pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.16346 · v2 · pith:5CWXYOLWnew · submitted 2026-06-15 · 💻 cs.CE · cond-mat.mtrl-sci· cs.NA· math.NA· physics.geo-ph

Phase-field analysis of fracture in heterogeneous wellbore systems: effects of casing eccentricity and cement-formation interface strength

Tharunsarathy Sachithanantham , Wasim Niyaz Munshi , Chandrasekhar Annavarapu , Birendra Jha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 02:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE cond-mat.mtrl-scics.NAmath.NAphysics.geo-ph
keywords phase-field fracturewellbore systemscasing eccentricitycement-formation interfacecrack propagationheterogeneous materialsnumerical simulationfracture mechanics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Casing eccentricity in wellbores lowers crack initiation pressure by up to 30 percent and triggers extra inclined cracks in the formation past a 50 percent threshold.

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

The paper presents a hybrid phase-field fracture model for simulating crack growth through the casing, cement sheath, and surrounding rock in wellbore systems that contain weak interfaces. Numerical experiments isolate how eccentricity shifts the casing off center and how interface strength changes crack behavior under pressure. Results indicate that eccentricity reduces the pressure at which cracks start and alters their paths, with a sharp change once eccentricity exceeds half the radial gap. Weak interfaces cause cracks to travel along the boundary instead of entering the rock, which in turn creates more radial cracks and raises the chance of sustained pressure problems. Three-dimensional runs expose depth variations and stress shadows that plane-strain models miss.

Core claim

The hybrid phase-field fracture framework, after validation on benchmark problems, shows that casing eccentricity strongly influences both the pressure at crack initiation and the resulting crack paths, reducing the crack initiation pressure by up to 30% relative to the concentric configuration; beyond a critical eccentricity threshold of 50%, localized shear stresses drive the nucleation of inclined cracks in the formation in addition to radial cracking, while sufficiently weak interfaces (30% of bulk strength) deflect radially propagating cracks along the cement-formation interface, delaying stress relaxation, promoting additional radial cracks, and increasing the risk of sustained casing

What carries the argument

Hybrid phase-field fracture framework that models crack nucleation and deflection at weak cement-formation interfaces in heterogeneous wellbore geometries under internal pressure.

If this is right

  • Crack initiation pressure drops with rising eccentricity, reaching a 30% reduction at high offsets.
  • Inclined cracks nucleate in the formation once eccentricity exceeds 50% due to localized shear.
  • Cracks deflect along interfaces at 30% bulk strength, leading to more radial cracks and delayed stress relief.
  • Three-dimensional models capture depth-dependent nucleation and stress-shadow suppression absent in plane-strain cases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Well completion guidelines could incorporate eccentricity limits to avoid the observed pressure drop and extra crack modes.
  • The deflection mechanism at weak interfaces suggests that cement bond quality directly controls the number of radial cracks that form.
  • Coupling the framework to fluid flow or poroelastic effects would allow direct prediction of sustained casing pressure risk.

Load-bearing premise

The hybrid phase-field fracture framework accurately captures the dominant mechanisms of crack nucleation and deflection in heterogeneous wellbore systems under the chosen material parameters and loading conditions.

What would settle it

Laboratory experiments on scaled wellbore samples with controlled casing eccentricity levels and measured interface strengths that either reproduce or contradict the predicted 30% pressure reduction and the switch to inclined cracks above 50% eccentricity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.16346 by Birendra Jha, Chandrasekhar Annavarapu, Tharunsarathy Sachithanantham, Wasim Niyaz Munshi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Different types of wellbore failures. (a-d) show a cross-sectional view on a plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The subdomains comprise distinct materials, and the interface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Geometry and boundary conditions of the pipe with eccentric bore as con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Distribution of the tangential stress in the cemented pipe with an eccentric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Geometry and boundary conditions for the bi-material plate with a circular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of damage profiles for a bi-material square plate with a circular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Geometry and boundary conditions of one quadrant of the wellbore consisting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of damage profiles for the wellbore fracture problem: (a) present [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Geometry of the wellbore system with an eccentric casing (right half is shown). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: For three eccentricity cases (e = 0, 50%, 83.33%), the subfigures show (i) tan￾gential stress in the wellbore prior to crack nucleation plotted on logarithmic scale, and (ii) the corresponding damage profile at crack nucleation. for each level of casing eccentricity. When e = 0, i.e., for the concentric casing configuration, the tensile tangential stresses are uniformly distributed in both the cement shea… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Plot of the casing eccentricity versus the critical wellbore pressure at which the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Damage profiles of wellbores with varying eccentricity values at a wellbore pres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: For each eccentricity e, the subfigures show (i) damage profile before shear crack nucleation, (ii) shear stress (σrθ) distribution, and (iii) damage profile after shear crack nucleation. Shear cracks nucleate at the formation, where the magnitude of shear stress is high (indicated by the deep indigo regions in the contour). The sign represents the direction of shearing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: For each value of κ, the panels show: (i) tangential stress (σθθ) in the cement sheath, and the rock before crack nucleation, and (ii) the corresponding damage profile at crack nucleation. debonding of the cement–rock interface at an earlier stage compared to the case with κ = −0.8. Early debonding induces localized stress relaxation in the cement sheath, thereby suppressing the nucleation of additional r… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Damage profiles at a wellbore pressure of 162.5 MPa for three different values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Load–displacement curves obtained by summing the values over the entire inner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Load–displacement curves obtained by summing the values over the entire inner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a) Three-dimensional geometry and boundary conditions of one quadrant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Damage profile at different internal pressures of the wellbore. The finite ele [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_19.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Predicting the initiation and propagation of cracks in heterogeneous wellbore systems under complex in-situ conditions remains challenging. We present a hybrid phase-field fracture framework to model crack growth in heterogeneous wellbore systems with weak interfaces. The framework is first validated against benchmark problems with available analytical and numerical solutions. Subsequently, numerical experiments are conducted to isolate the effects of interface strength and casing eccentricity on crack growth. The results show that casing eccentricity strongly influences both the pressure at crack initiation and the resulting crack paths, reducing the crack initiation pressure by up to 30% relative to the concentric configuration. Beyond a critical eccentricity threshold of 50%, localized shear stresses drive the nucleation of inclined cracks in the formation in addition to radial cracking -- a failure mode absent in concentric configurations. For sufficiently weak interfaces (i.e., interfaces with 30% of the strength of the surrounding bulk material), radially propagating cracks in the cement sheath are deflected along the interface rather than penetrating into the formation. This deflection delays stress relaxation within the sheath, promotes the nucleation of additional radial cracks, and increases the risk of sustained casing pressure and wellbore failure. Finally, a three-dimensional simulation reveals depth-dependent crack nucleation, stress-shadow effects that suppress full-depth crack growth and crack coalescence along the cement-formation interface -- phenomena that are fundamentally inaccessible under plane-strain assumptions - demonstrating the applicability of the framework to realistic heterogeneous wellbore systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a hybrid phase-field fracture framework for modeling crack initiation and propagation in heterogeneous wellbore systems consisting of casing, cement sheath, and formation with a weak cement-formation interface. The framework is validated on benchmark problems, after which 2D and 3D numerical experiments isolate the effects of casing eccentricity (up to and beyond 50%) and interface strength (down to 30% of bulk), reporting up to 30% reduction in crack initiation pressure due to eccentricity, deflection of radial cracks along weak interfaces, nucleation of inclined cracks, and depth-dependent 3D effects such as stress shadowing and incomplete crack coalescence.

Significance. If the interface deflection predictions hold, the results would be significant for wellbore integrity analysis in petroleum engineering, as they quantify how eccentricity and weak interfaces alter failure modes and pressures in ways inaccessible to plane-strain models, with the 3D simulation demonstrating phenomena like stress-shadow suppression of full-depth growth.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, Numerical Experiments] Abstract and Numerical Experiments section: The validation is described only against 'benchmark problems with available analytical and numerical solutions,' which the text indicates are standard homogeneous cases. No benchmark reproducing known analytical deflection/penetration criteria at bi-material interfaces (e.g., He-Hutchinson or Hutchinson-Suo) is reported. This is load-bearing for the central claim that cracks deflect along interfaces at exactly the 30% strength ratio rather than penetrate, as the outcome is known to depend on the ratio of interface to bulk toughness and the phase-field length scale relative to interface thickness.
  2. [Numerical Experiments] Numerical Experiments section: The reported 30% reduction in crack initiation pressure for eccentric configurations and the 50% eccentricity threshold for inclined crack nucleation rest on specific material parameters and implementation choices (e.g., how the weak interface is regularized). No sensitivity study or full parameter table is referenced, making the quantitative thresholds dependent on unexamined details.
minor comments (2)
  1. No error bars or convergence checks with respect to mesh size or phase-field length scale are mentioned for the quantitative pressure values.
  2. Material parameters for the cement, formation, and interface are not tabulated in full, hindering reproducibility of the 30% strength ratio results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. The feedback highlights important aspects of validation and parameter sensitivity that we will address in revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, Numerical Experiments] Abstract and Numerical Experiments section: The validation is described only against 'benchmark problems with available analytical and numerical solutions,' which the text indicates are standard homogeneous cases. No benchmark reproducing known analytical deflection/penetration criteria at bi-material interfaces (e.g., He-Hutchinson or Hutchinson-Suo) is reported. This is load-bearing for the central claim that cracks deflect along interfaces at exactly the 30% strength ratio rather than penetrate, as the outcome is known to depend on the ratio of interface to bulk toughness and the phase-field length scale relative to interface thickness.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the reported validation benchmarks are homogeneous problems and that a dedicated bi-material interface benchmark would provide stronger support for the deflection claims. The phase-field formulation follows established approaches in the literature that have been shown to capture interface behavior, but we agree this should be demonstrated explicitly. In the revised manuscript we will add a validation subsection reproducing the He-Hutchinson deflection/penetration criterion for a range of interface-to-bulk toughness ratios, including the 30% ratio used in the wellbore experiments, while also discussing the role of the phase-field length scale relative to interface thickness. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical Experiments] Numerical Experiments section: The reported 30% reduction in crack initiation pressure for eccentric configurations and the 50% eccentricity threshold for inclined crack nucleation rest on specific material parameters and implementation choices (e.g., how the weak interface is regularized). No sensitivity study or full parameter table is referenced, making the quantitative thresholds dependent on unexamined details.

    Authors: The quantitative thresholds are obtained with representative wellbore material parameters and a specific regularization of the weak interface. To improve transparency we will add a complete parameter table to the revised manuscript. We will also include a targeted sensitivity study varying the phase-field length scale and interface regularization thickness to demonstrate that the reported 30% pressure reduction and 50% eccentricity threshold for inclined cracks are robust within the chosen ranges. A comprehensive parametric exploration lies beyond the scope of the present study, which focuses on isolating the effects of eccentricity and interface strength. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely numerical outputs from validated simulation framework

full rationale

The paper presents a hybrid phase-field model applied to wellbore fracture problems. It validates the framework on benchmark problems with independent analytical/numerical solutions, then reports simulation results for eccentricity and interface strength effects. No analytical derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains are present in the provided text; all reported quantities (initiation pressures, crack paths, 30% reductions) are direct outputs of the numerical experiments rather than tautological restatements of inputs or model definitions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the phase-field regularization length, chosen interface strength ratios, and the assumption that benchmark validation transfers to the heterogeneous wellbore geometry; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • interface strength ratio = 0.3
    Chosen value (30% of bulk) used to trigger deflection behavior in the numerical experiments.
  • critical eccentricity threshold = 0.5
    Value (50%) identified from simulations as the onset of inclined cracking.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Phase-field model with appropriate length scale can represent both mode-I and shear-driven fracture at material interfaces.
    Invoked to justify the hybrid framework's applicability to cement-formation systems.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5821 in / 1446 out tokens · 70888 ms · 2026-06-27T02:40:22.569017+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Driscoll, Groundwater and Wells, Johnson Screens, Minnesota, USA, 1986

    F. Driscoll, Groundwater and Wells, Johnson Screens, Minnesota, USA, 1986

    1986

  2. [2]

    A.T.Bourgoyne, K.K.Millheim, M.E.Chenevert, F.S.Young, Applied drilling engineering, (No Title) (1986)

    1986

  3. [3]

    W. Wang, A. D. Taleghani, Three-dimensional analysis of cement sheath integrity around wellbores, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineer- ing 121 (2014) 38–51

    2014

  4. [4]

    C. Gu, X. Li, Y. Feng, J. Deng, K. Gray, Numerical investigation of cementinterfacedebondingindeviatedshalegaswellsconsideringcasing eccentricity and residual drilling fluid, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 158 (2022) 105197

    2022

  5. [5]

    Y.Xi, Y.Yao, X.-L.Guo, J.Li, Y.-D.Tian, G.-H.Liu, Failureevaluation mechanism of cement sheath sealing integrity under casing eccentricity during multistage fracturing, Petroleum Science 21 (2024) 3428–3445

    2024

  6. [6]

    X. Zhao, X. Yang, X. Lin, Y. Mei, A cohesive-element-based model to evaluate interfacial behavior of casing–cement sheath for high-pressure, high-temperature wellbore integrity considering casing eccentricity, Ad- vances in Mechanical Engineering 12 (2020) 1687814019898300

    2020

  7. [7]

    Zheng, E

    D. Zheng, E. Ozbayoglu, S. Miska, B. Silvio, Y. Liu, J. Wang, The influence of casing eccentricity on zonal isolation, in: ARMA US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, ARMA, 2023, pp. ARMA–2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Cheng, Y

    W. Cheng, Y. Jin, M. Chen, G.-S. Jiang, Numerical stress analysis for the multi-casing structure inside a wellbore in the formation using the boundary element method, Petroleum Science 14 (2017) 126–137

    2017

  9. [9]

    H. Dou, X. Dong, D. Gao, Numerical modelling of the cement sheath withradialcracksundercasingeccentricconditions, in: ARMAUSRock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, ARMA, 2020, pp. ARMA–2020

    2020

  10. [10]

    K. Liu, D. Gao, A. D. Taleghani, Impact of casing eccentricity on cement sheath, Energies 11 (2018) 2557. 34

    2018

  11. [11]

    L. Zhao, H. Yang, Y. Wei, Y. Bu, S. Jing, P. Zhou, Integrity and fail- ure analysis of cement sheath subjected to coalbed methane fracturing., Fluid Dynamics & Materials Processing 19 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Goodwin, R

    K. Goodwin, R. Crook, Cement sheath stress failure, SPE drilling engineering 7 (1992) 291–296

    1992

  13. [13]

    Y. Xi, J. Li, Q. Tao, B. Guo, G. Liu, Experimental and numerical inves- tigations of accumulated plastic deformation in cement sheath during multistage fracturing in shale gas wells, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 187 (2020) 106790

    2020

  14. [14]

    T. H. Nassan, M. Kirch, C. Freese, H. Alkan, D. Baganz, M. Amro, Experimentalinvestigationofwellboreintegrityduringgeologicalcarbon sequestration: Thermal-and pressure-cycling experiments, Gas Science and Engineering 124 (2024) 205253

    2024

  15. [15]

    Vrålstad, R

    T. Vrålstad, R. Skorpa, Digital cement integrity: A methodology for 3d visualization of cracks and microannuli in well cement, Sustainability 12 (2020) 4128

    2020

  16. [16]

    Taghipour, A

    A. Taghipour, A. Ghaderi, P. Cerasi, S. Gheibi, Novel laboratory setup for realistic wellbore cement and formation integrity studies, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109664

    2022

  17. [17]

    A. Anya, H. Emadi, M. Watson, A novel apparatus and method for lab- scale study of wellbore integrity using ct imaging and analysis, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 220 (2023) 111209

    2023

  18. [18]

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

    1998

  19. [19]

    Bourdin, G

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

    2000

  20. [20]

    Amor, J.-J

    H. Amor, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, Regularized formulation of the vari- ational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical experiments, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 57 (2009) 1209–1229. 35

    2009

  21. [21]

    Miehe, F

    C. Miehe, F. Welschinger, M. Hofacker, Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: Variational principles and multi-field fe implementations, International journal for numerical methods in engi- neering 83 (2010) 1273–1311

    2010

  22. [22]

    J. Ding, T. Yu, W. Fang, S. Natarajan, An adaptive phase field modeling of fatigue crack growth using variable-node elements and explicit cycle jump scheme, Computer Methods in Applied Me- chanics and Engineering 429 (2024) 117200. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782524004560. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2024.117200

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2024.117200 2024

  23. [23]

    Seiler, T

    M. Seiler, T. Linse, P. Hantschke, M. Kästner, An efficient phase-field model for fatigue fracture in ductile materials, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 224 (2020) 106807

    2020

  24. [24]

    Zhang, X

    P. Zhang, X. Hu, T. Q. Bui, W. Yao, Phase field modeling of fracture in fiber reinforced composite laminate, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 161 (2019) 105008

    2019

  25. [25]

    I. Jain, A. Muixí, C. Annavarapu, S. S. Mulay, A. Rodríguez-Ferran, Adaptive phase-field modeling of fracture in orthotropic composites, En- gineering Fracture Mechanics 292 (2023) 109673. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013794423006318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109673

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109673 2023

  26. [26]

    I. Jain, C. Annavarapu, S. S. Mulay, A. Rodríguez-Ferran, Numerical modeling of fracture propagation in orthotropic composite materials us- ing an adaptive phase-field method, International Journal of Advances in Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics 15 (2023) 144–154

    2023

  27. [27]

    S. Khan, A. Muixí, C. Annavarapu, A. Rodríguez-Ferran, Adaptive phase-field modeling of fracture propagation in bi-layered materials, En- gineering Fracture Mechanics 292 (2023) 109650

    2023

  28. [28]

    S. Khan, A. Muixí, C. Annavarapu, A. Rodríguez-Ferran, Investigation on the effect of material mismatch between two dissimilar materials using an adaptive phase-field method, International Journal of Advances in Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics (2023). 36

    2023

  29. [30]

    F. A. Denli, O. Gültekin, G. A. Holzapfel, H. Dal, A phase-field model forfractureofunidirectionalfiber-reinforcedpolymermatrixcomposites, Computational Mechanics 65 (2020) 1149–1166

    2020

  30. [31]

    Messaoudi, H

    I. Messaoudi, H. Mallek, H. Mellouli, M. Wali, F. Dammak, Fracture modeling of cnt/epoxy nanocomposites based on phase-field method us- ing multiscale strategy, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications 239 (2025) 319–334

    2025

  31. [32]

    Cusini, F

    M. Cusini, F. Fei, Phase Field Modeling of Near-Wellbore Hydraulic Fracture Nucleation and Propagation, Technical Report, Lawrence Liv- ermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States),

  32. [33]

    doi:10.2172/ 2287725

    URL:https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2287725. doi:10.2172/ 2287725

    arXiv

  33. [34]

    W. N. Munshi, C. Annavarapu, S. S. Mulay, A. Rodriguez-Ferran, Mod- eling three-dimensional crack interaction in layered materials with im- perfectly bonded interfaces using a phase-field model, Available at SSRN 5289771 (2025)

    2025

  34. [35]

    Munshi, C

    W. Munshi, C. Annavarapu, S. Mulay, A. Rodriguez-Ferran, Phase-field modeling of crack propagation in layered materials with weak interfaces, International Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering Sci- ence and Mechanics (2025) 1–12

    2025

  35. [36]

    C. Kuhn, R. Müller, Phase field modeling of interface effects on cracks in heterogeneous materials, PAMM 19 (2019) e201900378

    2019

  36. [37]

    Ambati, T

    M. Ambati, T. Gerasimov, L. De Lorenzis, A review on phase-field mod- els of brittle fracture and a new fast hybrid formulation, Computational Mechanics 55 (2015) 383–405. 37

    2015

  37. [38]

    Bangerth, R

    W. Bangerth, R. Hartmann, G. Kanschat, deal. ii—a general-purpose object-oriented finite element library, ACM Transactions on Mathemat- ical Software (TOMS) 33 (2007) 24–es

    2007

  38. [39]

    W. N. Munshi, M. Fehling, W. Bangerth, C. Annavarapu, A detailed guidetoanopen-sourceimplementationofthehybridphasefieldmethod for 3d fracture modeling in deal.ii, Computer Physics Communications 319 (2026) 109901. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0010465525004023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpc.2025.109901

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2026

  39. [40]

    G. B. Jeffery, Ix. plane stress and plane strain in bipolar co-ordinates, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 221 (1921) 265–293

    1921

  40. [41]

    Gustafsson, H

    A. Gustafsson, H. Isaksson, Phase field models of interface failure for bone application-evaluation of open-source implementations, Theoreti- cal and Applied Fracture Mechanics 121 (2022) 103432

    2022

  41. [42]

    Suo, Engineering sciences 247: Fracture mechanics,http:// imechanica.org/node/7448, 2010

    Z. Suo, Engineering sciences 247: Fracture mechanics,http:// imechanica.org/node/7448, 2010. IMechanica post, 25 January 2010

    2010

  42. [43]

    B. Xu, T. Xu, Y. Xue, M. J. Heap, P. Ranjith, P. Wasantha, Z. Li, Phase-field modeling of crack growth and interaction in rock, Geome- chanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources 8 (2022) 180

    2022

  43. [44]

    S. P. Clavijo, M. Addassi, T. Finkbeiner, H. Hoteit, A coupled phase- fieldandreactive-transportframeworkforfracturepropagationinporoe- lastic media, Scientific Reports 12 (2022) 17819. 38 (a) Radial load-displacement plot forκ=−0.8 (b) Tangential load-displacement plot forκ=−0.8 Figure 17: Load–displacement curves obtained by summing the values over the ...

    2022