Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

A variational approach to fracture incorporating any convex strength criterion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper builds any closed convex strength criterion into a variational phase-field fracture model, and derives the cohesive crack law that emerges as the sharp-interface limit.

desk verdict A genuinely useful extension of phase-field fracture to arbitrary convex strength criteria, with the sharp-interface limit honestly labeled formal rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22558 v1 pith:IZPRQHF3 submitted 2025-06-27 physics.app-ph

Blaise Bourdin , Jean-Jacques Marigo , Corrado Maurini , Camilla Zolesi This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-ph MSC 74R1074C0574G65 PACS 46.50.+a
keywords phase-fieldfractureconvexstrengthcriterioncohesivecrackMohr'scirclesintrinsicdomainvariationallimitanalysissharp-interface
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to build a single variational theory of fracture that can encode any closed convex strength criterion — von Mises, Tresca, Drucker-Prager, Mohr-Coulomb, with or without tension cut-offs — while still producing a Griffith-type surface energy for fully developed cracks. In the proposed phase-field model, the damage variable does not degrade the elastic stiffness; instead it shrinks the admissible stress domain toward zero, so that the elastic energy grows only linearly outside the strength domain. The central result is that, in a fundamental cube problem, a transverse cohesive crack nucleates and grows exactly when the loading direction is compatible with displacement jumps, a condition that, for isotropic criteria, is read off the Mohr representation of the stress. The paper then postulates the sharp-interface limit and derives an explicit cohesive law whose parameters come from the strength domain itself. If the construction is correct, crack nucleation (strength), crack propagation (toughness), damage, plasticity, and limit analysis are unified in one variational framework.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the closed convex strength domain $K_0$ and its normal cone. A stress state $\sigma\in\partial K_0$ admits a displacement jump exactly when some outer normal is a symmetrized tensor product $\nu=d\odot n$ of a jump direction $d$ and a crack normal $n$, with $d\cdot n\ge 0$ encoding non-interpenetration. For isotropic criteria the paper recasts this condition in Mohr's representation: the set of admissible traction vectors on any plane is a surface of revolution, the intrinsic domain, which is the envelope of all Mohr's circles, and jumps are possible exactly at stress states whose stress vector lies on the boundary of that domain. The paper shows that the support function of this intrinsic domain, evaluated on the Mohr components of a displacement jump, equals $H_{K_0}(n\odot\llbracket u\rrbracket)$, the stress-space support function applied to the symmetrized jump; this quantity is what converts the phase-field energy into the cohesive law of the sharp-interface limit.

What would settle it

Compute the $\Gamma$-limit of the phase-field energy (24) in three-dimensional vector elasticity: if minimizers converge to a limiting energy different from (9) — for instance, if the surface term depends on the full phase-field profile rather than only on the rescaled pair $(\hat k,\hat\alpha)$, or if the Cantor part of the strain contributes — the central claim fails. A cheaper test: run the phase-field model on the cube with a von Mises strength domain under uniaxial tension; the paper predicts that the homogeneous solution remains stable and no crack nucleates, so observing a nucleated transverse crack in that simulation would falsify the compatibility criterion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that fracture with an arbitrary closed convex strength criterion can be captured by a variational phase-field energy in which the phase-field variable leaves the elastic stiffness untouched and instead contracts the admissible stress set: $E_\ell(u,p,\alpha)=\int_\Omega\big[\tfrac12 A_0(\varepsilon(u)-p)\cdot(\varepsilon(u)-p)+k(\alpha)H_{K_0}(p)\big]\,dV+\frac{G_c}{4c_w}\int_\Omega\big[\tfrac{w(\alpha)}{\ell}+\ell|\nabla\alpha|^2\big]\,dV$. In a model problem on a cube loaded by a prescribed average strain along a stress direction $s$, whenever the outer normal $\nu_s$ to $\partial K_0$ at the yield point $\sigma_c^s s$ is of the form $\nu_s=d\odot n$ — a direction compatible with a displacement jump — the paper constructs an explicit solution in which the plastic strain concentrates as a measure on a cross-section of the cube, the damage attains its maximum there, and the stress decreases as the opening grows: the nucleation and progressive evolution of a cohesive crack. For isotropic criteria the same condition becomes the statement that the stress vector reaches the boundary of the intrinsic domain, the envelope of Mohr's circles, which yields a hierarchy in which fracture is never, sometimes, or always possible depending on the criterion. Postulating the sharp-interface limit, the paper derives the cohesive surface energy $\phi(\llbracket u\rrbracket,\hat\alpha)=\hat k(\hat\alpha)H_{K_0}(n\odot\llbracket u\rrbracket)+G_c\hat\alpha$ on the jump set, with a bulk energy $\psi_0(\varepsilon)$ of linear growth, so that strength, toughness, and damage are fixed by a single variational construction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that, as the regularization length goes to zero, the phase-field energy truly converges to the cohesive limit energy the paper writes down — a $\Gamma$-convergence statement that is postulated, not proven, and that the paper itself describes as being 'for a large part formal.'

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any closed convex strength domain can be inserted into a variational phase-field fracture computation, and the cohesive law that governs the resulting crack is derived from that domain rather than chosen independently.
  • For isotropic criteria, crack nucleation is decided by a single geometric condition in Mohr's representation — the stress vector must reach the boundary of the intrinsic domain — which splits criteria into classes where fracture is never possible, sometimes possible, or always possible.
  • For loading directions that are not compatible with a displacement jump, the homogeneous response remains stable up to a critical strain that diverges as the regularization length goes to zero, recovering the classical Griffith conclusion that nucleation is impossible.
  • Bulk strength and cohesive surface energy are no longer independent inputs: the support function of the strength domain appears directly in the cohesive law, linking quantities that classical phase-field models keep separate.
  • The model contains perfect plasticity and the classical Griffith model as limiting cases, with the damage variable tracking the fraction of the critical energy-release rate $G_c$ that has been dissipated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Looking beyond the paper, the compatibility criterion ranks classical strength criteria by a purely geometric property — how much of their yield surface is fracture-ready — so the framework could be used prospectively to select or design yield surfaces for applications where crack nucleation is either wanted or unwanted.
  • If the postulated sharp-interface limit is later established by a rigorous $\Gamma$-convergence proof in full three-dimensional vector elasticity, the model would provide existence of quasistatic evolutions for cohesive fracture with arbitrary convex strength criteria, generalizing the antiplane von Mises result that is currently the only rigorous case.
  • One test the paper does not spell out: under uniaxial tension a von Mises material should never nucleate a crack, whereas under pure shear it should; a biaxial experiment comparing those two loading modes could separate this theory from nucleation criteria that depend only on a scalar stress threshold.
  • The model implies criterion-dependent residual strength after full damage — a von Mises crack can still carry hydrostatic stress, while a Tresca crack with tension cut-off can carry only compression — which is a measurable prediction for post-peak testing of confined specimens.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a variational phase-field model of fracture in which the phase-field variable degrades a convex strength domain K0 homothetically (K(alpha)=k(alpha)K0) without affecting the linear stiffness A0, leading to the energy (24). The central object is a multiaxial model problem on a cube (Problem 3.1) with imposed average strain in a fixed stress direction s. The authors construct two explicit solution families: a homogeneous nonlinear-elastic/damaging solution and a localized solution with a displacement jump and damage concentrated on a cross-section, valid when the normal to the strength surface is of the form d ⊙ n. They analyze stability of these solutions, characterize jump compatibility for isotropic strength criteria using Mohr's circles and an intrinsic domain K0, and postulate a sharp-interface cohesive model with surface energy (10): phi([[u]], alpha) = k_hat(alpha) H_{K0}(n ⊙ [[u]]) + Gc alpha. Several examples (von Mises, Drucker-Prager, Tresca with tension cut-off) illustrate the hierarchy of strength criteria for which cracks can nucleate. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the sharp-interface limit is postulated and that the stability analysis is partly formal.

Significance. If the formal sharp-interface identification can be made rigorous, the paper would unify strength criteria, cohesive fracture, plasticity, and Griffith-type surface energy in a single variational framework, which is a significant conceptual contribution to phase-field fracture modeling. The paper's strengths include a parameter-free derivation of the cohesive surface energy from the underlying convex strength domain (no data fitting), explicit analytical solutions of the cube model problem, and a clean geometric characterization (Proposition 4.3) of jump-compatible stress states via the intrinsic domain, with concrete consequences for classical criteria such as von Mises versus Tresca. The paper is honest about its limitations: the sharp-interface energy (9)-(10) is postulated rather than proved as a Gamma-limit of (24), and the stability results are either restricted to a subclass D(alpha) or labeled as requiring rigorous justification. The value of the paper currently rests on a well-motivated conjecture supported by explicit solutions, rather than on a proven convergence theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.1, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The sharp-interface energy (9)-(10) is introduced as a postulate rather than derived as the Gamma-limit of the phase-field energy (24); the abstract and Section 5.1 state this explicitly ('we postulate' and 'for a large part formal'). The only rigorous convergence result cited, [38], concerns a different antiplane model with an alpha-dependent shear modulus and no irreversibility, and the paper itself notes that transferring it to constant mu0 and k(1)=0 'would require reworking the entire argument'. This is load-bearing because the central claim that the phase-field model regularizes the cohesive law (10) rests on the single constructed cube solution of Section 3.3 and the formal stability argument of Section 3.4. Please either provide a Gamma-convergence result, or a rigorous matched-asymptotic derivation of (10) from (24) in the cube geometry, or explicitly state the result as a conjecture whose evidence is the constructed solution and the heuristic analysis.
  2. [Section 3.4, Proposition 3.2 and the perturbation argument] The stability conclusions are not established in the full admissible class. Proposition 3.2 proves minimality only among phase-fields in D(alpha_bar), which imposes beta(x) ≤ alpha_bar everywhere and beta = alpha_bar on Gamma; the proof's lower bound (57) exploits k(beta) ≥ k(alpha_bar) and therefore does not control perturbations with beta > alpha_bar away from Gamma. The subsequent instability analysis of the homogeneous response is explicitly qualified by the authors as 'would require rigorous justification' and relies on heuristic concentration estimates for the terms T1-T4 without a specified norm or compactness framework (see also Remark 7, which leaves the notion of 'neighborhood' in the stability condition undefined). Since the paper's conclusions in Section 3.5 that 'the localized solutions are stable' and 'the homogeneous solutions are unstable' depend on these assertions, the statements should be softened to reflect that they are proven only within D(alpha_bar) and under a formal perturbation argument, or the paper should supply a rigorous local-minimality proof in a well-defined function space.
  3. [Section 2.3 and Remark 5] The variational formulation is not fully specified: the admissible spaces C, D, and P are said to be 'suitable' without concrete definitions, and Remark 5 explicitly neglects Cantor-type terms in the strain decomposition. This matters beyond technical completeness because the stability condition (29a) and the construction of localized solutions with p as a measure on the jump set (Eq. (26)) require a precise functional framework to decide whether the formal constructions satisfy the stability notion. Please specify the function spaces (e.g., BD for u, measures for p, H^1 for alpha), state the exact meaning of local stability in (29a), and justify the neglect of Cantor terms for the solutions analyzed in Section 3.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.3.4, case (A)] The inequality '0 ≠ sI - sIII/2τc > sI/σc' is ambiguous; it should read (sI - sIII)/(2τc) > sI/σc > 0 to match the intended comparison of the two ratios.
  2. [Table 1] The entry for 'νs' contains a self-referential definition: 'Normal to the yield surface ∂K0 in the direction s and its s-projection νs := νs · s' defines νs twice; use separate symbols for the normal and its projection.
  3. [Section 5.2.1, Eq. (83)] The definition of ϕ*(δ) in (82) uses a dimensionless argument δ, and (83) sets δ = F0∥d∥/Gc; this is consistent, but the text would benefit from stating explicitly that F(∥d∥) is the derivative with respect to ∥d∥, not with respect to the argument δ.
  4. [Section 5.3.2] The sentence 'The authors report that they were unable to extend the Γ-convergence result...' is ambiguous about whether 'the authors' refers to the present authors or to the authors of [38]; rephrase to attribute the statement clearly, e.g., 'Dal Maso et al. report that...'.
  5. [Sections 2.2.1 and 5.1] The name 'Hencky' is misspelled as 'Henky' in Section 5.1 ('standard Henky-like law') and as 'a laHencky' in Section 2.2.1; unify the spelling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sharp-interface cohesive energy is inferred from explicit cube solutions and acknowledged as formal, not fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in its central steps. The phase-field energy (8)/(24) is built from independent constitutive inputs (A0, K0, k, w, Gc), and the sharp-interface surface energy (9)-(10) is obtained in Section 5.1 by 'infer[ring] the energy of the limit model ... by this requirement and the solution of the multiaxial model problem of the previous section', i.e. from the explicit localized solution (42)-(56) and the change of variables (74), not by fitting a target law. The jump-compatibility criterion is proved in Proposition 4.3 by normal-cone convex analysis, and Proposition 3.2 proves optimality of the localized solution within the ansatz class D(alpha_bar) using a lower bound and the explicit phase-field profile, both derived in the text. Self-citations to [7,36,37,47] are contextual or complementary; the governing ODEs, first integrals, and uniqueness argument are reproduced in place, so no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation. The only external Gamma-convergence result [38] is explicitly not transferred: Section 5.3.2 states that extending it to k(1)=0 with constant mu0 'would require reworking the entire argument.' The paper's genuine weakness is mathematical incompleteness, not circularity: the abstract 'postulate[s] a sharp-interface limit', Section 5.1 says 'our approach is for a large part formal', and Section 3.4's instability analysis 'would require rigorous justification.' Missing Gamma-convergence and global-minimality proofs are correctness risks, but the claimed reduction is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

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

The load-bearing content rests on standard convex analysis, the modeling choice of strength-only degradation, and the postulated sharp-interface limit. No parameters are fitted to data; the free parameters are constitutive functions and the regularization length.

free parameters (4)
  • Strength degradation function k(alpha)
    Constitutive function chosen by hand; central derivation requires k(0)=1, k(1)=0, monotone decreasing with convexity (Hypothesis 2.3). No data fitting.
  • Dissipation potential w(alpha)
    Constitutive function chosen by hand; requires w(0)=0, w(1)=1, monotone increasing; examples use w(alpha)=alpha^2 or (1-zeta)alpha+zeta*alpha^2.
  • Model parameter zeta (families M1/M2) = M1: zeta in (0,1]; M2: zeta in [1,2)
    Single scalar shaping k and w in the example families; not fitted to experimental data.
  • Regularization length l
    Intrinsic material length in the phase-field energy; the sharp-interface limit is taken as l to 0, and the localized solution requires l sufficiently small relative to L.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A0 is symmetric positive definite and K0 is a closed convex set containing 0 in its interior and bounded in at least one direction (Hypothesis 2.1).
    Standard assumptions for convex analysis and perfect plasticity; cited from [34,41,42].
  • domain assumption The phase-field variable does not degrade the stiffness tensor A0; only the strength domain degrades homothetically through k(alpha) (Section 2.2.2).
    Modeling choice central to all subsequent derivations; the paper notes it could be relaxed.
  • ad hoc to paper The sharp-interface limit energy (9) is the correct limiting energy of (24) as l to 0.
    Postulated in Section 5.1 (and abstract), not proven by Gamma-convergence; only consistency with formal solutions is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The dissipation potential w satisfies c*_w = integral_0^1 1/sqrt(w(beta)) d(beta) < infinity, or alternatively results hold asymptotically as l/L to 0 (Section 3.3, Remark 11).
    Technical assumption used to construct the localized phase-field profile with finite width.
  • domain assumption The stability condition (29a) is defined with a neighborhood whose norm is not specified (Remark 7).
    The optimality results depend on the notion of local neighborhood, which is left open.
  • domain assumption Cantor-type terms in the strain decomposition are neglected (Remark 5).
    The formal analysis restricts to solutions without Cantor parts, so the limiting model may miss such contributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A variational approach to fracture incorporating any convex strength criterion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IZPRQHF3

@misc{pith2026250622558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A variational approach to fracture incorporating any convex strength criterion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IZPRQHF3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22558}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a variational phase-field model of fracture capable of accounting for arbitrary closed convex strength domains. Unlike traditional models based on Ambrosio and Tortorelli regularization, the phase-field variable does not affect the material stiffness. Instead, our elastic energy exhibits linear growth outside a strength domain, which shrinks to 0 as the phase-field variable goes to 1. We characterize this model through a fundamental problem on a cube subject to boundary loads. We show that the solution of this problem is a transverse cohesive crack, provided that the applied load and the direction of the displacement jumps satisfy a compatibility criterion, which we formulate in terms of Mohr's circles for isotropic strength domains. This allows us to derive a hierarchy of strength criteria for which fracture is never possible, sometimes possible or always possible, depending on the direction of the stress tensor. We discuss the properties of the model and postulate a ``sharp-interface'' limit in the form of a cohesive law that can be explicitly derived from the form of the phase-field model. We give several examples of phase-field models and their cohesive limits. The proposed framework unifies within a single consistent variational theory key concepts developed over the centuries to predict or prevent material failure: Griffith and cohesive crack models, damage models, plasticity, strength criteria, and limit analysis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. On phase-field regularization in dynamic fracture with brittle and cohesive formulations

    cs.CE 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Wave–crack interaction in dynamic phase-field fracture is governed by the regularization-length-to-wavelength ratio, and a strength-degrading cohesive model—unlike stiffness- or stiffness+density-degrading brittle mod...

  2. Strength-degradation phase-field regularization of cohesive fracture: the antiplane case

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

    In antiplane shear, a strength-degrading phase-field model yields an ℓ-independent equivalent cohesive law with independent strength and toughness, verified by closed-form solutions and simulations.

  3. Cohesive phase-field fracture with an explicit strength surface: an eigenstrain-based return-mapping formulation

    cs.CE 2026-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eigenstrain-based cohesive phase-field fracture is recast as a plasticity-style local return map with consistent tangents, enabling standard FE implementation and mesh/length-scale-independent brittle-to-cohesive response.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [38]

    Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations 55(3) (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-016-0981-z

    Dal Maso, G., Orlando, G., Toader, R.: Fracture models for elasto-plastic materials as limits of gradient damage models coupled with plasticity: the antiplane case. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations 55(3) (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-016-0981-z

    doi:10.1007/s00526-016-0981-z 2016

  2. [1]

    Journal de M´ ecanique20(1), 3–39 (1981)

    Suquet, P.M.: Sur les ´ equations de la plasticit´ e : existence et unicit´ e des solutions. Journal de M´ ecanique20(1), 3–39 (1981)

    work page 1981

  3. [2]

    Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 180, 237–291 (2006) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00205-005-0407-0

    Dal Maso, G., De Simone, A., Mora, M.G.: Quasistatic evolution problems for linearly elastic - perfectly plastic materials. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 180, 237–291 (2006) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00205-005-0407-0

    doi:10.1007/s00205-005-0407-0 2006

  4. [3]

    Interfaces and Free Boundaries 17(4), 497–516 (2015) https://doi.org/10.4171/IFB/ 351 46

    Francfort, G.A., Giacomini, A., Marigo, J.-J.: The taming of plastic slips in von Mises elasto- plasticity. Interfaces and Free Boundaries 17(4), 497–516 (2015) https://doi.org/10.4171/IFB/ 351 46

    work page doi:10.4171/ifb/ 2015

  5. [4]

    Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik 458, 1–18 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1515/crll

    Bouchitt´ e, G., Braides, A., Buttazzo, G.: Relaxation results for some free discontinuity problems. Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik 458, 1–18 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1515/crll. 1995.458.1

    doi:10.1515/crll 1995

  6. [5]

    Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 248(2) (2024) https://doi

    Conti, S., Focardi, M., Iurlano, F.: Phase-field approximation of a vectorial, geometrically nonlinear cohesive fracture energy. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 248(2) (2024) https://doi. org/10.1007/s00205-024-01962-4

    doi:10.1007/s00205-024-01962-4 2024

  7. [6]

    Advances in Applied Mechanics 7, 55–129 (1962) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2156(08)70121-2

    Barenblatt, G.I.: The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Advances in Applied Mechanics 7, 55–129 (1962) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2156(08)70121-2

    doi:10.1016/s0065-2156(08)70121-2 1962

  8. [7]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 59(6), 1163–1190 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2011.03.010

    Pham, K., Marigo, J.-J., Maurini, C.: The issues of the uniqueness and the stability of the homoge- neous response in uniaxial tests with gradient damage models. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 59(6), 1163–1190 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2011.03.010

    doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2011.03.010 2011

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Physical Review Letters 112(1), 014301 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.112.014301

    Bourdin, B., Marigo, J.-J., Maurini, C., Sicsic, P.: Morphogenesis and propagation of complex cracks induced by thermal shocks. Physical Review Letters 112(1), 014301 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.112.014301

    2014

  2. [9]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 110, 80–99 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2017.09.006

    Tann´ e, E., Li, T., Bourdin, B., Marigo, J.-J., Maurini, C.: Crack nucleation in variational phase- field models of brittle fracture. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 110, 80–99 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2017.09.006

    2018 doi

  3. [10]

    International Journal of Solids and Structures 38, 6427–6454 (2001)

    Comi, C., Perego, U.: Fracture energy based bi-dissipative damage model for concrete. International Journal of Solids and Structures 38, 6427–6454 (2001)

    2001

  4. [11]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 57(8), 1209–1229 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2009.04.011

    Amor, H., Marigo, J.-J., Maurini, C.: Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical experiments. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 57(8), 1209–1229 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2009.04.011

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 142, 104027 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2020.104027

    Kumar, A., Bourdin, B., Francfort, G.A., Lopez-Pamies, O.: Revisiting nucleation in the phase-field approach to brittle fracture. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 142, 104027 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2020.104027

    2020

  6. [14]

    International Journal of Fracture (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-024-00763-w

    Vicentini, F., Zolesi, C., Carrara, P., Maurini, C., De Lorenzis, L.: On the energy decomposition in variational phase-field models for brittle fracture under multi-axial stress states. International Journal of Fracture (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-024-00763-w

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Cours de calcul des structures an´ elastiques

    Salen¸ con, J.: Calcul ` a la Rupture et Analyse Limite. Cours de calcul des structures an´ elastiques. Presses de l’ ´Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chauss´ ees, Paris (1983)

    1983

  8. [16]

    In: Landriani, G.S., Salen¸ con, J

    Salen¸ con, J.: Yield design: A survey of the theory. In: Landriani, G.S., Salen¸ con, J. (eds.) Evaluation of Global Bearing Capacities of Structures, pp. 1–44. Springer, Vienna (1993). https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-7091-2752-0 1

    1993

  9. [17]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48(4), 797–826 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-5096(99)00028-9

    Bourdin, B., Francfort, G.A., Marigo, J.-J.: Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48(4), 797–826 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-5096(99)00028-9

    2000

  10. [18]

    Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol

    Braides, A.: Approximation of Free-Discontinuity Problems. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol

  11. [19]

    Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees83, 929–954 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2004.02

    Chambolle, A.: An approximation result for special functions with bounded variations. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees83, 929–954 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2004.02. 004

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    an approximation result for special functions with bounded defor- mation

    Chambolle, A.: Addendum to “an approximation result for special functions with bounded defor- mation” [j. math. pures appl. (9) 83 (7) (2004) 929–954]: the n-dimensional case. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees84, 137–145 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2...

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    Communications on Pure 47 and Applied Analysis 12, 1657–1686 (2013) https://doi.org/10.3934/cpaa.2013.12.1657

    Dal Maso, G., Iurlano, F.: Fracture models as Γ-limits of damage models. Communications on Pure 47 and Applied Analysis 12, 1657–1686 (2013) https://doi.org/10.3934/cpaa.2013.12.1657

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    Les concepts fondamen- taux

    Pham, K., Marigo, J.-J.: Approche variationnelle de l’endommagement: I. Les concepts fondamen- taux. Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique338(4), 191–198 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crme.2010.03. 009

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Les mod` eles ` a gradient

    Pham, K., Marigo, J.-J.: Approche variationnelle de l’endommagement: II. Les mod` eles ` a gradient. Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique338(4), 199–206 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crme.2010.03.012

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 63, 256–284 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2013.09.003

    Sicsic, P., Marigo, J.-J., Maurini, C.: Initiation of a periodic array of cracks in the thermal shock problem: a gradient damage modeling. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 63, 256–284 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2013.09.003

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Meccanica 51(12), 3107–3128 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-016-0538-4

    Marigo, J.-J., Maurini, C., Pham, K.: An overview of the modelling of fracture by gradient damage models. Meccanica 51(12), 3107–3128 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-016-0538-4

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique 351(SI S3), 43–63 (2023) https://doi.org/10.5802/ crmeca.156

    Marigo, J.-J.: Damage mechanics to the aid of fracture mechanics: evolution of this idea during in half a century. Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique 351(SI S3), 43–63 (2023) https://doi.org/10.5802/ crmeca.156

    2023

  19. [27]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 192, 105802 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2024.105802

    Zolesi, C., Maurini, C.: Stability and crack nucleation in variational phase-field models of fracture: Effects of length-scales and stress multi-axiality. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 192, 105802 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2024.105802

    2024

  20. [28]

    Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique339(1), 20–26 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j

    Lorentz, E., Cuvilliez, S., Kazymyrenko, K.: Convergence of a gradient damage model toward a cohesive zone model. Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique339(1), 20–26 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. crme.2010.10.010

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, Analyse non lin´ eaire33(4), 1033–1067 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.anihpc.2015.02.001

    Conti, S., Focardi, M., Iurlano, F.: Phase field approximation of cohesive fracture models. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, Analyse non lin´ eaire33(4), 1033–1067 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.anihpc.2015.02.001

    2016

  22. [30]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 196, 106036 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2025.106036

    Feng, Y., Hai, L.: 3d phase-field cohesive fracture: Unifying energy, driving force, and stress criteria for crack nucleation and propagation direction. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 196, 106036 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2025.106036

    2025

  23. [31]

    Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, vol

    Han, Q., Reddy, B.: Plasticity. Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, vol. 9. Springer, New York (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/b97851

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    Modern Applied Mathematics Series

    Temam, R.: Mathematical Problems in Plasticity. Modern Applied Mathematics Series. Gauthiers- Villard, Paris (1985)

    1985

  25. [33]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 97, 125–139 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps

    Francfort, G.A., Giacomini, A., Marigo, J.-J.: The elasto-plastic exquisite corpse: A Suquet legacy. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 97, 125–139 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps. 2016.02.002

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol

    Duvaut, G., Lions, J.L.: Inequalities in Mechanics and Physics. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 219. Springer, Berlin (1976). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-66165-5

    1976 doi

  27. [35]

    In: Evolutionary Equations

    Mielke, A.: Evolution of rate-independent systems. In: Evolutionary Equations. Handbook of Dif- ferential Equations, vol. II, pp. 461–559. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam (2005). Chap. 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1874-5717(06)80009-5

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 214(2), 575–615 (2014) https: //doi.org/0.1007/s00205-014-0763-8

    Alessi, R., Marigo, J.-J., Vidoli, S.: Gradient damage models coupled with plasticity and nucleation of cohesive cracks. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 214(2), 575–615 (2014) https: //doi.org/0.1007/s00205-014-0763-8

    2014

  29. [37]

    Mechanics of Materials 80, 351–367 (2015) https://doi.org/10

    Alessi, R., Marigo, J.-J., Vidoli, S.: Gradient damage models coupled with plasticity: variational formulation and main properties. Mechanics of Materials 80, 351–367 (2015) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.mechmat.2013.12.005

    2015

  30. [39]

    48 Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 9, 381–389 (1952) https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/45573

    Drucker, D.C., Prager, W., Greenberg, H.J.: Extended limit design theorems for continuous media. 48 Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 9, 381–389 (1952) https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/45573

    1952 doi

  31. [40]

    European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids 25(4), 649–669 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.euromechsol.2006.05.00

    Charlotte, M., Laverne, J., Marigo, J.-J.: Initiation of cracks with cohesive force models: a variational approach. European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids 25(4), 649–669 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.euromechsol.2006.05.00

    2006

  32. [41]

    North-Holland, Amsterdam (1976)

    Ekeland, I., Temam, R.: Convex Analysis and Variational Problems. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1976)

    1976

  33. [42]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L.: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    2004

  34. [43]

    Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 10(2), 157–165 (1952) https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/48291

    Drucker, D.C., Prager, W.: Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 10(2), 157–165 (1952) https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/48291

    1952 doi

  35. [44]

    (ed.): Chapter 3 - Limit Analysis by the Upper-Bound Method

    Chen, W.-F. (ed.): Chapter 3 - Limit Analysis by the Upper-Bound Method. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 7, pp. 47–106. Elsevier, New York (1975). https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-444-41249-2.50009-3

    1975

  36. [45]

    Personal communication (2025)

    Ballard, P. Personal communication (2025)

    2025

  37. [46]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Horn, R.A., Johnson, C.R.: Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990). https: //doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139020411

    1990 doi

  38. [47]

    Journal of Elasticity 91(1–3), 5–148 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10659-007-9107-3 49

    Bourdin, B., Francfort, G.A., Marigo, J.-J.: The variational approach to fracture. Journal of Elasticity 91(1–3), 5–148 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10659-007-9107-3 49

    2008 doi

  39. [1694]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0097344

    Springer, Berlin (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0097344

    1998 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.