Dynamic phase-field model for brittle fracture in grounded glaciers

Aarosh Dahal; Aditya Kumar; Ravindra Duddu; Umar Khayaz

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Dynamic phase-field model for brittle fracture in grounded glaciers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gravity-driven crevasse propagation in grounded glaciers is a dynamic instability: once a crevasse nucleates, inertia carries a sharp, localized crack through the ice thickness, while quasistatic phase-field models produce unphysical diffus

desk verdict Plausible dynamic phase-field fix for glacier fracture, but the sharp-crack result hinges on a body-force degradation that needs a sensitivity check, and the manuscript is sloppier than it should be. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26274 v1 pith:EWLFKEM3 submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Aarosh Dahal , Umar Khayaz , Ravindra Duddu , Aditya Kumar This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci MSC 74R1086A4074S05

keywords glacierfracturecrevassepropagationphase-fielddynamicgravityloadingstrengthsurfacecalvingbrittleice

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that fracture propagation in grounded glaciers under self-weight cannot be treated as a quasistatic process. Using a phase-field fracture model—a description in which a scalar field smears a crack over a small width—the authors show that quasistatic simulations after crevasse initiation become "overdriven": gravity keeps the stress state ahead of the crack tip beyond the material's strength surface, so the diffuse crack band progressively thickens and produces diffuse damage patterns. They argue that the post-nucleation phase is fundamentally a dynamic instability, and that including inertia yields sharp, localized cracks that run through the ice thickness on millisecond timescales. A reader should care because calving events contribute to sea-level rise, and the finding changes how crevasse propagation should be modeled: dynamic fracture, not quasistatic linear elastic fracture mechanics, is the right framework for the fast final stage.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a phase-field fracture model with a strength surface: a scalar field v in [0,1] smears the crack over a regularized width proportional to a length parameter ε, while a pressure-sensitive strength criterion such as F(σ) = √J2 + γ1I1 + γ0 = 0 governs nucleation and fracture-energy competition governs propagation. The paper's dynamic extension adds an inertial term to the balance of linear momentum and degrades elastic, gravitational, and inertial contributions consistently: Div((v²+η)σ) + (v²+η)b = (v^b + ηρ)ρ ü, with b = 2. The argument is carried by comparing b = 0 (undegraded density) with b = 2: undegraded density lets the regularized crack carry momentum and tra

What would settle it

Re-run the glacier crevasse simulation with the dynamic formulation but leave the gravitational body force undegraded in the fractured band, using a contact condition or small residual stiffness to keep the problem well posed; if the crack no longer propagates as a sharp, localized band through the full thickness, then the dynamic-instability conclusion is an artifact of the body-force degradation. Alternatively, a field measurement of a calving event showing surface crevasse deepening over minutes to hours rather than elastic milliseconds would contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for a grounded glacier loaded by fixed self-weight, once a crevasse nucleates or is seeded, the gravitational pre-stress overdrives the stress field ahead of the crack tip far beyond the strength surface, so the resulting growth is an unstable dynamic event rather than a slow quasistatic one. In the phase-field model used here, the quasistatic formulation responds by widening the regularized crack band instead of advancing a sharp crack. The dynamic formulation—in which elastic stiffness, gravitational body force, and mass density are all degraded by the same phase-field factor—produces a crack of optimal regularized width that propagates through the full t

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the gravitational body force, and hence mass density, can be degraded with the phase field inside the crack band; if a real crevasse's faces still carry self-weight, removing that body force artificially lowers the energy cost of opening the crack and could be what makes the sharp, fast dynamic propagation appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Quasistatic phase-field simulations of grounded glaciers under self-weight should not be used for post-nucleation crevasse propagation: they produce diffuse, thickening damage zones rather than sharp cracks.
A dynamic formulation with consistently degraded elastic, inertial, and gravitational terms yields sharp, localized cracks that propagate through the ice thickness, matching the rapid (10–100 ms) timescales reported for calving events.
Leaving mass density undegraded in dynamic phase-field fracture creates spurious force transmission across the regularized crack, artificial crack branching, mesh distortion, and crack widening; degrading density removes these artifacts.
The critical crevasse depth for arrest in grounded ice is a strength-governed quantity (about 72 m for the adopted parameters), and it matches linear elastic fracture mechanics predictions without invoking fracture toughness.
Multiple surface crevasses under gravitational pre-stress grow competitively, with some arresting and others shielding, so the dynamic model can capture crevasse–crevasse interaction.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: glacier models that treat crevasse deepening with quasistatic or viscous damage mechanics may systematically overestimate damage-zone width and underestimate propagation speed near the terminus; a practical extension would be a dynamic switching criterion triggered when the strength surface is exceeded over a critical zone.
Editorial inference: the paper's choice to degrade the gravitational body force with the phase field is not physically derived from a cracked body's mass balance; if real crack faces still carry self-weight, removing body force inside the band lowers the energy needed to open the crack, and I would test whether the sharp, fast propagation survives with an undegraded self-weight plus a contact cond
Editorial inference: the dynamic-instability picture suggests calving events may radiate detectable stress waves, and measured crevasse-deepening rates from seismic or fiber-optic instruments could discriminate dynamic versus quasistatic propagation.
Editorial inference: because the predicted critical crevasse depth is insensitive to tensile strength over the realistic range, the model makes a testable prediction that surface crevasse depths in grounded glaciers should be bounded near this depth unless meltwater pressure or other processes intervene.

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

Colleague,

This paper is worth your time. The new bit is the diagnosis: quasi-static phase-field fracture of a gravity-loaded glacier, with realistic strength, becomes overdriven after crack initiation, so the damage band grows instead of forming a sharp crack. They show this in both the Kumar et al. model and a classical variational model, and they trace it to a growing over-stressed region ahead of the tip. Then they propose a dynamic formulation with consistently degraded density (b=2) and show that inertia gives a localized 4ε crack. That is a coherent story and a plausibly useful advance for calving modeling.

The benchmarks are mostly solid. The 1D bar and 2D plate tests show that undegraded density transmits a spurious reaction force, and the Kalthoff–Winkler and branching tests show that b=2 removes spurious branching and mesh distortion. These are real, reproducible-looking numerical observations, and they support the choice of b=2 as a numerical fix.

Now the soft spots. The biggest one is exactly what the stress-test flagged: the gravitational body force is degraded with v^2 in every glacier run, and the paper never shows a glacier simulation with undegraded body force. The authors argue this is an O(ε) regularization error, and that is plausible, but it is not a derivation. Because gravity is the only driving force, a skeptic can reasonably ask whether the sharp crack is partly an artifact of removing weight from the crack band. The quasi-static vs dynamic comparison in Section 4.2 holds the degradation fixed, so the comparison itself is not confounded. But the physical claim that the sharp crack is 'the' dynamic behavior would be much stronger if they ran the dynamic glacier with b=0 (or a smaller ε) and showed the sharp crack persists. That is an experiment the paper should have done. I'd call this a moderate concern, not a fatal one.

There are also some embarrassing inconsistencies: the glacier height is 75 m in Figure 1, 100 m in Section 3.2, and 75 m again in the Figure 2 caption; the text says t=5 μs where the caption says t=1 ms; figure references are occasionally off. These are fixable but they make the paper harder to trust. And no code or data is released despite the FEniCSx implementation being mentioned.

Bottom line: the paper deserves serious refereeing. The central idea is interesting and the benchmarks are useful, but the referee should ask for a sensitivity study on the body-force degradation, a mesh-convergence check for the glacier run, and a cleanup of the text. I would send it to review, and I'd expect it to come back stronger.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that quasi-static phase-field simulations of gravity-driven crevasse propagation in grounded glaciers are pathologically overdriven after nucleation, producing diffuse, thickening damage bands, and that post-nucleation propagation is intrinsically a dynamic instability. It introduces a dynamic phase-field formulation (following Liu et al.) in which elastic stiffness, inertial mass, and gravitational body force are all degraded by v^2 in the fracture band. Benchmarks (1D wave, 2D plate, Kalthoff-Winkler, branching) show that degrading density removes spurious force transmission, mesh distortion, and artificial crack widening. Dynamic glacier simulations produce sharp 4-epsilon localized cracks, whereas quasi-static runs do not. The paper claims this establishes that accounting for inertia is necessary and sufficient for sharp through-thickness crevasse propagation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a substantive contribution: it identifies a failure mode of quasi-static phase-field fracture under fixed self-weight and proposes a dynamic regularized-fracture treatment with consistent degradation. The benchmark evidence is compelling and the finite-element formulation is described in enough detail to be reproducible with FEniCSx. The sharp-crack result is in principle falsifiable against glacier observations. However, the load-bearing modeling choice of degrading the gravitational body force with the phase field is physically nonstandard and is only benchmarked in nongravitational settings; until the glacier result is shown to be insensitive to this choice, or the choice is derived from a sharp-interface limit, the central claim remains conditional.

major comments (3)

[Eq. (13), Remark 1, Appendix A] The dynamic formulation degrades the gravitational body force as (v^2+eta)b, removing the weight of material inside the regularized crack band. The paper justifies this by numerical convenience and an O(epsilon) mass-loss argument, not by a physical derivation; a sharp crack is an open traction-free surface, not a massless band. Because gravity is the sole driving force, removing body force in a 4-epsilon band (epsilon = 10 mm) changes the energy budget ahead of the tip and could itself produce sharp, fast propagation. All b=0 vs b=2 comparisons are in nongravitational benchmarks; no glacier simulation with undegraded body force is shown. Please add a glacier sensitivity study varying b (e.g., b=0, 1, 2) and/or a sharp-interface asymptotic derivation showing that body-force degradation does not alter the propagating crack solution at leading order.
[Section 3.2, Fig. 3] The quasi-static pathology is described as 'overdriven' because the strength surface is exceeded in a widening zone ahead of the tip. However, the same v^2 body-force degradation is already active in those quasi-static runs. It is therefore unclear whether the diffuse damage is a property of quasi-static evolution under self-weight or an artifact of the load removal in the damaged band. A quasi-static run with undegraded body force, if numerically manageable with stabilization, would disentangle the two mechanisms; without it, the claim that inertia is the specific remedy is not fully isolated.
[Section 4.2, Fig. 8, Section 5] The final comments acknowledge idealized 2D geometry, omitted ocean pressure, tidal forcing, and evolving basal traction, but the central claim is also not compared quantitatively with field observations. The cited calving timescale of 10-100 ms is not used to validate the simulated propagation time; Fig. 8 only shows t = 1 ms and no through-thickness time or crack speed is reported. Adding such a comparison would strengthen the assertion that the dynamic instability is the physically relevant regime.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 1, Section 2, Fig. 2] The glacier dimensions are inconsistent: Fig. 1 says L=300 m, H=75 m; Section 2 says H=100 m; Fig. 2 caption says '100 m long and 75 m tall.' Please harmonize.
[Section 3.2, Fig. 2 caption] The text and Fig. 2 caption disagree on whether the reduced-body-force case is (c) or (d). Please correct the cross-reference.
[References] References [18] and [19] are the same paper (Kumar et al., JMPS 2020). Please merge or renumber.
[Fig. 8 caption vs Section 4.2] Fig. 8(b) reports sigma_ts = 0.2 MPa, while Section 4.2 says the weak boundary layer uses one-third of 0.7 MPa, i.e., approximately 0.233 MPa. Please reconcile.
[Appendix A, Fig. 11] The illustrative gravity-loaded specimen in Fig. 11 is not described with dimensions, material parameters, or loading details. Please either add these or explicitly state that the figure is schematic only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the dynamic sharp-crack claim is a numerical finding with literature-based inputs and external benchmark validation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that post-nucleation crevasse propagation is a dynamic instability producing sharp, localized cracks—is a numerical observation from simulations, not a quantity derived from fitted parameters. Material constants (E, ν, ρ, Kc, tensile/compressive strengths) are taken from the external literature (Duddu & Waisman, Liu et al., Petrovic), and the phase-field framework of Kumar et al. is independently validated against multiple experiments cited in the paper and against the Kalthoff–Winkler and dynamic-branching benchmarks presented here. The quasi-static and dynamic glacier simulations use the same v^2 degradation of the gravitational body force, so the comparison isolates the effect of inertia rather than comparing a fitted input to a predicted output. The degradation of the body force is a modeling assumption, explicitly discussed in Remark 1 and Appendix A, and it could be physically questionable, but it is not a circular reduction: the paper does not tune it to produce the glacier result, and it is justified by regularization-error and numerical-convergence arguments. Similarly, the critical crack-depth comparison uses the independently defined strength surface and matches LEFM results rather than assuming them. The paper also states its limitations (2D idealization, omission of ocean pressure, tidal forcing, basal traction evolution), which further indicates the scope is transparent rather than self-validating. Heavy self-citation exists because the authors are building on their own prior phase-field model, but those prior results are supported by external experiments and benchmarks, so they do not constitute circularity here. Thus no specific circular step can be identified; the main concerns raised by a skeptical reader are physical-modeling risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends mainly on the choice to degrade gravity and density (b=2). Material constants (E, ν, Gc, σts, σcs) are taken from literature and are not fitted. No new physical entities are introduced. The model's regularization length ε and residual stiffness are numerical parameters.

free parameters (3)

b (density degradation exponent) = 2
Chosen after comparing b=0 and b=2; b=2 eliminates spurious force transmission and mesh distortion in benchmarks. The choice is not derived from physics and other integer values are not explored.
η / ηρ (residual stiffness/density) = 1e-7
Small residual used to avoid ill-conditioning; value is numerical, with ηρ set equal to η.
ε (regularization length) = 10 mm for glacier; 5h for bar; 0.75 mm for Kalthoff–Winkler; 0.625 mm for branching
Numerical length that sets crack band width (4ε); no mesh convergence study is shown for the glacier simulations.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Purely elastic brittle behavior on fracture timescales
Assumes viscous creep is irrelevant during the 10–100 ms calving event (Section 2).
domain assumption Drucker–Prager strength surface for ice
Constitutive choice stated in Section 2.1; the model could use other surfaces but this one is adopted.
domain assumption The quasi-static phase-field equations (8) are a faithful representation of fracture under fixed self-weight
The overdriven pathology is diagnosed within this formulation; if the quasi-static solver or load-stepping itself is flawed, the pathology may be an artifact.
ad hoc to paper Gravitational body force may be degraded with v^2 inside the fractured region
Remark 1 and Eq. (13): the body force is multiplied by (v^2+η); justified by numerical convenience and a regularization error O(ε), not by a derivation.
ad hoc to paper Acoustic impedance Z=ρc vanishing is the relevant condition for an open crack
Section 4.1: used to argue that b=2 (constant wave speed, zero impedance) is acceptable; this condition is not experimentally calibrated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic phase-field model for brittle fracture in grounded glaciers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWLFKEM3

@misc{pith2026260726274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic phase-field model for brittle fracture in grounded glaciers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWLFKEM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26274}
}

read the original abstract

Fracture and calving of glaciers are key contributors to ice-mass loss and sea-level rise, yet predictive modeling remains challenging. Fracture in grounded glaciers is driven by gravitational forces and is typically studied within the framework of quasi-static linear elastic fracture mechanics. In this work, we show that purely quasistatic brittle fracture simulations within the phase field fracture framework under fixed self-weight can become strongly overdriven after crevasse initiation, producing unphysical thickening of the diffusive crack band and diffuse damage patterns. This pathology arises because gravity drives a growing region ahead of the crack tip beyond the strength surface. To resolve this, we show that the post-nucleation propagation is fundamentally a dynamic instability rather than a quasistatic process and propose the use of dynamic formulations of fracture. We demonstrate that accounting for inertia results in sharp, localized cracks that propagate through the ice thickness. As a second objective, this paper introduces a new dynamic formulation of the phase-field fracture model of Kumar et al. (J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2018) in which elastic, inertial, and gravitational contributions are degraded consistently in fractured regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26274 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Contour plots of the phase field from quasi-static s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) Contour plots, over the undeformed configurati [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) Schematic of the one-dimensional bar subjecte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Simulations of the Kalthoff-Winkler test for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Simulations of the dynamic branching test for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Schematic of the three-stage simulation procedur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Contour plots of the phase field from dynamic fractu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Phase-field profiles across a 40ε-wide region centered on the crack path for simulations conducted with ε = 10 mm. The dynamic simulation produces the expected localized crack profile with a width of approximately 4ε at any depth (result shown for X2 = 72 m), whereas t…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Multiple crevasse growth in a glacier simulated w [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Deformed configuration of a narrow window around t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

M. F. Meier, M. B. Dyurgerov, U. K. Rick, S. O’neel, W. T. Pf eﬀer, R. S. Anderson, S. P. Anderson, A. F. Glazovsky, Glaciers dominate eustatic sea-level rise in the 21st centu ry, Science 317 (2007) 1064–1067

2007
[2]

T. A. Scambos, C. Hulbe, M. Fahnestock, J. Bohlander, The link between climate warming and break-up of ice shelves in the antarctic peninsula, Journal of Glaciology 46 (2000) 51 6–530

2000
[3]

J. N. Bassis, S. Jacobs, Diverse calving patterns linked to glacier geometry, Nature Geoscience 6 (2013) 833–836

2013
[4]

D. I. Benn, T. Cowton, J. Todd, A. Luckman, Glacier calvin g in greenland, Current Climate Change Reports 3 (2017) 282–290

2017
[5]

D. G. Vaughan, Relating the occurrence of crevasses to su rface strain rates, Journal of Glaciology 39 (1993) 255–266

1993
[6]

Van der Veen, Fracture mechanics approach to penetrat ion of surface crevasses on glaciers, Cold Regions Science a nd Technology 27 (1998) 31–47

C. Van der Veen, Fracture mechanics approach to penetrat ion of surface crevasses on glaciers, Cold Regions Science a nd Technology 27 (1998) 31–47

1998
[7]

Kingslake, J

J. Kingslake, J. C. Ely, I. Das, R. E. Bell, Widespread mov ement of meltwater onto and across antarctic ice shelves, Nature 544 (2017) 349–352

2017
[8]

Pralong, M

A. Pralong, M. Funk, Dynamic damage model of crevasse ope ning and application to glacier calving, Journal of Geophys ical Research: Solid Earth 110 (2005)

2005

Show all 64 references

[9]

W eiss, Subcritical crack propagation as a mechanism o f crevasse formation and iceberg calving, Journal of Glacio logy 50 (2004) 109–115

J. W eiss, Subcritical crack propagation as a mechanism o f crevasse formation and iceberg calving, Journal of Glacio logy 50 (2004) 109–115

2004
[10]

Bourdin, G

B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, J.-J. Marigo, Numerical ex periments in revisited brittle fracture, Journal of the Mec hanics and Physics of Solids 48 (2000) 797–826

2000
[11]

G. A. Francfort, J.-J. Marigo, Revisiting brittle frac ture as an energy minimization problem, Journal of the Mecha nics and Physics of Solids 46 (1998) 1319–1342

1998
[12]

X. Sun, R. Duddu, Hirshikesh, A poro-damage phase ﬁeld m odel for hydrofracturing of glacier crevasses, Extreme Mechanics Letters 45 (2021) 101277

2021
[13]

Miehe, L.-M

C. Miehe, L.-M. Schaenzel, H. Ulmer, Phase ﬁeld modelin g of fracture in multi-physics problems. part i. balance of c rack surface and failure criteria for brittle crack propagation in thermo-elastic solids, Computer Methods in Applied Mech anics and Engineering 294 (2015) 449–485

2015
[14]

Clayton, R

T. Clayton, R. Duddu, M. Siegert, E. Martinez-Paneda, A stress-based poro-damage phase ﬁeld model for hydrofractu ring of creeping glaciers and ice shelves, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 272 (2022) 108693

2022
[15]

Sondershaus, A

R. Sondershaus, A. Humbert, R. M¨ uller, A phase ﬁeld mod el for fractures in ice shelves, PAMM 22 (2023) e202200256

2023
[16]

Khayaz, A

U. Khayaz, A. Dahal, A. Kumar, A comparison of phase ﬁeld models of brittle fracture incorporating strength: I—mixe d- mode loading, Engineering Fracture Mechanics (2025) 11167 9

2025
[17]

Kumar, G

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

2018
[19]

Kumar, B

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

2020
[20]

Kumar, O

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

1959
[21]

Kumar, K

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

2022
[22]

Kumar, Y

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

2024
[23]

C. Liu, A. Kumar, Emergence of tension–compression asy mmetry from a complete phase-ﬁeld approach to brittle fract ure, International Journal of Solids and Structures 309 (2025) 1 13170

2025
[24]

Kamarei, A

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

2024
[25]

Kamarei, B

F. Kamarei, B. Zeng, J. E. Dolbow, O. Lopez-Pamies, Nine circles of elastic brittle fracture: A series of challenge p roblems to assess fracture models, Computer Methods in Applied Mech anics and Engineering 448 (2026) 118449

2026
[26]

W ard, A

O. W ard, A. Kumar, Why planar cracks fragment into echel on cracks, Extreme Mechanics Letters (2026) 102504

2026
[27]

Gr¨ aﬀ, B

D. Gr¨ aﬀ, B. P. Lipovsky, A. Vieli, A. Dachauer, R. Jacks on, D. Farinotti, J. Schmale, J.-P. Ampuero, E. Berg, A. Dan- nowski, et al., Calving-driven fjord dynamics resolved by s eaﬂoor ﬁbre sensing, Nature 644 (2025) 404–412

2025
[28]

Kooij, G

S. Kooij, G. van Dalen, J.-F. Molinari, D. Bonn, Explosi ve fragmentation of prince rupert’s drops leads to well-deﬁ ned fragment sizes, Nature communications 12 (2021) 2521

2021
[29]

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

2024 arXiv
[30]

Bourdin, C

B. Bourdin, C. J. Larsen, C. L. Richardson, A time-discr ete model for dynamic fracture based on crack regularizatio n, International Journal of Fracture 168 (2011) 133–143. doi: 10.1007/s10704-010-9562-x

2011 doi
[31]

M. J. Borden, C. V. Verhoosel, M. A. Scott, T. J. Hughes, C . M. Landis, A phase-ﬁeld description of dynamic brittle fracture, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engine ering 217–220 (2012) 77–95. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2012.01.0 08

2012 doi
[32]

Hofacker, C

M. Hofacker, C. Miehe, Continuum phase ﬁeld modeling of dynamic fracture: variational principles and staggered fe implementation, International Journal of Fracture 178 (20 12) 113–129. doi:10.1007/s10704-012-9753-8

doi
[33]

Bleyer, C

J. Bleyer, C. Roux-Langlois, J.-F. Molinari, Dynamic c rack propagation with a variational phase-ﬁeld model: limi t- 20 ing speed, crack branching and velocity-toughening mechan isms, International Journal of Fracture 204 (2017) 79–100. doi:10.1007/s10704-016-0163-1

2017 doi
[34]

V. P. Nguyen, J.-Y. W u, Modeling dynamic fracture of sol ids with a phase-ﬁeld regularized cohesive zone model, Comp uter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 340 (2018) 100 0–1022. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2018.06.010

2018 doi
[35]

R. J. Geelen, Y. Liu, T. Hu, M. R. Tupek, J. E. Dolbow, A pha se-ﬁeld formulation for dynamic cohesive fracture, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 348 ( 2019) 680–711. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.01.026

2019 doi
[36]

T. K. Mandal, V. P. Nguyen, J.-Y. W u, Evaluation of varia tional phase-ﬁeld models for dynamic brittle fracture, Eng i- neering Fracture Mechanics 235 (2020) 107169. doi:10.1016 /j.engfracmech.2020.107169

2020
[37]

Li, J.-J

T. Li, J.-J. Marigo, D. Guilbaud, S. Potapov, Gradient d amage modeling of brittle fracture in an explicit dynamics context, International Journal for Numerical Methods in En gineering 108 (2016) 1381–1405

2016
[38]

Montagnat, P

M. Montagnat, P. Duval, The viscoplastic behaviour of i ce in polar ice sheets: experimental results and modelling, Comptes Rendus Physique 5 (2004) 699–708

2004
[39]

K. Deng, X. Feng, X. Tan, Y. Hu, Experimental research on compressive mechanical properties of ice under low strain rates, Materials Today Communications 24 (2020) 101029

2020
[40]

Colgan, H

W. Colgan, H. Rajaram, W. Abdalati, C. McCutchan, R. Mot tram, M. S. Moussavi, S. Grigsby, Glacier crevasses: Observations, models, and mass balance implications, Revi ews of geophysics 54 (2016) 119–161

2016
[41]

D. Ren, L. M. Leslie, Eﬀects of waves on tabular ice-shel f calving, Earth Interactions 18 (2014) 1–28

2014
[42]

C. L. Hulbe, M. Klinger, M. Masterson, G. Catania, K. Cru ikshank, A. Bugni, Tidal bending and strand cracks at the kamb ice stream grounding line, west antarctica, Journal of Glaciology 62 (2016) 816–824

2016
[43]

Duddu, H

R. Duddu, H. W aisman, A temperature-dependent creep da mage model for polycrystalline ice, Mechanics of Materials 46 (2012) 23–41

2012
[44]

Hawkes, M

I. Hawkes, M. Mellor, Deformation and fracture of ice un der uniaxial stress, Journal of glaciology 11 (1972) 103–13 1

1972
[45]

Murat, L

J.-R. Murat, L. Lainey, Some experimental observation s on the poisson’s ratio of sea-ice, Cold Regions Science and Technology 6 (1982) 105–113

1982
[46]

Jimenez, R

S. Jimenez, R. Duddu, On the evaluation of the stress int ensity factor in calving models using linear elastic fractu re mechanics, Journal of Glaciology 64 (2018) 759–770

2018
[47]

H. Liu, K. Miller, Fracture toughness of fresh-water ic e, Journal of glaciology 22 (1979) 135–143

1979
[48]

Petrovic, Review mechanical properties of ice and sn ow, Journal of materials science 38 (2003) 1–6

J. Petrovic, Review mechanical properties of ice and sn ow, Journal of materials science 38 (2003) 1–6

2003
[49]

B. Zeng, J. Guilleminot, J. E. Dolbow, Examining crack n ucleation under spatially uniform stress states with a comp lete phase-ﬁeld model for fracture, Theoretical and Applied Fra cture Mechanics (2025) 105170

2025
[50]

Chockalingam, A

S. Chockalingam, A. B. Tepole, A. Kumar, The phase-ﬁeld model of fracture incorporating mohr-coulomb, mogi-coulo mb, and hoek-brown strength surfaces, Engineering Fracture Me chanics 340 (2026) 112108

2026
[52]

Lopez-Pamies, F

O. Lopez-Pamies, F. Kamarei, When and where do large cra cks grow? Griﬃth energy competition constrained by materia l strength, Extreme Mechanics Letters 81 (2025) 102417

2025
[53]

Amor, J.-J

H. Amor, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, Regularized formula tion of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral co ntact: Numerical experiments, Journal of the Mechanics and Physic s of Solids 57 (2009) 1209–1229

2009
[54]

J. F. Kalthoﬀ, S. Winkler, Failure mode transition at hi gh rates of shear loading, Impact loading and dynamic behavi our of materials 1 (1988) 185–195

1988
[55]

Ravi-Chandar, W

K. Ravi-Chandar, W. Knauss, An experimental investiga tion into dynamic fracture: Iii. on steady-state crack prop agation and crack branching, International Journal of Fracture 26 ( 1984) 141–154. doi:10.1007/BF01157550

1984 doi
[56]

Ravi-Chandar, W

K. Ravi-Chandar, W. Knauss, An experimental investiga tion into dynamic fracture: I. crack initiation and arrest, Inter- national Journal of Fracture 25 (1984) 247–262. doi:10.100 7/BF00963460

1984
[57]

Ravi-Chandar, W

K. Ravi-Chandar, W. Knauss, An experimental investiga tion into dynamic fracture: Ii. microstructural aspects, I nterna- tional Journal of Fracture 26 (1984) 65–80. doi:10.1007/BF 01152313

1984 doi
[58]

Ravi-Chandar, Dynamic fracture of nominally brittl e materials, International Journal of Fracture 90 (1998) 83 –102

K. Ravi-Chandar, Dynamic fracture of nominally brittl e materials, International Journal of Fracture 90 (1998) 83 –102. doi:10.1023/A:1007432017290

1998 doi
[59]

Ravi-Chandar, W

K. Ravi-Chandar, W. Knauss, An experimental investiga tion into dynamic fracture: Iv. on the interaction of stress waves with propagating cracks, International Journal of Fractur e 26 (1984) 189–200. doi:10.1007/BF01140627

1984 doi
[60]

Ramulu, A

M. Ramulu, A. Kobayashi, Mechanics of crack curving and branching - a dynamic fracture analysis, International Jou rnal of Fracture 27 (1985) 187–201. doi:10.1007/BF00017967

1985 doi
[61]

Belytschko, H

T. Belytschko, H. Chen, J. Xu, G. Zi, Dynamic crack propa gation based on loss of hyperbolicity and a new discontinuou s enrichment, International Journal for Numerical Methods i n Engineering 58 (2003) 1873–1905. doi:10.1002/nme.941

2003 doi
[62]

J. Guo, W. Gao, Study of the kalthoﬀ–winkler experiment using an ordinary state-based peridynamic model under low velocity impact, Advances in Mechanical Engineering 11 (20 19) 1–11. doi:10.1177/1687814019852561

doi
[63]

Dahal, A

A. Dahal, A. Kumar, On failure mechanisms and load-para llel cracking in conﬁned elastomeric layers, Extreme Mecha nics Letters (2025) 102406

2025
[64]

Gupta, D

A. Gupta, D. T. Nguyen, R. Duddu, Damage mechanics chall enge: Predictions from an adaptive ﬁnite element imple- mentation of the stress-based phase-ﬁeld fracture model, E ngineering Fracture Mechanics 306 (2024) 110252

2024
[65]

D. T. Nguyen, A. Gupta, R. Duddu, C. Annavarapu, An adapt ive mesh reﬁnement algorithm for stress-based phase ﬁeld fracture models for heterogeneous media: Application usin g fenics to ice-rock cliﬀ failures, Finite Elements in Analy sis and Design 244 (2025) 104311

2025
[66]

Vella, J

D. Vella, J. W ettlaufer, Finger rafting: a generic inst ability of ﬂoating elastic sheets, Physical review letters 98 (2007) 21 088303. 22

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M. F. Meier, M. B. Dyurgerov, U. K. Rick, S. O’neel, W. T. Pf eﬀer, R. S. Anderson, S. P. Anderson, A. F. Glazovsky, Glaciers dominate eustatic sea-level rise in the 21st centu ry, Science 317 (2007) 1064–1067

2007

[2] [2]

T. A. Scambos, C. Hulbe, M. Fahnestock, J. Bohlander, The link between climate warming and break-up of ice shelves in the antarctic peninsula, Journal of Glaciology 46 (2000) 51 6–530

2000

[3] [3]

J. N. Bassis, S. Jacobs, Diverse calving patterns linked to glacier geometry, Nature Geoscience 6 (2013) 833–836

2013

[4] [4]

D. I. Benn, T. Cowton, J. Todd, A. Luckman, Glacier calvin g in greenland, Current Climate Change Reports 3 (2017) 282–290

2017

[5] [5]

D. G. Vaughan, Relating the occurrence of crevasses to su rface strain rates, Journal of Glaciology 39 (1993) 255–266

1993

[6] [6]

Van der Veen, Fracture mechanics approach to penetrat ion of surface crevasses on glaciers, Cold Regions Science a nd Technology 27 (1998) 31–47

C. Van der Veen, Fracture mechanics approach to penetrat ion of surface crevasses on glaciers, Cold Regions Science a nd Technology 27 (1998) 31–47

1998

[7] [7]

Kingslake, J

J. Kingslake, J. C. Ely, I. Das, R. E. Bell, Widespread mov ement of meltwater onto and across antarctic ice shelves, Nature 544 (2017) 349–352

2017

[8] [8]

Pralong, M

A. Pralong, M. Funk, Dynamic damage model of crevasse ope ning and application to glacier calving, Journal of Geophys ical Research: Solid Earth 110 (2005)

2005