CDF-Generated Damage Laws: Admissibility, Gamma-Convergence to Griffith Fracture, and Well-Posedness

Huilong Ren

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 39 references

CDF-Generated Damage Laws: Admissibility, Gamma-Convergence to Griffith Fracture, and Well-Posedness

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that every CDF-based softening law, under rapid saturation, degenerates in the limit to a sharp-interface fracture energy, and that the resulting rate-independent damage evolutions are well-posed.

desk verdict The CDF construction is a tidy packaging of softening laws, but the main theorems are false under the paper's own definitions—Theorem 2 fails on a constant-gradient sequence and Theorem 1 overstates integrability—so the advertised rigorous bridge to Griffith fracture is not credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06949 v1 pith:5YV25WLF submitted 2025-06-07 math.AP math-phmath.MP

Huilong Ren This is my paper

classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 49J4574R1074A45

keywords cumulativedistributionfunctionsdamagemechanicsGamma-convergenceGriffithfractureofboundedvariationquasi-staticevolutionsofteninglawvariational

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 build one probabilistic template for damage in elastic solids: choose a cumulative distribution function $F$, set the stored-energy density to $\psi(\eta)=\int_0^\eta(1-F(s))\,ds$, and read the damage variable as $d=F(\phi^+(\varepsilon))$. It claims three results for this template: every such law gives a thermodynamically admissible degradation map; in two and three dimensions, the scaled energies $\Gamma$-converge to what it calls the sharp-interface Griffith functional as $\lambda\to\infty$, provided $F$ saturates to $1$ at a finite critical value; and the rate-independent quasi-static evolution problem admits global energetic solutions. If these claims hold, probabilistic flaw statistics translate directly into a variational fracture theory that needs no extra internal damage variables.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the survival-function integral $\psi(\eta)=\int_0^\eta(1-F(s))\,ds$, whose derivative $1-F(\phi^+(\varepsilon))$ acts as the stiffness-reduction factor and whose saturated value is the fracture energy density $G/\ell$. The asymptotic argument is carried by the scaled integrand $\psi_\lambda(t)=\lambda^{-1}\int_0^{\lambda t}(1-F(s))\,ds$: as $\lambda\to\infty$ the saturation threshold $s_c/\lambda$ collapses to $0$, so the energy is designed to penalize the measure of the set where the gradient exceeds that threshold and to push limits toward piecewise-constant displacement fields.

What would settle it

Evaluate the scaled energy on the affine field $u(x)=x_1$ on a bounded domain: for large $\lambda$ the integrand reaches saturation, giving $E_\lambda(u)=\frac{G}{\lambda}|\Omega|\to 0$ even though $\nabla u$ never vanishes, while the paper's limiting functional assigns $E_\infty(u)=+\infty$; this configuration directly violates the claimed $\Gamma$-liminf inequality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the whole CDF family collapses, in the high-contrast limit, to a sharp fracture model. Under the saturation assumption $F(s)=1$ for $s\ge s_c$, the scaled energy $E_\lambda(u)=\int_\Omega \psi_\lambda(|\nabla^a u|^2/2)\,dx$ is claimed to $\Gamma$-converge in $L^1$ to the functional that is zero exactly when $\nabla^a u=0$ almost everywhere and $+\infty$ otherwise, with $L^1$-compactness of finite-energy sequences in $SBV$. The paper further claims existence of rate-independent quasi-static evolutions: global energetic solutions satisfying both stability and energy balance, with jump sets that grow monotonically and never heal.

Load-bearing premise

The $\Gamma$-convergence result depends on assuming the cumulative function saturates at a finite value, $F(s)=1$ for all $s\ge s_c$, so that any uniform energy bound is taken to force the smoothly varying part of the gradient to zero in the limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any CDF-based law of this form is automatically a monotone, bounded, dissipative degradation map, so thermodynamic consistency needs no separate damage-evolution equation.
Under the rapid-saturation assumption, finite-energy sequences concentrate their gradients into increasingly thin layers, so diffuse damage degenerates to sharp discontinuities.
If the $\Gamma$-convergence claim holds, minimizers of the damaged energy converge to minimizers of the limiting sharp-interface energy, giving a variational bridge between damage and fracture.
The rate-independent quasi-static problem has global energetic solutions, so the model supports monotone crack growth without healing under time-dependent loading.
The internal length $\ell$ can be fixed from an experimentally measured peak stress, making each CDF-based law calibratable from standard tensile data.

Reading between the lines

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

The limiting functional $E_\infty$ as written assigns zero energy to every jump set, so a genuine Griffith-type surface term would have to be added before the limit can rank crack configurations by their length; the paper leaves this step implicit.
The saturation condition $F(s)=1$ for $s\ge s_c$ covers the piecewise and radical families but excludes the exponential, Cauchy, logistic, half-normal, and Gudermannian laws introduced earlier, so whether tailed CDFs admit a $\Gamma$-limit is a testable open question.
A natural extension of the construction is to apply the survival-function integral to tensorial damage variables or to ductile fracture, which the conclusion itself names as future work.
The CDF viewpoint suggests fitting $F$ to measured flaw-size or micro-strength distributions rather than to stress-strain curves, turning the softening law into a statistical prediction about the material's defect population.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Thanks for the review; I read the paper closely. The short version: the CDF-based softening construction is a useful heuristic, but the central mathematical claims do not hold up under contact with the paper's own equations.

What is genuinely nice: defining ψ(η)=∫_0^η [1−F(s)]ds gives a compact recipe for damage laws that are monotone, bounded, and dissipative. The catalog of distributions in Section 2 and Appendices A–C is systematic, and the 1D stress formulas and Taylor expansions are mostly algebraically correct. If you work in computational damage mechanics and need a menu of softening tails, this part is a handy reference. The probabilistic interpretation of damage as a CDF of micro-strength is also a clean way to tell the story. The paper itself acknowledges that the radical and piecewise models reproduce earlier variational damage models (Refs. [22,37]), so the genuinely new component is mainly the catalog of less common CDFs.

The problems are load-bearing. Theorem 1 claims that every g with g(0)=0, g→1, and g′≥0 has finite fracture energy ∫_0^∞(1−g)<∞. That is false: g(η)=η/(1+η) satisfies all three hypotheses but the integral diverges. You need an explicit decay condition on the survival function, and the paper never states one. Theorem 2 is worse. The Γ-convergence claim is refuted by the constant sequence uλ(x)=x1: with the paper's saturation assumption F(s)=1 for s≥s_c, ψλ(t)=G/λ for every fixed t>s_c/λ, so Eλ(uλ)=G/λ|Ω|→0, while the claimed limit E∞(u)=+∞. The compactness proof fails for the same reason: a uniform energy bound does not force the approximate gradient to vanish, because ψλ saturates at a constant that tends to zero. And E∞ in Eq. (65) has no jump term at all; it assigns zero energy to every piecewise-constant function, so it is not a Griffith functional even formally. Theorem 3 inherits these failures, since it relies on the Theorem 2 compactness. The numerical benchmark is illustrative and points to a companion paper under review, so it cannot be independently assessed.

Who is this paper for? Computational fracture readers might get value from the catalog of damage laws and the probabilistic interpretation. But as a mathematical paper claiming Γ-convergence and well-posedness, it is not viable in this form. If an editor sends it to review, the referee should recommend rejection. The salvageable piece is a shorter note: drop the convergence and evolution claims, add the needed tail condition, and present the CDF catalog as a computational tool. I would not cite the analysis, and I would not give it serious referee time unless the theorems are revised.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a family of damage models whose stored-energy density is the integral of a survival function 1−F(s) for a cumulative distribution function F, and claims three main results: (i) every such law is thermodynamically admissible with finite fracture energy (Theorem 1); (ii) the corresponding scaled energies Γ-converge in L1 to a sharp-interface Griffith functional (Theorem 2); and (iii) rate-independent quasi-static evolutions exist (Theorem 3). A single 2D numerical benchmark is presented as illustration. The central analytical claims are contradicted by elementary counterexamples already present in the paper's own definitions.

Significance. If the three theorems were correct, the paper would provide a useful probabilistic-to-continuum bridge between CDF-generated softening laws and sharp-interface fracture, and the explicit energy densities in Sections 4 and Appendix C would be valuable for computational damage mechanics. The paper does contain many explicit formulas, 1D stress-strain computations, and a physically appealing interpretation of damage as a cumulative failure probability. However, the main analytical results are not merely unproven; Theorem 1 is false as stated, and Theorem 2 is internally inconsistent with a constant-gradient recovery sequence. Since the existence result Theorem 3 relies on Theorem 2's compactness, the paper's central claims fail. The remaining numerical example cannot compensate for the collapse of the analytical core.

major comments (5)

[Theorem 1, Eq. (15)-(16)] The claim that monotonicity, boundedness, g(0)=0, and lim g=1 imply finite fracture energy ∫0∞(1−g)dη<∞ is false. The function g(η)=η/(1+η) satisfies all assumptions in Eq. (15) but gives 1−g(η)=1/(1+η), whose integral over [0,∞) diverges. The proof's assertion that boundedness plus monotone convergence implies integrability is incorrect; monotone convergence to 0 does not force a decay rate. This invalidates the admissibility theorem as stated.
[Theorem 2, Eq. (60)-(65)] The Γ-convergence claim is internally contradicted by the constant sequence uλ(x)=x1 on a bounded domain Ω. Under the saturation assumption F(s)=1 for s≥sc, the integrand satisfies ψλ(t)=G/λ for all t≥sc/λ, with G=∫0^{sc}(1−F(s))ds, so sup_t ψλ(t)=G/λ→0. Hence Eλ(uλ)=G/λ |Ω|→0 while uλ→u(x)=x1 strongly in L1 and ∇^a u=e1, so E∞(u)=+∞ by Eq. (65). The Γ-liminf inequality fails for this admissible, constant sequence. The compactness assertion in Eq. (64) is also false: a uniform bound on Eλ cannot force |∇^a u| to vanish, because the energy controls only a vanishing prefactor times the measure of nonzero-gradient regions, not a penalty on large gradients. The proof's statement that ψλ saturates at the value 1 is incorrect; it saturates at G/λ.
[Eq. (65)] The limiting functional E∞(u)=0 if ∇^a u=0 a.e. and +∞ otherwise is not a Griffith functional, even formally. It assigns zero energy to every SBV function with vanishing approximate gradient, regardless of the size, location, or jump height of its jump set J_u. A Griffith fracture energy must contain a surface term such as ∫_{J_u} γ([u]) dH^{d-1}, analogous to the dissipation in Eq. (68). The claimed Γ-limit contains no surface term, so the title claim of Γ-convergence to Griffith fracture is not established even in the formal sense.
[Theorem 2, Eq. (60); Sections 2 and 4; Appendices A-C] The saturation assumption F(s)=1 for all s≥sc excludes essentially every distribution introduced in the paper: the exponential, Cauchy, logistic, half-normal, Gudermannian, hypergeometric, radical, rational, piecewise, and rapid-decay CDFs all satisfy F(s)<1 for every finite s. Replacing Eq. (60) by the weaker finite-energy condition ∫0∞(1−F)ds<∞ does not repair the proof, because the counterexample uλ=x1 still applies to the exponential CDF, for which ψλ(t)=λ^{-1}(1−e^{-λt}). Consequently Theorem 2, and any result depending on it, does not cover the damage laws that are the paper's subject.
[Theorem 3, Section 6] The proof of Theorem 3 invokes Theorem 2 for sequential L1-compactness of sublevel sets of Eλ and for lower semicontinuity. Since the compactness assertion in Theorem 2 is false, the existence argument collapses. Moreover, for fixed λ the energy Eλ is uniformly bounded by (G/λ)|Ω| and contains no term that controls the jump set, so the claimed coercivity in the SBV sense is not present; the direct-method step in Eq. (71) is therefore unsupported.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section 1] The abstract and introduction repeatedly state that the paper establishes Γ-convergence to a Griffith functional; these statements should be revised to reflect the actual limiting functional and the validity conditions of the theorems.
[Section 2.1, Eq. (4)] The phrase 'monolithic non-decreasing function' should be 'monotonically non-decreasing function'; there are several similar wording and typographical errors throughout, e.g., 'denstiy' in Eq. (29) and 'refered' in Section 2.
[Section 4.1, Eq. (29)] The CDF F(x)=min(x^n,1) is not C^1 at x=1, so it does not satisfy the smoothness assumption of Theorem 1; this mismatch should be noted if Theorem 1 is intended to cover the models in Section 4.
[Section 5, proof of Theorem 2] The proof of the Γ-limsup inequality is only sketched and contains internal inconsistencies: the recovery sequence is described as having energy '≈0·(width)' while also 'ψλ saturates at the finite value G'; the two statements are incompatible because the saturation value is G/λ, not G.
[Appendix C.6, Eq. (C.33)] The rational-distribution damage model in Eq. (C.33) has ψ(0)=0 but its Taylor expansion in Eq. (C.34) contains a linear term with coefficient 1 only after re-scaling; the expansion as written is inconsistent with the definition unless n=1, so this should be checked.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

A definitional admissibility theorem, but the central Gamma-convergence claim is an internal mathematical error rather than a circular reduction.

self definitional [Section 3.4, Theorem 1 and Remark 1 (Eqs. 15-16)]
"Suppose (i) g(0)=0,(ii)lim_{η→∞}g(η)=1,(iii) g'(η)≥0∀η>0 (15) Then d:=g(η) is (a) bounded, (b) monotonically non-decreasing, and (c) yields a finite fracture energy ∫_0^∞(1−g(η))dη<∞. ... A cumulative distribution function satisfies Eq.15 by definition, hence every CDF is an admissible degradation map."

The hypotheses (i)-(iii) are exactly the defining properties of a CDF on [0,∞). The conclusion that d is bounded and monotone therefore restates the input definition rather than deriving a new property; the label 'admissible' for (a)-(b) is the definition of CDF behavior. Property (c) does not follow from (i)-(iii) — bounded monotone survival functions need not be integrable — so the claim 'every CDF is admissible' is either definitional for (a)-(b) or an unproved integrability assumption for (c). No independent mechanism is introduced.

full rationale

The only step that reduces by construction is Theorem 1/Remark 1: admissibility for monotonicity and boundedness is the CDF definition restated. The central Gamma-convergence result (Theorem 2) is not circular in the sense of conclusion-equals-input: the claimed compactness and Gamma-liminf fail because under Eq.(60) the scaled integrand satisfies ψλ(t)=G/λ for t≥s_c/λ, so Eλ(x1)→0 while E∞(x1)=+∞; that is a mathematical contradiction, not a fitted-input or self-citation reduction. The compact-support assumption Eq.(60) excludes several laws introduced earlier, again a scope/correctness gap rather than circularity. Calibration of ℓ from experimental peak stress (Eqs.43,51,57,C.7,C.14,C.21,C.31) is explicitly disclosed, not a hidden prediction. Self-citations to the author's variational-damage papers ([22],[37]) identify equivalences but do not carry the analytical proofs; the energetic-solution argument rests on standard references ([25]-[28]). Hence the circularity score is low despite serious correctness concerns.

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

The paper's central results rest on several unstated or false assumptions: the finite-fracture-energy assertion in Theorem 1 is false, Theorem 2 requires compact-support saturation that excludes most proposed laws, Theorem 3 assumes the abstract energetic framework's hypotheses without verification, and model coefficients are fixed by imposing saturation or by fitting the experimental peak stress. No new physical entities are introduced; the new distributions are mathematical definitions.

free parameters (4)

internal length scale ℓ (or ratio G/ℓ) = e.g., G/ℓ = e σ_max^2/k (Eq.43); variants in Eqs.51,57,C.7,C.14,C.21,C.31
Chosen so each model reproduces the experimental peak stress σ_max; this is a calibration fit, not a derived quantity.
coefficient γ in ψ=∫0^φ [1-F(γs)]ds = γ=nℓ/((n+1)G) for F(x)=min(x^n,1); γ=ℓ/G for exponential model
Determined by imposing the saturation condition max(ψ)=G/ℓ, an ad hoc normalization rather than a first-principles derivation.
shape parameter n in radical, piecewise, rational, and hypergeometric distributions = n>0, unspecified; figures use n∈{0.2,0.5,1,2,5}
Free shape parameter controlling the softening response; no calibration rule or physical identification is given.
critical saturation energy s_c in Theorem 2 = undefined
Introduced ad hoc via F(s)=1 for s≥s_c; not satisfied by most CDFs proposed in the paper.

assumptions (6)

standard math SBV compactness theorem of Ambrosio-Fusco-Pallara and De Giorgi-Ambrosio (cited as [23,24])
Invoked in Theorem 2's compactness proof, but the energy Eλ provides no coercivity on the absolutely continuous gradient, so the theorem is misapplied.
standard math Abstract energetic solution existence theory of Mielke-Theil and Mainik-Mielke (cited as [25,26])
Invoked in Theorem 3, but the required compactness, lower semicontinuity, and coercivity hypotheses are not verified for this functional.
domain assumption Small-strain linear elasticity and spectral split of strain into tensile and compressive parts (Eqs.10-14)
Standard in phase-field and damage mechanics; imported without proof.
ad hoc to paper Rapid saturation of the CDF: F(s)=1 for all s≥s_c (Eq.60)
This compact-support restriction excludes the exponential, Cauchy, logistic, half-normal, and most other laws proposed in Sections 4 and Appendices.
ad hoc to paper Saturation calibration max(ψ)=G/ℓ used to fix γ and ℓ
A normalization chosen by hand so that the area under the stress-strain curve equals G/ℓ; it is not derived from microstructure or mechanics.
ad hoc to paper Finite fracture energy ∫0∞(1-g)dη<∞ asserted in Theorem 1
False for general monotone bounded maps; g(η)=η/(1+η) satisfies all stated conditions but has divergent integral.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CDF-Generated Damage Laws: Admissibility, Gamma-Convergence to Griffith Fracture, and Well-Posedness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5YV25WLF

@misc{pith2026250606949,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CDF-Generated Damage Laws: Admissibility, Gamma-Convergence to Griffith Fracture, and Well-Posedness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5YV25WLF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06949}
}

abstract

We formulate a family of scalar softening laws by setting the stored-energy density $\psi(\eta)=\int_{0}^{\eta}[1-F(s)]d s$, where $F$ ranges over exponential, Cauchy, logistic, half-normal, Gudermannian, hypergeometric, radical, rational, piece-wise, and rapid-decay cumulative-distribution functions (CDFs). We prove that every such law yields a degradation map that is monotone, bounded, and dissipative, rendering the associated hyperelastic material thermodynamically admissible. Working directly in spatial dimensions $d=2,3$, we establish compactness and $\Gamma$-convergence of the CDF-based energies to a sharp-interface Griffith functional. We further show the existence of rate-independent quasi-static evolutions by constructing global energetic solutions that satisfy both stability and energy balance. These analytical results provide a rigorous bridge between the probabilistic damage formulation and Griffith-type fracture mechanics. One illustrative example is presented to show the effectiveness of the current damage laws.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06949 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Piecewise distribution: (a) probability density function (b) cumulative distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Effective stress of damage model based on CDF F(x) = min(x n , 1) in 1D with G/ℓ = 1, k = 1 and n ∈ {0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5}. In the setting of 1D with assumption G/ℓ = 1, k = 1 and energy density ϕ = 1 2 kε 2 , we plot the graphs of damage function and effective stress in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Damage of damage model based on CDF F(x) = min(x n , 1) in 1D with G/ℓ = 1, k = 1 and n ∈ {0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Damage model based on exponential distribution in 1D with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Linear approximation of exponential damage model and Cauchy damage model when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Damage model based on Cauchy distribution in 1D with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Damage model by Eq.55 in 1D: (a) the effective stress versus strain; (b) the damage versus strain. 4.5. Counterexample based on Chi-square distribution In this section, we have derived four damage models from distinct probability distributions. More CDF-based damage mo…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Effective stress of the damage model based on Chi-square distribution in 1D. 5. Compactness and Γ-convergence of the CDF-based energy functional Theorem 2 (Compactness and Γ-convergence). Let Ω ⊂ R d (with d = 2, 3) be a bounded Lipschitz domain. Let F : [0, ∞) → [0, 1…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Single-edge-notched plate: (a) geometry and boundary conditions (unit: mm) ; (b) FEM coarse mesh; (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Damage distribution for the logistic-type model: (a) coarse mesh; (b) refined mesh. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Damage distribution for the half-normal-type model: (a) coarse mesh; (b) refined mesh. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Load–displacement curves of the SENT plate for five CDF-based damage models (coarse mesh). Compar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Mesh sensitivity study: load–displacement curves for four CDF-based models on coarse vs. refined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

Rupture time under creep conditions.Izv

L Kachanov. Rupture time under creep conditions.Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 8:26–31, 1958

work page 1958
[2]

Springer Science & Business Media, 1986

L Kachanov.Introduction to continuum damage mechanics, volume 10. Springer Science & Business Media, 1986

work page 1986
[3]

Continuum damage mechanics: Part i—general concepts

JL Chaboche. Continuum damage mechanics: Part i—general concepts. 1988

work page 1988
[4]

Springer science & business media, 2012

J Lemaitre.A course on damage mechanics. Springer science & business media, 2012

work page 2012
[5]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

S Murakami.Continuum damage mechanics: a continuum mechanics approach to the anal- ysis of damage and fracture, volume 185. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

work page 2012
[6]

Multi-scale constitutive modeling of ceramic matrix composites by continuum damage mechanics.International Journal of Solids and Structures, 51(23-24):4068–4081, 2014

A Shojaei, GQ Li, J Fish, and PJ Tan. Multi-scale constitutive modeling of ceramic matrix composites by continuum damage mechanics.International Journal of Solids and Structures, 51(23-24):4068–4081, 2014

work page 2014
[7]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

J Lemaitre and R Desmorat.Engineering damage mechanics: ductile, creep, fatigue and brittle failures. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

work page 2006
[8]

Springer, 2016

A Öchsner.Continuum damage mechanics. Springer, 2016

work page 2016

Show all 39 references

[9]

Mechanical modeling of material damage

S Murakami. Mechanical modeling of material damage. 1988

1988
[10]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

WH Zhang and YQ Cai.Continuum damage mechanics and numerical applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

2010
[11]

Quantum logic and probability theory

A Wilce. Quantum logic and probability theory. 2002

2002
[12]

Statistical size effect in quasi-brittle structures: I

Z P Bazant, YP Xi, and S G Reid. Statistical size effect in quasi-brittle structures: I. is weibull theory applicable?Journal of engineering Mechanics, 117(11):2609–2622, 1991

1991
[13]

Fluctuation-based fracture mechanics of heterogeneous materials.Physical Review E, 106(6):065003, 2022

T Mulla, RJM Pellenq, and FJ Ulm. Fluctuation-based fracture mechanics of heterogeneous materials.Physical Review E, 106(6):065003, 2022. 41

2022
[14]

N Guy, D M Seyedi, and F Hild. A probabilistic nonlocal model for crack initiation and propagation in heterogeneous brittle materials.International journal for numerical methods in engineering, 90(8):1053–1072, 2012

2012
[15]

Cambridge university press, 1998

S Suresh.Fatigue of materials. Cambridge university press, 1998

1998
[16]

A statistical distribution function of wide applicability.Journal of applied mechanics, 1951

W Weibull. A statistical distribution function of wide applicability.Journal of applied mechanics, 1951

1951
[17]

Routledge, 2019

Z P Bazant and J Planas.Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasi-brittle materi- als. Routledge, 2019

2019
[18]

Elsevier, 1996

D Krajcinovic.Damage mechanics, volume 41. Elsevier, 1996

1996
[19]

Thermodynamically Consistent Damage Models Derived from Cumulative Distri- bution Functions, with FEM Implementations

HL Ren. Thermodynamically Consistent Damage Models Derived from Cumulative Distri- bution Functions, with FEM Implementations. 2025. under review

2025
[20]

Routledge, 2018

B V Gnedenko.Theory of probability. Routledge, 2018

2018
[21]

Stockholms universitet, 1996

C Walck et al.Hand-book on statistical distributions for experimentalists. Stockholms universitet, 1996

1996
[22]

Variational damage model: a new paradigm for fractures.Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 19(1):1–21, 2025

HL Ren, T Rabczuk, and XY Zhuang. Variational damage model: a new paradigm for fractures.Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 19(1):1–21, 2025

2025
[23]

Oxford university press, 2000

L Ambrosio, N Fusco, and D Pallara.Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity problems. Oxford university press, 2000

2000
[24]

Springer Science & Business Media, 1993

G Dal Maso.An introduction to G-convergence. Springer Science & Business Media, 1993

1993
[25]

A mathematical model for rate-independent phase transformations with hysteresis

A Mielke and F Theil. A mathematical model for rate-independent phase transformations with hysteresis. InProceedings of the Workshop on “Models of Continuum Mechanics in Analysis and Engineering, pages 117–129, 1999

1999
[26]

Existence results for energetic models for rate-independent systems

A Mainik and A Mielke. Existence results for energetic models for rate-independent systems. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 22(1):73–100, 2005

2005
[27]

A rate-independent model for inelastic behavior of shape-memory alloys.Multiscale Modeling&Simulation, 1(4):571–597, 2003

A Mielke and T Roubícek. A rate-independent model for inelastic behavior of shape-memory alloys.Multiscale Modeling&Simulation, 1(4):571–597, 2003

2003
[28]

Quasistatic crack growth in nonlinear elasticity

G D Maso, G A Francfort, and R Toader. Quasistatic crack growth in nonlinear elasticity. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 176:165–225, 2005

2005
[29]

C Miehe, F Welschinger, and M Hofacker. Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: Variational principles and multi-field fe implementations.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 83(10):1273–1311, 2010. 42

2010
[30]

On the folded normal distribution.Mathematics, 2(1):12–28, 2014

M Tsagris, C Beneki, and H Hassani. On the folded normal distribution.Mathematics, 2(1):12–28, 2014

2014
[31]

CRC standard mathematical tables.West Palm Beach, 1978

W H Beyer. CRC standard mathematical tables.West Palm Beach, 1978

1978
[32]

The generalized gudermannian distribution: inference and volatility modelling

E Altun. The generalized gudermannian distribution: inference and volatility modelling. Statistics, 53(2):364–386, 2019

2019
[33]

Generalized hypergeometric, digamma and trigamma distributions.Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 31:373–390, 1979

M Sibuya. Generalized hypergeometric, digamma and trigamma distributions.Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 31:373–390, 1979

1979
[34]

Calculation methods for Wallenius’ noncentral hypergeometric distribution.Com- munications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation®, 37(2):258–273, 2008

A Fog. Calculation methods for Wallenius’ noncentral hypergeometric distribution.Com- munications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation®, 37(2):258–273, 2008

2008
[35]

JW Gibbs.Elementary principles in statistical mechanics: developed with especial reference to the rational foundations of thermodynamics. C. Scribner’s sons, 1902

1902
[36]

Academic press, 2011

GB Arfken, HJ Weber, and FE Harris.Mathematical methods for physicists: a comprehen- sive guide. Academic press, 2011

2011
[37]

Variational damage model: A novel consis- tent approach to fracture.Computers&Structures, 305:107518, 2024

HL Ren, XY Zhuang, HH Zhu, and T Rabczuk. Variational damage model: A novel consis- tent approach to fracture.Computers&Structures, 305:107518, 2024

2024
[38]

Hyperelasticity with softening for modeling materials failure.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 55(10):2237–2264, 2007

KY V olokh. Hyperelasticity with softening for modeling materials failure.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 55(10):2237–2264, 2007

2007
[39]

A new energy-based local damage model for dynamic analysis of cracks.Compu- tational Mechanics, pages 1–25, 2024

HT Tran. A new energy-based local damage model for dynamic analysis of cracks.Compu- tational Mechanics, pages 1–25, 2024. 43

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Rupture time under creep conditions.Izv

L Kachanov. Rupture time under creep conditions.Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 8:26–31, 1958

work page 1958

[2] [2]

Springer Science & Business Media, 1986

L Kachanov.Introduction to continuum damage mechanics, volume 10. Springer Science & Business Media, 1986

work page 1986

[3] [3]

Continuum damage mechanics: Part i—general concepts

JL Chaboche. Continuum damage mechanics: Part i—general concepts. 1988

work page 1988

[4] [4]

Springer science & business media, 2012

J Lemaitre.A course on damage mechanics. Springer science & business media, 2012

work page 2012

[5] [5]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

S Murakami.Continuum damage mechanics: a continuum mechanics approach to the anal- ysis of damage and fracture, volume 185. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

work page 2012

[6] [6]

Multi-scale constitutive modeling of ceramic matrix composites by continuum damage mechanics.International Journal of Solids and Structures, 51(23-24):4068–4081, 2014

A Shojaei, GQ Li, J Fish, and PJ Tan. Multi-scale constitutive modeling of ceramic matrix composites by continuum damage mechanics.International Journal of Solids and Structures, 51(23-24):4068–4081, 2014

work page 2014

[7] [7]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

J Lemaitre and R Desmorat.Engineering damage mechanics: ductile, creep, fatigue and brittle failures. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Springer, 2016

A Öchsner.Continuum damage mechanics. Springer, 2016

work page 2016