Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Classic dynamic fracture recovered as the limit of a nonlocal peridynamic model: The single edge notch in tension

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read As the peridynamic horizon shrinks to zero, a double-well cohesive fracture model converges to classical plane elastodynamics with a running crack and its crack-speed kinetic relation emerges from the nonlocal dynamics rather than being…

desk verdict A serious paper that genuinely derives the crack-lip traction and kinetic-relation energy balance from a nonlocal model, but only under unproved hypotheses that the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07589 v6 pith:KMSRU6KK submitted 2019-08-20 math.AP

Robert Lipton , Prashant K. Jha This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 74R1074H2074B0535L05
keywords peridynamicsdynamicfracturenonlocal-to-localconvergencekineticrelationdouble-wellpotentialmodeIcracktoughnessenergyreleaserate
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 claims that a simple peridynamic model of brittle fracture—bond pairs interacting through a double-well potential over a horizon of length $\epsilon$—has a well-defined limit as $\epsilon\to 0$, and that this limit is the classical dynamic fracture problem for a single edge notch in tension. In the limit, the displacement satisfies linear elastodynamics away from the crack, the crack lips are traction-free, and the crack tip moves according to the standard kinetic relation $G_c V(t)=\mathcal{J}$. The authors' point is that this kinetic relation is not assumed and is not derived from an energy-balance postulate; it is recovered by taking the $\epsilon=0$ limit of the nonlocal power balance once the softening zone is handled internally by the model. A sympathetic reader would care because it grounds the use of peridynamic simulations as a surrogate for classical fracture mechanics and explains how crack dynamics can emerge from a purely nonlocal field theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pairwise double-well cohesive potential $W_\epsilon(S)=J_\epsilon(|y-x|)\epsilon^{-3}\omega_2^{-2}|y-x|g(\sqrt{|y-x|}S)$, with $g(r)=h(r^2)$ for concave $h$: linear elastic for small strain, softening past a critical strain, and zero force past $S_+$. Its horizon scaling makes the fracture toughness $G_c$ independent of $\epsilon$, so the same material toughness is present at every horizon. The argument runs through a new nonlocal divergence theorem and the nonlocal power balance (53), together with the assumptions that the softening zone is a thin strip, that softened bonds immediately fail, and that the opening displacement stays positive; these allow the energy integral over the two sides of the crack face to deliver exactly $-G_c V(t)$ in the limit.

What would settle it

Run the single-edge-notch simulation with horizons $\epsilon = 2.5, 1.25, 0.625$ mm and smaller, extract crack length versus time, and check whether the inferred crack-tip velocity satisfies (44) with the specified $G_c$; if the two sides of that relation diverge as $\epsilon$ shrinks, the recovered kinetic relation (58) fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that solutions $u^\epsilon$ of the nonlocal initial-boundary value problem (15), with forces from the double-well potential (3), converge in $L^2$ to a limit $u^0$ that is the weak solution of $\rho \ddot u^0 = \operatorname{div}(C E u^0)+b$ on $D\setminus J_{u^0}(t)$, with $C E u^0 n=0$ on the crack faces, and with crack-tip speed $V(t)$ tied to the energy flux $\mathcal{J}$ by $G_c V(t)=\mathcal{J}$. The paper proves this through Propositions 2\textendash 5 (crack set equals jump set, momentum balance, zero traction) and Proposition 7, which passes the nonlocal power balance (53) to the limit and obtains $\lim_{\epsilon\to0} \frac{d}{dt}\int_{P_\delta^\epsilon}(T^\epsilon+W^\epsilon)\,dx = \int_{\Gamma_\delta} C E u^0 n\cdot \dot u^0\,ds - G_c V(t)+O(\delta)$. Setting the internal-energy rate to zero gives the kinetic relation; substituting the classical flux formula (43) yields the semi-explicit relation (44). The paper emphasizes that this is a recovery of the kinetic relation from the model, not an input to it.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the unproved Hypotheses 1 through 3 together with the uniform-convergence assumption in Proposition 7: the softening zone must have the assumed thin-strip shape, every softened bond must immediately fail, the crack opening displacement must stay bounded away from zero, and the nonlocal fields must converge uniformly away from the crack tip.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every horizon $\epsilon>0$, the nonlocal evolution has a unique solution, so the convergence program supplies a well-posed path from nonlocal dynamics to the classical sharp-crack equations.
  • In the small-horizon limit, the crack set coincides with the jump set of the limiting displacement, and the normal traction on the crack lips vanishes.
  • The crack-tip velocity satisfies $G_c V(t)=\mathcal{J}$ and the semi-explicit form (44), so the classic dynamic fracture criterion becomes a corollary of the nonlocal model rather than an extra postulate.
  • Because $G_c$ is independent of the horizon, shrinking $\epsilon$ yields numerical crack evolutions that can be compared directly with classical predictions while avoiding explicit crack-tip tracking.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this recovery extends to other loadings and geometries, peridynamic simulations with finite horizon could be used in reverse: measuring crack speed numerically and reading off the dynamic stress-intensity factor through the classical formula $\mathcal{J}(K_I,V)$.
  • The paper notes that a Lennard-Jones-type potential is a natural next step; the same limit procedure could then deliver a sharp fracture model whose crack lips do not interpenetrate, a property the current bond-based well does not enforce.
  • A testable consequence is that crack speeds computed for successively smaller horizons should converge to the solution of (44); a systematic offset would identify which of Hypotheses 1\textendash 3 or the uniform-convergence assumption needs modification.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 studies a bond-based peridynamic model with a double-well (cohesive) potential for a single-edge-notch specimen under mode-I loading. The authors claim that as the peridynamic horizon ε tends to zero, solutions of the nonlocal initial-value problem (15) converge to the classical dynamic fracture problem: linear elastodynamics away from the crack, zero traction on the crack faces, and the kinetic relation G_c V(t) = J. The kinetic relation is not postulated as a power balance but is derived by passing to the ε → 0 limit in the nonlocal energy-rate identity (Proposition 6), yielding Proposition 7 and Eq. (58). The analysis is conditional on three hypotheses stated in Section 5 (geometric structure of the softening zone, immediate bond failure after softening, and ε^{-1} strain growth across the crack with a positive limit jump) and on an additional uniform-convergence assumption in Proposition 7. The paper also presents numerical simulations for three horizons that are offered as qualitative support for the hypotheses.

Significance. If the conditional results are accepted, the paper provides a substantive bridge between peridynamic fracture and classical dynamic fracture mechanics. The nonlocal divergence theorem (Proposition 9) and the exact nonlocal power-balance identity (Proposition 6) are genuine technical contributions, and deriving the energy-rate identity G_c V = J from an ε > 0 balance rather than postulating it is a meaningful step. The numerical experiments for three horizons are a useful sanity check. However, the strength of the central claim is substantially tempered by the fact that the main theorem and the kinetic relation depend on Hypotheses 1–3 and on an unproved uniform-convergence assumption in Proposition 7, and by the fact that the semi-explicit kinetic relation (44) relies on the classical formula (43) imported from Freund and Clifton rather than being computed from the nonlocal model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Hypotheses 1–3; Proposition 7 (Eqs. (55)–(58))] The central convergence claims—Propositions 2, 4, 5, and 7—are all conditional on Hypotheses 1–3, and Proposition 7 adds a further unproved uniform-convergence assumption on u^{ε}, dot u^{ε}, and S(y,x,u^{ε}) to u^0, dot u^0, and E u^0 e·e away from the crack tip. The key limit (55), especially the replacement of the nonlocal flux integrand by the local flux (129), requires exactly this uniformity; it is not derived from Eq. (15) or from Hypotheses 1–3. Hypothesis 3 itself, Eq. (34), postulates an ε^{-1} strain growth across the crack line, which is a singular-behavior input rather than a consequence of the dynamics. Since the kinetic relation (58) is derived through Proposition 7, the paper's main claim is conditional. The authors do state the hypotheses explicitly, but the title, abstract, and conclusions do not carry this qualifier, and the numerical section provides only qualitative support (Figures 5–8), not a quantitative verification of the ε^{-1} scaling or of the uniform-convergence assumption.
  2. [Section 5 and Section 11, Eqs. (43)–(44)] The semi-explicit kinetic relation (44) is not recovered from the nonlocal model: formula (43) for J is quoted from Freund and Clifton (1974) and Freund (1990), not computed from the peridynamic model. What Proposition 7 actually establishes is the energy-rate identity (58), G_c V = J with J = lim_{δ→0} ∫_{Γ_δ} C E u^0 n · dot u^0 ds. The further reduction to (44), which is the practically useful crack-tip velocity law, uses an external elastodynamic calculation of the energy flux in terms of K_I and V. Thus the statements in the Introduction and Conclusions that 'the kinetic relation for crack tip velocity is recovered directly from the nonlocal model' overstate the result: the nonlocal model supplies the energy balance, while the dependence of J on K_I and V is classical input. The paper should be reframed accordingly.
  3. [Section 4, uniform bound assertion] The paper states in Section 4 that 'it is assumed as in [Lipton(2016)] that the magnitude of the displacement u^{ε} is bounded uniformly in (x,t) for all horizons ε>0.' This is an additional regularity hypothesis on the nonlocal solutions that is not listed among Hypotheses 1–3 and is not derived from Eq. (15). It is used in the compactness arguments leading to Proposition 3 and the SBD limit. The paper should either prove this bound under stated assumptions on the data or explicitly list it as a standing hypothesis, so that the reader can see the full set of conditions on which the convergence rests.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 8, Eq. (46)] The norm in Eq. (46) is written with a square '(∫ |w|^2 dx + ∫ |∇w|^2 dx)^2'; it should be the square root, i.e. the exponent should be 1/2.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (25)] The identity 'µ = λ = M 1/4 h′(0)' is notationally ambiguous; it should read 'µ = λ = (M/4) h′(0)' or an equivalent explicit product.
  3. [Section 6, first paragraph] The body-force definition 'b(x,t) = (0, f_0 h(t)/ε)' is missing a closing parenthesis, and the corresponding formula for the bottom layer should be written with matching parentheses for clarity.
  4. [Section 5, Eq. (43)] The prefactor (1+ν)/E in Eq. (43) should be checked against the plane-strain convention used elsewhere in the paper; for plane strain one generally expects an expression such as (1−ν^2)/E or an equivalent combination of elastic constants, and the present notation with α_t is not standard.
  5. [Section 5, around Eq. (39)] Equation (39) mixes the limit ε→0 with an O(δ) term in a single display; it would be clearer to state the limit first and then bound the remainder uniformly for small δ, so that the order of the two limiting processes is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Zero traction is built into Hypothesis 2 and the kinetic relation is extracted only under an unproved uniform-convergence plus zero-energy-rate condition; the central energy-balance derivation is otherwise self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 5, Hypothesis 2 and Proposition 5 (eqs. (37), (52))]
    "Hypothesis 2 We suppose that SZϵ =Fϵ, i.e., once bonds soften they fail. ... Thus the displacements adjacent to this zone are not influenced by forces on the other side of the zone. ... Equation (52) is the weak formulation of zero traction on the crack lips (37)."

    The traction-free condition on the crack lips is not an emergent result of the nonlocal dynamics in the limit; it is written into Hypothesis 2, which states that all bonds crossing the crack zone have already failed, so that no force is transmitted from one side of the crack to the other. Proposition 5 then returns this same statement as the weak zero-traction identity (52). The claimed recovery of (37) is therefore, up to weak-form transcription, the input hypothesis itself.

  2. other [Section 5, Proposition 7 (eqs. (55)–(58))]
    "In addition to hypothesis 1 through 3 we suppose that uϵn(t), ˙uϵn(t),S(y, x, uϵn) converge uniformly to u0(t), ˙u0(t), andEu0e·e on subsets away from the the crack tip for t∈ [0,T ]. ... From this proposition we see that when the rate of change of internal energy is zero the kinetic relation for the crack tip velocity is ... GcV (t) =J."

    The local energy flux that supplies J is obtained by assuming uniform convergence of the nonlocal velocity and strain fields to their local limits; that uniformity is not proved from the nonlocal balance law. The final kinetic relation is then selected by the additional condition that the rate of change of internal energy in the moving tip region vanish, which is not derived from the model. Thus GcV=J is recovered only under hypotheses that already contain the classical balance structure, so the advertised 'direct recovery' is conditional rather than unconditional.

full rationale

The paper's central step is not circular in the strict sense: Proposition 6 is an exact identity following from the nonlocal equation of motion, and the calculation in Section 11 evaluates the GcV term from the same double-well potential that defines the model, with no parameter fitted to the target kinetic relation. However, two pieces of the advertised limit are inputs rather than consequences. Hypothesis 2 already imposes failed bonds across the crack, making zero traction on the crack lips nearly tautological. Proposition 7 relies on an unproved uniform-convergence hypothesis and then imposes zero rate of change of internal energy to turn the balance identity (56) into the kinetic relation GcV=J; moreover, the explicit form (44) uses the J(K_I,V) formula imported from Freund and Clifton rather than derived from the nonlocal model. The paper also leans on the authors' earlier compactness results from Lipton (2014, 2016), but those are published theorems with assumptions independent of the kinetic relation, so I do not count the self-citation itself as circular. Overall, the energy-balance derivation has independent mathematical content, but the advertised 'recovery' is weakened by hypotheses that partly encode the conclusions, justifying a modest circularity/conditionality score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central asymptotic result does not fit any number to the phenomenon it predicts; the double-well potential shape, influence function, and material constants are inputs, and c and beta in the numerical example are calibrated from E and Gc via (23) and (25). The main burden is carried by the eight axioms listed, especially the three geometric hypotheses and the uniform convergence assumption. No new physical entities are introduced; the softening zone SZ epsilon, bond failure set F epsilon, and crack centerline are defined sets that emerge from the solution and simulations.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Small deformation assumption: displacement u is infinitesimal and deformed configuration is identified with reference configuration (Section 2).
    Justifies the difference quotient strain (2) and the linear elastic wave equation in the limit; excludes finite deformation and interpenetration.
  • domain assumption Uniform bound on displacement magnitude independent of horizon epsilon (Section 4, after (21)).
    Taken from Theorem 2.3 of Lipton (2016); used to pass to the limit and to obtain bounded Griffith energy.
  • ad hoc to paper Hypothesis 1: for x in SZ epsilon, all bonds crossing the x2 = 0 axis are beyond the critical strain while same-side bonds are below it.
    Used in Propositions 1 and 2 to identify SZ epsilon with a thin rectangle and to relate the strain limit to the jump set.
  • ad hoc to paper Hypothesis 2: SZ epsilon = F epsilon, i.e. once bonds soften they fail.
    Used in Section 11 to replace the softened zone by a traction-free crack wake when computing the integral of W epsilon over Gamma 1 as Gc/2.
  • ad hoc to paper Hypothesis 3: displacement is directed away from the crack, strain across the crack line grows as epsilon^{-1}, and the limit jump satisfies [u0] dot n > alpha > 0 (Eqs. (34)-(35)).
    Used to prove Proposition 2, crack set equals jump set, and in the energy flux limit.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform convergence of u epsilon, u epsilon dot, and strain to u0, u0 dot, and E u0 e dot e on subsets away from the crack tip (Proposition 7).
    Assumed to pass to the limit in the nonlocal energy flux; not proved from the dynamics.
  • standard math SBD compactness and difference quotient estimates (68) and (94) from Lipton (2016) and Ambrosio, Coscia, and Dal Maso (1997).
    Taken as established background for compactness and the structure of the jump set.
  • standard math Classical representation of the dynamic energy flux J in terms of K_I(t) and V(t) (Eq. (43), cited to Atkinson-Eshelby, Kostrov-Nikitin, Freund, and Willis).
    Imported to turn Gc V = J into the semi-explicit kinetic relation (44); K_I(t) is not computed from the nonlocal model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classic dynamic fracture recovered as the limit of a nonlocal peridynamic model: The single edge notch in tension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMSRU6KK

@misc{pith2026190807589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classic dynamic fracture recovered as the limit of a nonlocal peridynamic model: The single edge notch in tension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMSRU6KK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07589}
}
read the original abstract

A simple nonlocal field theory of peridynamic type is applied to model brittle fracture. The fracture evolution is shown to converge in the limit of vanishing nonlocality to classic plane elastodynamics with a running crack. The kinetic relation for the crack is recovered directly from the nonlocal model in the limit of vanishing nonlocality. We carry out our analysis for a single crack in a plate subject to mode one loading. The convergence is corroborated by numerical experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07589 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Single-edge-notch an emergent phenomena generated by the underlying field theory eliminating the need for supplemental kinetic relations describing crack growth. The de￾formation field inside the body for points x at time t is written u(x, t). The perydynamic model is described simply by the balance of linear momentum of the form ρutt(x, t) = Z H(x) f(y, x) dy + b(x, t) (1) where H(x) is a neighborhood of x, ρ is … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The potential function g(r) for tensile force. Here C + is the asymptotic value of g. (b) Cohesive force. The derivative of the force potential goes smoothly to zero at ±r +. In this treatment the material is assumed homogeneous and the density ρ is constant. The set notation H(x) ∩ D means if x belongs to D and if the line connecting x to y crosses the boundary ∂D then the strain and the energy W (S(y, x,u(t)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evaluation of fracture toughness Gc. For each point x along the dashed line, 0 ≤ z ≤ , the work required to break the interaction between x and y in the spherical cap is summed up in (22) using spherical coordinates centered at x. to zero with . In this way  can be interpreted as a parameter associated with the extent of the process zone of the material. To find the elastic moduli associated with the cohesive pot… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Contour Γδ surrounding the domain Pδ moving with the ve￾locity V of the crack centerline. On the other hand the magnitude of the nonlocal strain |S(y, x,u  )| is bounded by r c/ p |y − x| between all points x and y not separated from each other by the crack center lin…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Setup. (b), (c) Displacement profile of nodes in the domain [0, 0.1] × [−0.03, 0.03] at time t = 460 µs and t = 520 µs for horizon  = 0.625 mm. From this proposition we see that when the rate of change of internal energy is zero the kinetic relation for the crack …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Softening zone (red) for different horizons. (a), (b), (c) cor￾respond to SZ (t) at t = 460 µs for  = 2.5, 1.25, 0.625 mm. (d), (e), (f) correspond to SZ (t) at t = 520 µs for  = 2.5, 1.25, 0.625 mm. the crack center line at times t = 460, 520 µs. From these plots,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Softening zone SZ (t) for  = 2.5, 1.25, 0.625 mm at time t = 520 µs on top of each other. Red, light yellow, and light blue color is used for SZ of horizon 2.5, 1.25, 0.625 mm respectively. Bottom: Zoomed in near the crack center line tip. 375 400 425 450 475 5…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The crack center line length is plotted as a function of time for three different horizons. Proposition 8 Existence and uniqueness of the nonlocal evolution. The initial value problem given by (15) and (19) has a unique solution u(x, t) such that for every t ∈ [0, T], …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Contour Γ  δ surrounding the domain P  δ moving with the crack centerline tip velocity V  . This identity follows on applying the definition of D |ξ| −e ϕ = (ϕ(x − ξ) − ϕ(x))/|ξ| for scalar fields ϕ and Fubini’s theorem. When convenient we set A δ (t) = D \P  δ…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Uδ(t). 11 Crack tip motion and power balance for the local model In this section we complete the proof of Proposition 7 and establish (55). We start by establishing the crucial identity Z Γ n δ (t) (T n + Wn )V n e 1 · n ds = −GcV n (t) + O(δ). (116) Since V n e…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Contour Γ n δ split into four sides and Γ1 divided into one part away from crack centerline and two parts close to the crack centerline. Here we have E n (Γ n δ (t)) =  2 n Z P n δ (t) Z H1(0) D n|ξ| −e h n|ξ|∂SWn (Dn|ξ| e u n · e)u˙ n · e i dξdx =  2 n Z …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Contour Γδ split into four sides. 12 Conclusions In this paper we have shown that the nonlocal cohesive model has solutions that converge in the limit of vanishing non-locality to classic plane elasto￾dynamics with a running crack. The normal traction on the crack lip…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Atkinson, C

    Atkinson and Eshelby(1968). Atkinson, C. and Eshelby, J. D

    work page 1968

  2. [17]

    Journal of Peri- dynamics and Nonlocal Modeling

    Com- plex fracture nucleation and evolution with nonlocal elastodynamics. Journal of Peri- dynamics and Nonlocal Modeling. Online First. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ s42102-019-00010-0 Mengesha and Du(2015). Mengesha, T. and Du, Q.,

    work page 2015

  3. [22]

    Journal of Elasticity 88 (2), 151–184

    Peridynamic states and constitutive modeling. Journal of Elasticity 88 (2), 151–184. Silling and Lehoucq (2008). Silling, S. A. and Lehoucq, R. B.,

    work page 2008

  4. [25]

    Computers and Structures 83, 1526–1535

    A meshfree method based on the peridynamic model of solid mechanics. Computers and Structures 83, 1526–1535. Classic dynamic fracture recovered as the limit of a nonlocal peridynamic model 39 Slepian (2002). Slepian, Y.,

    work page 2002

  5. [27]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 343, 151–165

    An asymptoti- cally compatible mesh free quadrature rule for nonlocal problems with applications to peridynamics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 343, 151–165. Willis (1975). Willis, J. R., 1975, Equations of motion for propagating cracks, The mechan- ics and physics of fracture, The Metals Society. 57–67

    work page 1975

  6. [1948]

    Engineering 165, 16–18

    Fracture in mild steel plates. Engineering 165, 16–18. Ravi-Chandar (2004). Ravi-Chandar, K.,

    work page 2004

  7. [1968]

    The flow of energy into the tip of a moving crack. Int. J. Fract. 4, 3–8. Ambrosio, Coscia and Dal Maso(1997). Ambrosio, L., Coscia, A., and Dal Maso, G.,

    work page 1997

  8. [1970]

    Some general problems of mechanics of brittle fracture. Arch. Mech. Stosowanej. 22, 749–775. Lipton(2014). Lipton, R.,

    work page 2014

Show all 27 references
  1. [1972]

    Energy flux into the tip of an extending crack in an elastic solid. J. Elasticity 2, 341–349. Freund(1990). Freund, B

    1990

  2. [1974]

    Journal of Elasticity 4, 293–299

    On the uniqueness of plane elastodynamic solutions for running cracks. Journal of Elasticity 4, 293–299. Jha and Lipton(2018a). Jha, P. K. and Lipton, R., 2018a. Numerical analysis of nonlocal fracture models in H¨ older space. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 56 (2), 906–94...

    2018 doi

  3. [1990]

    Cambridge Monographs on Mechanics and Applied Mathematics

    Dynamic Fracture Mechanics. Cambridge Monographs on Mechanics and Applied Mathematics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Freund and Clifton(1974). Freund, B. and Clifton, R J.,

    1974

  4. [1997]

    Fine properties of functions with bounded deformation. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 139, 201–238. Anderson(2005). Anderson, T. L

    2005

  5. [1998]

    American Mathematical Society

    Partial Differential Equations. American Mathematical Society. Providence, RI. Fineberg and Marder(1999). Fineberg, J. and Marder, M

    1999

  6. [1999]

    Physics Reports, 313, 1–108

    Instability in dynamic frac- ture. Physics Reports, 313, 1–108. Freund(1972). Freund, L. B.,

    1972

  7. [2000]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48 (1), 175–209

    Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48 (1), 175–209. Silling et al. (2007). Silling, S. A., Epton, M., Weckner, O., Xu, J. and Askari, E.,

    2007

  8. [2002]

    Founda- tions of Engineering Mechanics

    Models and Phenomena in Fracture Mechanics. Founda- tions of Engineering Mechanics. Springer-Verlag. Berlin. Trask et al. (2018). Trask, N., You, H., Yu, Y., and Parks, M. L.,

    2018

  9. [2004]

    Elsevier

    Dynamic Fracture. Elsevier. Oxford. Silling (2000). Silling, S. A.,

    2000

  10. [2005]

    3rd edition

    Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applica- tions. 3rd edition. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton. 38 Robert Lipton, Prashant K. Jha Bobaru and Zhang(2015). Bobaru, F. and Zhang, G.,

    2015

  11. [2007]

    Communications in Mathematical Sciences 5, 851–864

    On the well-posedness of the linear peridynamic model and its convergence towards the Navier equation of linear elasticity. Communications in Mathematical Sciences 5, 851–864. Evans(1998). Evans, L. C.,

    1998

  12. [2008]

    Journal of Elasticity 93 (1), 13–37

    Convergence of peri- dynamics to classical elasticity theory. Journal of Elasticity 93 (1), 13–37. Silling and Lehoucq (2010). Silling, S. A. and Lehoucq, R. B.,

    2010

  13. [2010]

    Advances in Applied Mechanics 44, 73–168

    Peridynamic theory of solid mechanics. Advances in Applied Mechanics 44, 73–168. Silling and Askari (2005). S. A. and Askari, E.,

    2005

  14. [2014]

    Journal of Elasticity 117 (1), 21–50

    Dynamic brittle fracture as a small horizon limit of peri- dynamics. Journal of Elasticity 117 (1), 21–50. Lipton(2016). Lipton, R.,

    2016

  15. [2015]

    International Journal of Fracture 196, 59–98

    Why do cracks branch? A peri- dynamic investigation of dynamic brittle fracture. International Journal of Fracture 196, 59–98. Emmrich and Weckner(2007). Emmrich, E. and Weckner, O.,

    2007

  16. [2016]

    Journal of Elasticity 124 (2), 143–191

    Cohesive dynamics and brittle fracture. Journal of Elasticity 124 (2), 143–191. Lipton et al.(2018). Lipton, R., Said, E., and Jha, P. K.,

    2018

  17. [2018]

    Handbook of Nonlocal Con- tinuum Mechanics for Materials and Structures, 1–27

    Dynamic brittle fracture from nonlocal double-well potentials: A state-based model. Handbook of Nonlocal Con- tinuum Mechanics for Materials and Structures, 1–27. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-22977-5_33-1 Lipton, Lehoucq, and Jha (2019). Lipton, R., Lehoucq, R., and ...

    2019

  18. [2019]

    Kostrov, B

    Kostrov and Nikitin(1970). Kostrov, B. V. and Nikitin, L. V.,

    1970

  19. [3999]

    Mott (1948). Mott, N. F.,

    1948

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.