Lopez-Pamies, A variational fo rmulation of griffith phase-field fracture with material stre ngth, International Journal of Fracture (2024) 1–9

    2024

  11. [19]

    Yu, Advances in strength theories for materials u nder complex stress state in the 20th century, Appl

    M.-h. Yu, Advances in strength theories for materials u nder complex stress state in the 20th century, Appl. Mech. Re v. 55 (2002) 169–218

    2002

  12. [20]

    Y. Bai, T. Wierzbicki, Application of extended mohr–co ulomb criterion to ductile fracture, International journa l of fracture 161 (2010) 1–20

    2010

  13. [21]

    K. Pham, H. Amor, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, Gradient dam age models and their use to approximate brittle fracture, International Journal of Damage Mechanics 20 (2011) 618–65 2

    2011

  14. [22]

    R. S. Rivlin, A. G. Thomas, Rupture of rubber. i. charact eristic energy for tearing, Journal of polymer science 10 (1 953) 291–318

  15. [23]

    Goggin, W

    P. Goggin, W. Reynolds, The elastic constants of reacto r graphites, Philosophical Magazine 16 (1967) 317–330

    1967

  16. [24]

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

    1987

  17. [25]

    R. E. ELY, Strength of titania and aluminum silicate und er combined stresses, Journal of the American Ceramic Socie ty 55 (1972) 347–350

    1972

  18. [26]

    M. Iuga, G. Steinle-Neumann, J. Meinhardt, Ab-initio s imulation of elastic constants for some ceramic materials, The European Physical Journal B 58 (2007) 127–133. 11

    2007

  19. [27]

    Z. Peng, H. Zhao, X. Li, New ductile fracture model for fr acture prediction ranging from negative to high stress tria xiality, International Journal of Plasticity 145 (2021) 103057

    2021

  20. [28]

    Keralavarma, D

    S. Keralavarma, D. Reddi, A. Benzerga, Ductile failure as a constitutive instability in porous plastic solids, Jou rnal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 139 (2020) 103917

    2020

  21. [29]

    Keralavarma, S

    S. Keralavarma, S. Chockalingam, A criterion for void c oalescence in anisotropic ductile materials, Internation al Journal of Plasticity 82 (2016) 159–176

    2016

  22. [30]

    Sidharth, R

    R. Sidharth, R. Nikhil, S. Krishnan, S. Keralavarma, A. Moitra, M. Vasudevan, Crack initiation and growth in 316ln stainless steel: experiments and xfem simulations, Engine ering Fracture Mechanics 274 (2022) 108770

    2022

  23. [31]

    Nikhil, S

    R. Nikhil, S. Krishnan, S. Keralavarma, A. Moitra, M. Va sudevan, Application of an instability-based fracture mod el for prediction of crack initiation in modified 9cr–1mo steel, Fa tigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures (202 4). 12

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.