Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Energy-consistent dynamic fracture phase field models: unilateral constraints and finite element simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 unilateral contact is required for a dynamic phase-field fracture model to give physically plausible fault rupture under compression.

desk verdict A dynamic phase-field fracture model with unilateral contact plus formally correct energy identities, but the printed weak form drops the damaged shear stiffness, so the numerical payoff is not secured as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14788 v2 pith:36MRAPCE submitted 2025-05-27 math.NA cs.NA

Md Mamun Miah , Ryuhei Wakida , Masato Kimura This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6074R1035L0549J40
keywords dynamicfracturephasefieldmodelunilateralcontactconditionenergydissipationidentityelastodynamicwaveequationfaultrupturesimulationshear-drivencrackpropagationfiniteelementmethodirreversibledamage
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 is trying to establish that a dynamic phase-field fracture model built on the elastodynamic wave equation, once extended with a unilateral contact condition, correctly captures shear-dominated crack propagation in compression-dominated settings such as seismic fault rupture, while the unmodified model does not. The contact condition is implemented by splitting the stress into an expansion-and-shear part and a pure compression part, with damage weakening only the former, so fracture energy cannot be released by compressive overlapping of crack faces. For both the plain and contact models the authors formally derive an energy dissipation identity of the form $\frac{d}{dt}E = -\alpha \int_\Omega |\dot z|^2\,dx + \dot F$, and they support the claim with finite element simulations of an inclined crack under compression hit by an incoming P-wave. Their simulations show the plain model producing horizontal kink cracks driven by negative opening displacement, while the contact model produces oblique, fault-slip-like propagation. If correct, this means contact-aware modeling should be the default for dynamic fracture under high compressive stress.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unilateral stress split $\sigma = \sigma^{+} - \sigma^{-}$ based on the Jordan decomposition of the dilatation, $\mathrm{div}\,u = (\mathrm{div}\,u)_+ - (\mathrm{div}\,u)_-$. This split is the mechanism of contact: the damaged stress $\sigma^{\dagger}[u,z]=(1-z)^2\sigma^{+}[u]-\sigma^{-}[u]$ and the damage driving energy $W_{+}(u)=\sigma^{+}[u]:e[u]$ let only expansion and shear degrade as damage grows, while pure compression keeps full stiffness, preventing interpenetration. The formal energy dissipation identity for the contact model is carried by identity (3.6), the time derivative of the elastic energy involving $\sigma^{\dagger}$, which the paper cites to an in-preparation companion work [34] under stronger regularity assumptions. Numerically, the scheme is carried by a frozen-coefficient splitting $\xi[u](x)=1$ where $\mathrm{div}\,u(x)\ge 0$ and $0$ otherwise, so each time step solves a linear elliptic problem with unique solution by the Lax-Milgram theorem.

What would settle it

Compute both sides of identity (3.6) from a sufficiently resolved simulation of the contact model, approximating the left side by finite differences of the elastic energy in time and the right side from the discrete fields; if the two sides do not converge to equality as mesh and time step shrink, the energy-consistency claim for the contact model fails. Independently, extract the normal component of the displacement jump across the crack faces in the two simulations: if the plain model shows no negative opening while the contact model does, or if both interpenetrate to the same degree, the central numerical claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, its central discovery is that replacing the damaged elastic stress $\sigma[u,z]=(1-z)^2\sigma[u]$ with the one-sided stress $\sigma^{\dagger}[u,z]=(1-z)^2\sigma^{+}[u]-\sigma^{-}[u]$, and the crack driving energy $W(u)$ with $W_{+}(u)=\sigma^{+}[u]:e[u]$, removes nonphysical crack-face interpenetration while preserving the model's energetic structure. Here $\sigma^{+}$ collects the spherical expansion part $\lambda_*(\mathrm{div}\,u)_+ I$ together with the deviatoric shear $2\mu e_D[u]$, while $\sigma^{-}$ collects the compression $\lambda_*(\mathrm{div}\,u)_- I$; damage multiplies only $\sigma^{+}$, so compression keeps full elastic stiffness. The paper states the formal energy dissipation identity $\frac{d}{dt}E^{\dagger} = -\alpha \int_\Omega |\dot z|^2\,dx + \dot F^{\dagger}$ for this contact model, alongside the corresponding identity for the plain DF-PFM, and presents two-dimensional finite element simulations in which the plain model produces kink-type horizontal cracks under compression while the contact model produces delayed oblique shear-driven rupture along the initial crack direction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the time derivative of the elastic energy containing the non-smooth terms $(\mathrm{div}\,u)_+$ and $(\mathrm{div}\,u)_-$ can be taken term by term, an identity the paper states as (3.6) and delegates to an in-preparation companion manuscript rather than proving here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standard irreversible DF-PFM should not be trusted for compression-dominated dynamic fracture; the simulations indicate it can produce negative opening displacements and horizontal kink cracks that have no physical counterpart.
  • The contact model delays crack initiation relative to the plain model, and the resulting oblique, shear-driven crack path matches the expected fault-slip mechanism under an incident P-wave.
  • Both models obey the same formal energy dissipation structure, so the contact modification does not sacrifice thermodynamic consistency while removing compressive driving of damage.
  • The linear implicit time-discrete scheme with the frozen $\xi$ split provides a straightforward P1 finite element implementation with uniquely solvable linear steps, suitable for extending the approach.
  • The same framework is claimed to be extendable to fluid-driven fracture, thermal cracking, and desiccation damage in geomaterials, where compressive contact across crack faces also matters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if identity (3.6) is proved rigorously in the companion manuscript, the same energy-consistency argument likely generalizes to other strain-based splits such as spectral decompositions of the strain tensor, giving a template for contact-aware phase-field models beyond the isotropic split used here.
  • Beyond the paper, a quantitative check the authors leave implicit is measuring the normal gap across the crack faces in the two simulations; if the plain model interpenetrates and the contact model does not, the mechanism behind the different crack paths is directly confirmed.
  • Beyond the paper, the delayed crack initiation observed in the contact model implies that rupture speed and radiated seismic waves may differ materially from plain-model predictions, a testable consequence for earthquake rupture simulations.
  • Beyond the paper, because the contact model treats crack faces as frictionless, coupling the split with rate-and-state friction laws is a natural next step for which this formulation provides the elastic backbone.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a dynamic extension of an irreversible phase-field fracture model (DF-PFM) and a variant with a unilateral contact condition based on a tensile/shear-compression split. It formally derives energy dissipation identities of the form dE/dt = -alpha * integral |dz/dt|^2 + external power for both models (Theorems 2.1 and 3.2), introduces a linear-implicit time discretization with weak forms (Section 4), and presents two-dimensional FreeFEM/P1 simulations of a compressed fault with an inclined crack hit by a P-wave (Section 5). The reported numerical results show horizontal kink-type crack growth for the standard model and oblique fault-slip-like propagation for the contact model, leading the authors to conclude that the unilateral contact condition is essential under high-compression, seismically relevant loading.

Significance. If established, the paper would provide a useful energy-consistent formulation and a practical discretization for contact-aware dynamic phase-field fracture, relevant to seismic fault rupture. The strengths include a clean formal calculation for the standard model in Theorem 2.1, an explicit linear-implicit scheme, and a well-motivated numerical test problem. However, two load-bearing gaps compromise the central claims: the proof of Theorem 3.2 relies on identity (3.6), which is only cited to an unpublished same-group manuscript [34], and the displayed weak form (4.5) for the contact model is inconsistent with the continuous and semidiscrete equations. Because these issues affect both the theoretical energy-consistency result and the numerical validation, the manuscript in its present form does not yet support the abstract's main claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Theorem 3.2 and Eq. (3.6)] The proof of the energy-dissipation identity for the unilateral-contact model hinges entirely on identity (3.6), but the manuscript does not prove it; it states only that this identity 'has been demonstrated in [34]' under more stringent regularity assumptions, where [34] is an in-preparation manuscript by the same research group. As written, the central theorem of the paper is therefore not established for the reader. A direct calculation for sufficiently smooth solutions appears to support the identity, so the gap is likely fixable, but the authors must include the proof or a precise statement with full assumptions rather than citing unpublished work.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4.5)] The weak form displayed in (4.5) is not the weak form of the discrete momentum equation (4.4a). The integration-by-parts calculation immediately above (4.5) yields integral [eta_{k-1} (div u_k)(div v) + 2 mu (1 - z_{k-1})^2 e[u_k]:e[v]] dx for the first term, but (4.5) omits the factor 2 mu (1 - z_{k-1})^2 multiplying e[u_k]:e[v]. If the implementation follows the displayed formula, the damaged shear stiffness is incorrect and the computed crack patterns do not validate model (3.2). The authors must correct the weak form and state explicitly which expression was actually used in the FreeFEM code.
  3. [Section 5 and Section 6] Because of the weak-form inconsistency in (4.5), the numerical experiments in Section 5 cannot currently be taken as evidence for the central claim that the unilateral contact condition changes the crack path from horizontal kink growth to oblique shear-dominated rupture. The authors should rerun the simulations with the corrected weak form and report whether the qualitative difference persists. It would also strengthen the paper to report mesh sizes, element counts, and a basic convergence check in tau and h, and to verify that the discrete solutions approximately satisfy the energy identities (2.10) and (3.5).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4.5)] In the inertia term of (4.5), 'u_k v dx' should read 'u_k . v dx' to indicate the vector inner product; the corresponding term in (4.3) is written correctly.
  2. [Author line] The second author's name appears as 'Ryuhei W akida' with an unintended space; it should be 'Ryuhei Wakida'.
  3. [Section 2, proof of Theorem 2.1] In Eq. (2.15), the boundary integral is written as 'dS' in the first expression and 'ds' in the following line; the surface measure notation should be unified.
  4. [Section 5.1] The authors acknowledge that the initial and boundary conditions are not consistent and state that the compressive boundary conditions begin at k = 2. This inconsistency should be discussed more fully, since it may introduce initial transients that affect the reported wave propagation and crack-initiation times.
  5. [Conclusion, Section 7] The conclusion states that the energy dissipation identities were 'established', whereas the theorems are explicitly formal and Theorem 3.2 depends on an unproved identity; the summary language should be aligned with the formal status of the derivations.
  6. [Section 3, Theorem 3.2] The order of arguments in E^dagger(u(t),z(t),t) in Theorem 3.2 differs from the definition E^dagger(t,u,v,z) given in Section 3; please make the notation consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The unilateral-contact model's energy-dissipation identity is not proven in-house: the key nonsmooth identity (3.6) is attributed to Ref. [34], an in-preparation manuscript by the same authors, making the theorem's main support a load-bearing self-citation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, proof of Theorem 3.2 (Eq. (3.6), Ref. [34])]
    "It is important to note that, in accordance with (2.11), the subsequent equality d/dt(1/2∫Ω σ†[u,z]:e[u]dx) = ∫Ω(σ†[u,z]:e[˙u]−(1−z)˙zW+(u))dx is valid for a.e. t∈(0,T). This conclusion has been demonstrated in [34] under more stringent assumptions regarding the regularity of the solution."

    Theorem 3.2 is the paper's central theoretical result for the unilateral-contact model, and its proof needs the time-derivative identity (3.6) for the nonsmooth elastic energy with σ†. The paper does not prove this identity; it refers to [34], an in-preparation paper by Ounissi, Miah, Alfat, and Kimura—the same research group, including two of the present authors. That cited work is unpublished and not independently verifiable here, so the energy-consistency conclusion of the contact model depends on a self-citation rather than on a proof contained in the paper or an external mathematical result. This is load-bearing, not a peripheral reference.

full rationale

The standard DF-PFM energy identity (Theorem 2.1) is derived from the model equations by integration by parts and elementary algebra, so it is self-contained. The unilateral-contact theorem (Theorem 3.2), however, rests on identity (3.6), which the paper explicitly states 'has been demonstrated in [34]'—an in-preparation same-group manuscript—rather than proving it. Since the theorem's entire proof is built on this identity, the formal energy-consistency claim for the contact model is supported by a self-citation loop. That said, the paper's numerical experiments are actual FreeFEM runs and the comparison between the two models has independent content, so the overall circularity is partial rather than complete. I also note a separate non-circular correctness risk: the displayed weak form (4.5) omits the factor 2μ(1−z)² that appears in the preceding derivation, so the implementation may not solve the claimed model; this is a consistency/implementation defect, not a circularity, and it does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical identity contains no fitted constants and is an algebraic consequence of the model, which is good. The numerical demonstration introduces hand-chosen parameters and one manually selected pre-crack displacement. The main circularity burden is the unproven identity (3.6), which is delegated to the in-preparation companion paper [34] by the same group, and the general reliance on the authors' own prior irreversible-gradient-flow framework.

free parameters (5)
  • Nondimensional material parameters (E_Y, nu_P, gamma_*, rho, alpha, epsilon) = E_Y=50, nu_P=0.29, gamma_*=0.5, rho=5e-4, alpha=1e-4, epsilon=0.01
    Chosen without calibration or sensitivity study; the qualitative conclusions are not shown to be robust to these choices.
  • Time increment tau = 2e-5
    Chosen for the linear implicit scheme; no temporal convergence study is reported.
  • Initial compressive displacement a = 0.240
    Fixed to the displacement just before crack initiation in the compression test; the selection criterion is not detailed.
  • P-wave amplitude = 0.01
    Chosen for the incoming wave; no justification or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Initial crack orientation angle theta = pi/4
    Geometry choice for the fault setup; dependence of the results on this angle is not studied.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Linear elasticity with stress sigma = C e and coercivity of C (condition 2.1)
    Used throughout as the mechanical background; not validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Irreversibility via the positive-part unidirectional gradient flow, after Akagi-Kimura [1] and Kimura-Negri [20]
    This is the modeling choice in (2.4b) that makes cracks irreversible, and it is adopted from prior literature rather than derived here.
  • standard math Jordan decomposition of div u into positive and negative parts for the unilateral contact split
    Used to define sigma_+ and sigma_- in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Sufficient solution regularity for formal differentiation and integration by parts in Theorems 2.1 and 3.2
    Explicitly assumed in Remark 3.1 and in the proof of Theorem 2.1; no weak-solution regularity is established.
  • ad hoc to paper Identity (3.6), the time derivative of the elastic energy with sigma-dagger, holds a.e. as stated in [34]
    The proof of Theorem 3.2 relies on this non-smooth chain rule, which is not proved in the present text and is attributed to an in-preparation same-group manuscript.
  • standard math Coercivity of the discrete bilinear forms so that Lax-Milgram applies to (4.3) and (4.5)
    Stated in Section 4; assumes the elastic coefficients remain coercive after damage and contact splitting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy-consistent dynamic fracture phase field models: unilateral constraints and finite element simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/36MRAPCE

@misc{pith2026250614788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy-consistent dynamic fracture phase field models: unilateral constraints and finite element simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/36MRAPCE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14788}
}
read the original abstract

Phase field models have emerged as a powerful and flexible framework for simulating complex interface-driven phenomena across a wide range of scientific and engineering applications. In fracture mechanics, the phase field approach--formulated as a gradient flow of the Griffith fracture energy with Ambrosio-Tortorelli regularization--has gained significant attention for its ability to capture complex crack topologies. In this study, we propose a dynamic fracture phase field model (DF-PFM) based on the elastodynamic wave equation. We further extend this framework by incorporating a unilateral contact condition, yielding a refined model suitable for simulating fault rupture under high pressure. For both models, we formally derive energy dissipation identities under mixed boundary conditions, providing insights into the energetic structure of the formulations. To validate the proposed approach, we conduct numerical experiments using linear implicit time discretization and finite element methods. Our simulations demonstrate that the unilateral contact condition is essential for accurately capturing shear-dominated crack propagation and preventing non-physical interpenetration, especially under high-compression loading scenarios relevant to seismic faulting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14788 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Setup of the domain, boundary conditions, and initial crack. (a) Initial compression test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation results of wave propagation using DF-PFM (top) and DF-PFM with a uni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Cont.) Simulation results of wave propagation using DF-PFM (top) and DF-PFM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Cont.) Simulation results of wave propagation using DF-PFM (top) and DF-PFM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation results of crack propagation using DF-PFM (top) and DF-PFM with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Cont.) Simulation results of crack propagation using DF-PFM (top) and DF-PFM with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Ounissi, M

    O. Ounissi, M. M. Miah, S. Alfat, M. Kimura: Fracture phase field model with unilateral contact condition and energy dissipation identity, in preparation

    work page

  2. [1]

    Akagi, M

    G. Akagi, M. Kimura: Unidirectional evolution equations of diffusion type, J. Diff. Eq. 266 (1) (2019) 1–43

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Alessi, S

    R. Alessi, S. Vidoli, L. De Lorenzis: A phenomenological approach to fatigue with a variational phase-field model: The one-dimensional case, Eng. Fract. Mech. 190 (2018) 53–73

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    S. Alfat: On energy-consistency principle of PFM for thermal fracturing in thermoviscoelasticity solids and its application for modeling thermal response due to crack growth based on adaptive mesh technique, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 175(2024), 107-118

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    S. M. Allen, J. W. Cahn: Ground state structures in ordered binary alloys with second neighbor interactions, Acta Met 20(1972), 423–433

    work page 1972

  6. [5]

    Ambrosio, M

    L. Ambrosio, M. Tortorelli: On the approximation of free discontinuity problems, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. B, 7 (1992), 105–123

    work page 1992

  7. [6]

    Amor, J.-J

    H. Amor, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini: Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical experiments, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 57 (8) (2009) 1209–1229

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    Arriaga, H

    M. Arriaga, H. Waisman: Combined stability analysis of phase-field dynamic fracture and shear band localization, Int. J. Plast. 96 (2017) 81–119

    work page 2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Borden, C.V

    M.J. Borden, C.V. Verhoosel, M.A. Scott, T.J.R. Hughes, C.M. Landis: A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture, Computer Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 217 (2012) 77–95

    2012

  2. [9]

    Bourdin, G.A

    B. Bourdin, G.A. Francfort, J.J. Marigo: Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48 (4) (2000) 797–826

    2000

  3. [10]

    Caginalp: Stefan and Hele-Shaw type models as asymptotic limits of the phase-field equations

    G. Caginalp: Stefan and Hele-Shaw type models as asymptotic limits of the phase-field equations. Phys. Rev. A 39(1989), 5887–5896

    1989

  4. [11]

    J. W. Cahn, J. E. Hilliard: Free energy of a nonuniform system. I. Interfacial free energy. J. Chem. Phys. 28 (1958), 258–267

    1958

  5. [12]

    P. G. Ciarlet: The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems. Studies in Mathematics and its Applications, North Holland, (1978)

    1978

  6. [13]

    C. Comi, U. Perego: Fracture energy based bi-dissipative damage model for concrete. Int. J. Solids. Struct. 38(36-37) (2001) 6427-6454

    2001

  7. [14]

    Francfort, J.-J

    G. Francfort, J.-J. Marigo: Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem, J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 46 (8) (1998) 1319–1342

    1998

  8. [15]

    Freddi, G

    F. Freddi, G. Royer-Carfagni: Regularized variational theories of fracture: a unified approach, J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 58(8) (2010) 1154-1174. Md Mamun Miah, Ryuhei W akidaand Masato Kimura 19

    2010

  9. [16]

    Guo and S-Q

    X.H. Guo and S-Q. Shi, X.Q. Ma: Elastoplastic phase field model for microstructure evolution, Applied Physics Letters 87(2005), 221910

    2005

  10. [17]

    Hecht: New development in FreeFem++

    F. Hecht: New development in FreeFem++. Journal of Numerical Mathematics, 20(3-4) (2012) 251-266

    2012

  11. [18]

    Henry, H

    H. Henry, H. Levine: Dynamic instabilities of fracture under biaxial strain using a phase field model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93(10) (2004) 105504

    2004

  12. [19]

    Karma, D.A

    A. Karma, D.A. Kessler, H. Levine: Phase-field model of mode III dynamic fracture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (4) (2001) 045501

    2001

  13. [20]

    Kimura and M

    M. Kimura and M. Negri: Weak solutions for unidirectional gradient flows: existence, uniqueness, and convergence of time discretization schemes, Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications NoDEA 28 (2021) Article number 59

    2021

  14. [21]

    Kimura, T

    M. Kimura, T. Takaishi, S. Alfat, T. Nakano, Y. Tanaka: Irreversible phase field models for crack growth in industrial applications: thermal stress, viscoelasticity, hydrogen embrittlement, SN Applied Sciences 3,9 (2021), 781-143

    2021

  15. [22]

    Kimura, T

    M. Kimura, T. Takaishi, Y. Tanaka: What is the physical origin of the gradient flow structure of variational fracture models?, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 382 (2024), 20230297

    2024

  16. [23]

    Kobayashi: Modeling and numerical simulations of dendritic crystal growth, Physica D 63(1993), 410–423

    R. Kobayashi: Modeling and numerical simulations of dendritic crystal growth, Physica D 63(1993), 410–423

    1993

  17. [24]

    Y. Leng, L. Svolos, I. Boureima, G. Manzini, J. N. Plohr, H. M. Mourad: Arbitrary order virtual element methods for high-order phase-field modeling of dynamic fracture, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2024, e7605

    2024

  18. [25]

    Y.C. Li, T.T. Yu, C. Xing, S. Natarajan: Crack growth in homogeneous media using an adaptive isogeometric fourth-order phase-field model, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 413 (2023) 116122

    2023

  19. [26]

    Y. Liu, C. Cheng, V. Ziaei-Rad, Y. Shen: A micromechanics-informed phase field model for brittle fracture accounting for unilateral constraint, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 241 (2021), 107358

    2021

  20. [27]

    Y. Liu, Y. Feng, D. Wu, X. Chen, W. Gao: Virtual modelling integrated phase field method for dynamic fracture analysis, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 252(2023), 108372

    2023

  21. [28]

    Mandal, V.P

    T.K. Mandal, V.P. Nguyen, J.Y. Wu, C. Nguyen-Thanh, A. de Vaucorbeil: Fracture of thermo-elastic solids: Phase-field modeling and new results with an efficient monolithic solver, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 376 (2021) 113648

    2021

  22. [29]

    Miehe, M

    C. Miehe, M. Hofacker, L.M. Sch ¨anzel, 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, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 294 (2015) 486–522

    2015

  23. [30]

    Miehe, S

    C. Miehe, 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, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 304 (2016) 619–655

    2016

  24. [31]

    Nguyen, J

    T.T. Nguyen, J. Yvonnet, M.Bornert, and C. Chateau: Initiation and propagation of complex 3D networks of cracks in heterogeneous quasi-brittle materials: direct comparison between in situ testing-microCT experiments and phase field simulations, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 95 (2016) 320–350

    2016

  25. [32]

    Nguyen, J

    T-T. Nguyen, J. Yvonnet, D. Waldmann, Q-C. He: Modelling of interfacial crack propagation in strongly hetero- geneous materials by using phase field method, Proceedings of the 8th GACM Colloquium on Computational Mechanics for Young Scientists from Academia and Industry, Augus...

    2019

  26. [33]

    Nguyen, J

    T-T. Nguyen, J. Yvonnet, D. Waldmann, Q-C. He: Implementation of a new strain split to model unilateral contact within the phase field method, Int J Numer Methods Eng. 121(2020) 4717–4733

    2020

  27. [35]

    Rudshaug, T

    J. Rudshaug, T. Børvik, O. S. Hopperstad: Modeling brittle crack propagation for varying critical load levels: a dynamic phase-field approach, International Journal of Fracture, 245(1) (2024), 57-73

    2024

  28. [36]

    Schl¨ uter, A

    A. Schl¨ uter, A. Willenb¨ ucher, C. Kuhn, R. M¨ uller: Phase field approximation of dynamic brittle fracture, Compu- tational Mechanics, 54(2014), 1141–1161

    2014

  29. [37]

    Z. Si, T. Yu, Hirshikesh, S. Natarajan: An adaptive multi-patch isogeometric phase-field model for dynamic brittle fracture, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 153 (2024), 1-19

    2024

  30. [38]

    Takaishi, M

    T. Takaishi, M. Kimura: Phase field model for mode III crack growth in two dimensional elasticity, Kybernetika 45(4) (2009), 605-614. 20 Energy-consistent dynamic fracture models with contact

    2009

  31. [39]

    Teichtmeister, D

    S. Teichtmeister, D. Kienle, F. Aldakheel, M.A. Keip: Phase field modeling of fracture in anisotropic brittle solids, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 97 (2017) 1–21

    2017

  32. [40]

    Xing, T.T

    C. Xing, T.T. Yu, Y.L. Sun, Y.X. Wang: An adaptive phase-field model with variable node elements for fracture of hyperelastic materials at large deformations, Eng. Fract. Mech. 281 (2023) 109115

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zhang, T.Q

    T. Zhang, T.Q. Bui, T. Yu, Y. Li, S. Natarajan: Quasi-static thermoelastic fracture: Adaptive phase-field modeling with variable-node elements, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 124 (2023) 103811

    2023

Pith tools

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