Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 72 references

A comparison of phase field models of brittle fracture incorporating strength: I -- Mixed-mode loading

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Only the complete nucleation phase-field model predicts crack growth correctly under mode II, mode III, and mixed-mode loading; the classical variational model mispredicts paths, and the cohesive-zone hybrid model grows cracks at the…

desk verdict A useful, honest numerical comparison with two new findings, but the headline claim for the Complete Nucleation model rests on a calibrated parameter and cracks that mostly kink to mode I. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04487 v1 pith:SLJRMBK7 submitted 2025-02-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Umar Khayaz , Aarosh Dahal , Aditya Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords phase-fieldfracturebrittlecracknucleationstrengthsurfacemixed-modeloadingGriffithcriterioncohesivezonemodelvariational
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

Three phase-field models of brittle fracture try to combine material strength (when cracks form) with fracture toughness (how existing cracks grow), and this paper asks whether they stay reliable when loading is not simple tension. Using mode II, mode III, and mixed-mode benchmarks, including an experimentally documented four-point bending test, it claims that only the complete nucleation model—which adds the strength surface to the phase-field evolution equation as a stress-based driving force—predicts Griffith-type crack growth in every investigated case. The classical variational model with a star-convex energy split can nucleate spurious compressive cracks under in-plane shear and tends to select shear cracks under mode III and compression, because its strength surface is too weak in shear. The cohesive-zone hybrid model follows roughly correct crack paths but propagates cracks at an incorrect effective fracture toughness, because its stress-based crack-driving energy differs from the strain energy near the crack tip. If the paper is right, engineering use of the two flawed approaches in non-tension-dominated problems would mispredict either crack paths or critical loads.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the three distinct mechanisms used to embed strength. In the complete nucleation model, an explicit stress-based driving force $c_e(I_1,J_2;\varepsilon)$ is added to the right-hand side of the phase-field evolution equation; its coefficients are fitted to the chosen strength surface (in these tests, a standard two-parameter Drucker-Prager-type surface), and the coefficient $\delta_\varepsilon$ in Eq. (18) restores the effective critical energy release rate to the experimental $G_c$. The classical variational model instead uses a star-convex energy split, degrading only a 'tensile' part of the strain energy and leaving a 'compressive' part intact. The CZM-Hybrid model replaces the variational driving force $g'(v)W(E)$ with $g'(v)\Gamma(\sigma)$, where $\Gamma$ is computed from a modified von Mises or Rankine equivalent stress, so that crack evolution and elasticity are governed by different energy functions.

What would settle it

Run a mode II or mixed-mode crack-growth experiment on a material with independently measured $G_c$ and strength surface, simulate the same geometry with the complete nucleation model using $\delta_\varepsilon$ from Eq. (18), and check whether the crack initiates at the Griffith load. A deviation beyond the reported 5--10\% error would show the calibration is not transferable and would undercut the paper's central comparison.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that of the three strength-aware phase-field formulations only the complete nucleation model reproduces crack growth from pre-existing cracks under mode II, mode III, and mixed-mode loading. That model augments the Euler-Lagrange equation for the phase field with an extra stress-based driving force built from the material's strength surface and multiplies the fracture energy by a coefficient $\delta_\varepsilon$ calibrated so the effective critical energy release rate matches the measured $G_c$. In the benchmarks, this model predicts the same load-displacement response and crack paths as Griffith theory for large cracks, converges to the uniaxial strength as notches shrink, and matches the experimental V-notch mixed-mode paths. The classical variational model with the star-convex split, in contrast, fails to represent the full strength surface: its shear strength is artificially low, leading to a spurious compressive crack under in-plane shear and shear-branch cracks in mode III and compression problems. The CZM-Hybrid model, which drives fracture with an equivalent-stress energy $\Gamma(\sigma)$ rather than the strain energy $W(E)$, produces qualitatively similar paths but systematically underpredicts peak loads because $\Gamma \neq W$ near the crack tip.

Load-bearing premise

The complete nucleation model's Griffith-consistent behavior depends on the approximate formula for $\delta_\varepsilon$ (Eq. 18) being transferable across loading modes and geometries; if that calibration is problem-dependent, the agreement reported here is partly manufactured rather than emergent, and a convergence proof as $\varepsilon \to 0$ is still missing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For shear-dominated or mixed-mode simulations of brittle fracture, only the complete nucleation model's predictions of critical load and crack path can be taken at face value among the three compared models.
  • The star-convex variational model should not be used for shear-dominated problems: it can nucleate compressive cracks and may select shear cracks over tensile ones because its strength surface is too weak in shear.
  • CZM-Hybrid results in mixed-mode problems carry a built-in quantitative error: the crack path may look correct, but the peak load is systematically too low because the crack-driving energy $\Gamma$ is not the strain energy $W$.
  • For tension-dominated cases the three models agree, so the practical discrepancies are confined to loadings with significant compressive or shear stress states.
  • The complete nucleation model also describes the transition from Griffith-dominated to strength-dominated nucleation as notch size decreases, matching analytical limits for uniaxial and biaxial tension.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the star-convex split fails under shear because no energy split can represent a general strength surface, then the entire energy-split line of variational models may need a structural change rather than another ad-hoc split; the paper hints at this but does not develop it.
  • The $\delta_\varepsilon$ calibration is the obvious pressure point: testing it on boundary value problems, materials, and mesh sizes outside the calibration set would determine whether the complete nucleation model's Griffith consistency is emergent or fitted.
  • The $\Gamma \neq W$ mismatch that hurts the CZM-Hybrid model is likely shared by any phase-field model that drives fracture with a separate stress-based equivalent quantity, so the quantitative deficiency may extend beyond the specific model tested here.
  • The numerical tensile-to-shear crack transition seen when compressive strength is reduced suggests a directly testable prediction: materials with a lower compressive-to-tensile strength ratio should show shear-dominated crack growth in nominally mode I-dominated geometries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares three phase-field approaches for brittle fracture that incorporate material strength—the classical variational model with the star-convex energy split, the Complete Nucleation model of Kumar et al., and the CZM-Hybrid model—on six benchmark problems including mode II, mode III, and mixed-mode loadings. The authors report that the Complete Nucleation model reproduces Griffith-type propagation and agrees well with the Yosibash–Mittleman experimental crack paths, that the star-convex variational model can nucleate spurious compressive or shear cracks under shear-dominated loading, and that the CZM-Hybrid model propagates cracks at an incorrect effective fracture toughness because its stress-based crack-driving force differs from the strain energy. The paper is framed as the first part of a series on strength-aware phase-field models.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides practically useful guidance on which phase-field model is reliable for non-mode-I and mixed-mode fracture problems. The systematic comparison across six benchmarks, the validation against the Yosibash–Mittleman experiments, and the sensitivity checks with respect to residual stiffness, regularization length, Poisson ratio, and compressive strength are notable strengths. The authors are also candid about limitations: Section 4 concedes that all simulated cracks propagate locally in a mode-I fashion and that a convergence proof to Griffith theory as epsilon tends to zero remains desirable. These self-identified limitations are central to the assessment, because they narrow the scope of what the numerical evidence can claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (18)] The parameter δ_ε is introduced as a numerical calibration whose purpose is to restore the effective critical energy release rate to G_c, and Eq. (18) was obtained in prior mode-I work. The agreement of the Complete Nucleation model with Griffith-type predictions in Section 3 (e.g., Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 12(a–d)) is therefore not an independent validation of the model's propagation law; a significant part of that agreement is built into the model through δ_ε. The authors should either determine δ_ε from a boundary value problem with sustained non-mode-I propagation (a constrained shear or anti-plane shear crack) and show that it coincides with Eq. (18), or explicitly temper the abstract's claim that the model "effectively predicts crack growth under mode II, mode III" to acknowledge that the propagation response has so far been calibrated toward Griffith behavior in mode I.
  2. [§4] The manuscript concedes that "while the global loading studied in this work is non-mode I, the crack locally tends to propagate in a mode I fashion." Consequently, none of the six benchmarks actually exercises a regime in which the crack advances under sustained pure mode-II or mode-III conditions; the global loading is mixed-mode, but the local propagation mode is mode I. The abstract states that the Complete Nucleation approach "effectively predicts crack growth under mode II, mode III, and mixed-mode loading," which is stronger than the evidence presented. The authors should add a benchmark that suppresses out-of-plane kinking (for example, a weak interface or a crack front constrained by geometry) so that pure mode-II or mode-III propagation is tested, or they should rephrase the conclusions to say that the model has been validated for mixed-mode loading with locally mode-I propagation.
  3. [§3, Figs. 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13] The three models are run with different regularization lengths: ε = 0.1 mm or 0.25 mm for the Complete Nucleation and CZM-Hybrid models, and ε = l_ch for the Classical Variational model in several benchmarks. Because the strength surfaces of all three models depend on ε (Eqs. (13), (19), (30), and Fig. 1), the differences attributed to model formulation—for instance, the underpredicted shear strength in Fig. 12(d) or the spurious compressive crack in Fig. 4(c)—may partly reflect the different ε values rather than intrinsic differences between the models. The authors should include at least one key benchmark with all three models at the same ε (with appropriate mesh-size corrections) or justify why comparing at different ε is the fair and meaningful comparison for the claims made.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (20)] The correction term in c_e contains the factor (1 − √(I_1²)/I_1), which is discontinuous at I_1 = 0; please clarify how this term is regularized in the numerical implementation.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption does not specify the regularization lengths used to generate the Classical Variational and CZM-Hybrid strength surfaces; please provide these values so that the comparison in Fig. 1 is reproducible.
  3. [§3.6] The tensile strength of marble is adopted as 10 MPa and then as 4 MPa, with the paper noting a reported range of 2–30 MPa. The sensitivity of the secondary-crack predictions to σ_ts is only probed at two values; a short discussion of where within this range the experimental comparison in Fig. 15(c) is robust would strengthen the argument.
  4. [§2.2, Remark 3] The irreversibility constraints in Eq. (9) are said to be enforced with a penalty method, but no penalty parameter, convergence study, or implementation reference is reported; please provide this detail.
  5. [§3.1, Fig. 2(b)] The effective fracture toughness corrections for the finite mesh size, G_eff = G_c(1 + 3h/8ε) and G_eff = G_c(1 + h/πε), are stated without derivation; a brief explanation of the origin of these factors would help readers apply the corrections to other problems.
  6. [General] The manuscript does not include a data availability statement, code, mesh sizes, or convergence tolerances. Since the central evidence is computational, a repository with input files and solver settings would materially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Complete Nucleation model's Griffith-toughness agreement is largely built into the calibrated parameter delta_epsilon of Eq. (18); the non-mode-I benchmarks kink to local mode-I growth, so the central quantitative claim is only partially independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3, Eq. (18); Section 3.1, Fig. 2(b); Section 3.4, Fig. 12(a)]
    "The value of the effective critical energy release rate can be corrected to match the experimental value, Gc, through the parameter δε. ... An approximate analytical formula for δε was recently provided in Kamarei et al. [14] ... For the Complete Nucleation model, the mesh size correction is incorporated directly into the definition of the parameter δε (18)."

    Eq. (18) is not a derived prediction; it is a numerical calibration inserted so that the model's effective critical energy release rate matches the experimental Gc. The paper then reports the model's normalized energy release rate in Fig. 2(b) and its large-notch Griffith asymptote in Fig. 12(a) as successful predictions, even though Section 3.1 states that for the Complete Nucleation model the mesh size correction is incorporated directly into the definition of δε (18). Thus the near-unity G/Gc in mode I is enforced by the input parameter to within the formula's stated 5-10% error band.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 2.3, immediately after Eq. (18)]
    "Based on the numerical results presented in various studies [10, 39, 40, 14, 41], it is also observed to be independent of the boundary value problem under investigation. We test this observation further in Section 3 with more studies in mixed-mode fracture."

    The portability of the calibrated δε to every mode-II/III/mixed-mode benchmark is the load-bearing premise of the paper's central claim that the Complete Nucleation model predicts non-mode-I crack growth. That premise is supported by [10, 39, 40, 14, 41], which are prior works of the same research group, and by the sentence asserting that the formula is independent of the boundary value problem. The paper itself notes in Section 4 that a mathematical proof establishing the convergence of the crack growth behavior to Griffith's theory as ε tends to zero remains desirable.

full rationale

This is a genuine three-way benchmark paper, and much of its content is not circular: the crack-path differences, the spurious compressive crack produced by the star-convex variational split, and the demonstration that the CZM-Hybrid model propagates at an incorrect effective toughness because its driving force Γ differs from the strain energy W are independent findings. However, the quantitative Griffith agreement of the Complete Nucleation model is partly built into its input. Eq. (18) for δε is explicitly a calibration 'to match the experimental value, Gc,' and Section 3.1 states that for this model the mesh-size correction is 'incorporated directly into the definition of δε.' The near-unity normalized energy release rate in Fig. 2(b) and the large-notch Griffith asymptote in Fig. 12(a) are therefore consistency checks of that calibration rather than emergent predictions. The transfer of δε to all mixed-mode benchmarks relies on the claimed boundary-value-problem independence, which is supported mainly by prior work of the same group ([10,14,39,40,41]); Section 4 concedes that cracks locally propagate in a mode-I fashion and that no convergence proof exists, so the benchmarks never expose a regime in which a boundary-value-dependent calibration error would be revealed. The crack-path and load-displacement comparisons still provide independent content, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

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

The central claims rest on the phase-field equations, the calibrated delta_epsilon parameter, and a set of adopted material parameters. The stress-based driving force ce is a model construct from prior work, not newly invented here; no new particles or physical entities are introduced. The main circularity burden is the delta_epsilon calibration, which is used to enforce Griffith-type propagation in the Complete Nucleation model.

free parameters (3)
  • delta_epsilon (calibration parameter in Complete Nucleation model) = Approximate analytical formula Eq. (18), depending on h, epsilon, sigma_ts, sigma_hs, Gc, Wts
    Introduced to restore the effective critical energy release rate to Gc (Section 2.3). Its value is calibrated from Griffith nucleation benchmarks in prior work, so the model's Griffith-consistent propagation is an enforced property rather than fully emergent.
  • Regularization length epsilon = 0.1 mm or 0.2 mm for Complete Nucleation and CZM-Hybrid; lch for Classical Variational
    Chosen per model: fixed to lch for classical variational and arbitrary for the other two. Comparisons across models therefore do not use identical regularization lengths, which complicates direct model comparison.
  • Adopted strengths for benchmark materials = sigma_cs = 150 MPa for Yosibash specimen; sigma_ts = 10 and 4 MPa for marble
    Material properties not measured in this study; assumed values affect crack path predictions in Sections 3.3 and 3.6.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Linear elasticity with Lame constants describes the undamaged material response (Eq. 1).
    The paper restricts all comparisons to linear elasticity, as stated in Section 1.
  • domain assumption Griffith energy balance and variational phase-field regularization are valid descriptions of brittle crack growth.
    Section 2.1 assumes the material is characterized by elasticity, critical energy release rate, and strength; the paper benchmarks against Griffith predictions.
  • domain assumption The Drucker-Prager strength surface with two parameters (sigma_ts, sigma_cs) adequately represents the strength of all tested materials.
    Adopted in Section 2.1, Eq. (4), and used for all simulations; the paper notes in Section 3.6 that a different surface may be needed for marble.
  • ad hoc to paper The approximate delta_epsilon formula (Eq. 18) restores the effective critical energy release rate independently of boundary value problem and loading mode.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the Complete Nucleation propagation results. It is calibrated in prior studies with 5-10 percent error and is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Numerical discretization (mesh size, time stepping, penalty enforcement, damaged notch boundary conditions) does not affect the qualitative comparisons.
    The paper reports some epsilon sensitivity and eta = 1e-4 checks, but no systematic mesh-convergence study is presented (Section 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A comparison of phase field models of brittle fracture incorporating strength: I -- Mixed-mode loading." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLJRMBK7

@misc{pith2026250204487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A comparison of phase field models of brittle fracture incorporating strength: I -- Mixed-mode loading},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLJRMBK7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04487}
}
read the original abstract

The classical variational phase-field model for brittle fracture effectively predicts the growth of large pre-existing cracks. However, the modeling of crack nucleation continues to be a significant challenge. Crack nucleation under uniform stress depends on the material's strength surface whose description is fundamentally incompatible with the energy-based Griffith propagation criterion. To address this, three main phase-field approaches have emerged, each attempting to reconcile material strength and toughness. The first, known as the classical variational approach, preserves the variational structure but fails to accurately incorporate the strength surface. In contrast, the other two approaches -- the complete nucleation and hybrid cohesive zone models -- sacrifice variational consistency. Among these, only the complete nucleation approach precisely accounts for the strength surface. All three approaches, especially the second one, deviate from the sharp variational theory of brittle fracture, raising concerns about their reliability in predicting the growth of cracks under non-mode-I loading. This paper evaluates precisely this issue. It is the first in a series of studies comparing the three approaches, systematically investigating crack growth under mode II, mode III, and mixed-mode loadings. The results confirm that the complete nucleation approach effectively predicts crack growth across all investigated problems, and its predictions agree well with those from other two approaches for tension-dominated cases. Additionally, the findings highlight that inaccurate accounting of the strength surface in the classical variational approach can influence crack path predictions. Lastly, they reveal that modifying the crack driving force to incorporate the strength surface in the hybrid cohesive zone approach causes crack propagation at an incorrect fracture toughness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04487 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the strength surfaces generated by t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Propagation of a crack in mode I in a specimen subjec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contour plots of the normalized difference of the cr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the three phase-field models for a pla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contour plots of the phase field v in the in-plane shear test using the Classical Variational model from (a) the work of Hessammokri et al. [65] with volumetric-deviatoric energy split and (b) this work using the volumetric-deviatoric and star-convex splits. that this …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contour plots of the phase field v resulting from the Classical Variational model with volumetric-deviatoric split for three different values of the Poisson’s ratio ν. Our comprehensive numerical studies, conducted across diverse parameter combinations, do not reveal t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the three phase-field models for a pla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic of the four-point bending experiments w [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Crack path predicted by the phase-field models fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Crack inclination angles θ and α after a 0.5 mm extension from the V-notch in the e2 direction as predicted by the three phase-field models and compared with experimental measurements for the notch inclination angle (a) γ =45◦ and (b) γ =60◦. The angles are plotted wi…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the predictions for the four-point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Predictions from the three phase-field models for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) Schematic of the double-edge notched plate un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) Schematic of the plate with inclined notch und [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Predictions of the Complete Nucleation model for the case when the uniaxial tensile strength of the material is low, σts = 4 MPa. (b) Contour plots of the phase field v at different displacements. (c) Experimental result for a marble plate [72]. The failure traces are…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    A. A. Griffith, Vi. the phenomena of rupture and flow in solid s, Philosophical transactions of the royal society of londo n. Series A, containing papers of a mathematical or physical ch aracter 221 (1921) 163–198

    1921

  3. [3]

    Bourdin, G

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

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    W u, A unified phase-field theory for the mechanics of damage and quasi-brittle failure, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 103 (2017) 72–99

    J.-Y. W u, A unified phase-field theory for the mechanics of damage and quasi-brittle failure, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 103 (2017) 72–99

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    M. J. Borden, T. J. Hughes, C. M. Landis, A. Anvari, I. J. Le e, A phase-field formulation for fracture in ductile materia ls: Finite deformation balance law derivation, plastic degrad ation, and stress triaxiality effects, Computer Methods in A pplied Mechanics and Engineering 312 (2016) 130–166

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    T. Hu, B. Talamini, A. J. Stershic, M. R. Tupek, J. E. Dolbo w, A variational phase-field model for ductile fracture with coalescence dissipation, Computational Mechanics 68 (202 1) 311–335

    work page

  7. [7]

    Kalina, T

    M. Kalina, T. Schneider, J. Brummund, M. K¨ astner, Overv iew of phase-field models for fatigue fracture in a unified framework, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 288 (2023) 1093 18

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Svolos, C

    L. Svolos, C. A. Bronkhorst, H. W aisman, Thermal-conduc tivity degradation across cracks in coupled thermo-mechan ical systems modeled by the phase-field fracture method, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 137 (2020) 103861

    work page 2020

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Chukwudozie, B

    C. Chukwudozie, B. Bourdin, K. Yoshioka, A variational p hase-field model for hydraulic fracturing in porous media, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 347 ( 2019) 957–982

    2019

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    C. Chen, Z. W ang, Z. Suo, Flaw sensitivity of highly stre tchable materials, Extreme Mechanics Letters 10 (2017) 50– 57

    2017

  4. [12]

    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

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    Bourdin, G

    B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, J.-J. Marigo, The variatio nal approach to fracture, Journal of elasticity 91 (2008) 5– 148

    2008

  8. [16]

    Conti, M

    S. Conti, M. Focardi, F. Iurlano, Phase field approximat ion of cohesive fracture models, in: Annales de l’Institut H enri Poincar´ e C, Analyse non lin´ eaire, volume 33, Elsevier, 2016, pp. 1033–1067

    2016

  9. [17]

    G. I. Barenblatt, The formation of equilibrium cracks d uring brittle fracture. general ideas and hypotheses. axia lly- symmetric cracks, Journal of applied mathematics and mecha nics 23 (1959) 622–636

    1959

  10. [18]

    D. S. Dugdale, Yielding of steel sheets containing slit s, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 8 (1960) 100 –104

    1960

  11. [19]

    Needleman, An analysis of tensile decohesion along a n interface, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 3 8 (1990) 289–324

    A. Needleman, An analysis of tensile decohesion along a n interface, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 3 8 (1990) 289–324

    1990

  12. [20]

    X.-P. Xu, A. Needleman, Void nucleation by inclusion de bonding in a crystal matrix, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and engineering 1 (1993) 111

    1993

  13. [21]

    K. Park, G. H. Paulino, J. R. Roesler, A unified potential -based cohesive model of mixed-mode fracture, Journal of th e Mechanics and Physics of Solids 57 (2009) 891–908

    2009

  14. [22]

    Z. P. Bazant, G. Pijaudier-Cabot, Nonlocal continuum d amage, localization instability and convergence, Journal of Applied Mechanics 55 (1988) 287

    1988

  15. [23]

    Lorentz, S

    E. Lorentz, S. Andrieux, A variational formulation for nonlocal damage models, International journal of plastici ty 15 (1999) 119–138

    1999

  16. [24]

    Lorentz, A nonlocal damage model for plain concrete c onsistent with cohesive fracture, International Journal o f Fracture 207 (2017) 123–159

    E. Lorentz, A nonlocal damage model for plain concrete c onsistent with cohesive fracture, International Journal o f Fracture 207 (2017) 123–159

    2017

  17. [25]

    Mazars, A model of a unilateral elastic damageable ma terial and its application to concrete, Fracture toughness and fracture energy of concrete (1986) 61–71

    J. Mazars, A model of a unilateral elastic damageable ma terial and its application to concrete, Fracture toughness and fracture energy of concrete (1986) 61–71

    1986

  18. [26]

    Mazars, G

    J. Mazars, G. Pijaudier-Cabot, Continuum damage theor y—application to concrete, Journal of engineering mechani cs 115 (1989) 345–365

    1989

  19. [27]

    Comi, A non-local model with tension and compression damage mechanisms, European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solid s 20 (2001) 1–22

    C. Comi, A non-local model with tension and compression damage mechanisms, European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solid s 20 (2001) 1–22. 24

    2001

  20. [28]

    Badel, V

    P. Badel, V. Godard, J.-B. Leblond, Application of some anisotropic damage model to the prediction of the failure of some complex industrial concrete structure, Internationa l journal of solids and structures 44 (2007) 5848–5874

    2007

  21. [29]

    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

  22. [30]

    Pham, J.-J

    K. Pham, J.-J. Marigo, Approche variationnelle de l’en dommagement : I. les concepts fondamentaux, Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique 338 (2010) 191–198

    2010

  23. [31]

    Pham, J.-J

    K. Pham, J.-J. Marigo, Approche variationnelle de l’en dommagement : Ii. les mod` eles ` a gradient, Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique 338 (2010) 199–206

    2010

  24. [32]

    K. Pham, H. Amor, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, Gradient dam age models and their use to approximate brittle fracture, International Journal of Damage Mechanics 20 (2011) 618–65 2

    2011

  25. [33]

    Tann´ e, T

    E. Tann´ e, T. Li, B. Bourdin, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, C rack nucleation in variational phase-field models of brittl e fracture, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 110 (2018) 80–99

    2018

  26. [34]

    De Lorenzis, C

    L. De Lorenzis, C. Maurini, Nucleation under multi-axi al loading in variational phase-field models of brittle frac ture, International Journal of Fracture 237 (2022) 61–81

    2022

  27. [35]

    Vicentini, C

    F. Vicentini, C. Zolesi, P. Carrara, C. Maurini, L. De Lo renzis, On the energy decomposition in variational phase-fi eld models for brittle fracture under multi-axial stress state s, International Journal of Fracture (2024) 1–27

    2024

  28. [36]

    Lopez-Pamies, J

    O. Lopez-Pamies, J. E. Dolbow, G. A. Francfort, C. J. Lar sen, Classical variational phase-field models cannot predi ct fracture nucleation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanic s and Engineering 433 (2025) 117520

    2025

  29. [37]

    J.-Y. W u, Y. Huang, V. P. Nguyen, On the bfgs monolithic a lgorithm for the unified phase field damage theory, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 360 (2020) 112 704

    2020

  30. [38]

    Zolesi, C

    C. Zolesi, C. Maurini, Stability and crack nucleation i n variational phase-field models of fracture: Effects of leng th-scales and stress multi-axiality, Journal of the Mechanics and Phy sics of Solids 192 (2024) 105802

    2024

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    Kumar, O

    A. Kumar, O. Lopez-Pamies, The phase-field approach to s elf-healable fracture of elastomers: A model accounting fo r fracture nucleation at large, with application to a class of conspicuous experiments, Theoretical and Applied Fractur e Mechanics 107 (2020) 102550

    2020

  35. [43]

    Miehe, F

    C. Miehe, F. W elschinger, M. Hofacker, Thermodynamica lly consistent phase-field models of fracture: Variational princi- ples and multi-field fe implementations, International jou rnal for numerical methods in engineering 83 (2010) 1273–13 11

    2010

  36. [44]

    M. Fan, Y. Jin, T. Wick, A quasi-monolithic phase-field d escription for mixed-mode fracture using predictor–corre ctor mesh adaptivity, Engineering with Computers 38 (2022) 2879 –2903

    2022

  37. [45]

    S. Sato, H. Awaji, K. Kawamata, A. Kurumada, T. Oku, Frac ture criteria of reactor graphite under multiaxial stesses , Nuclear Engineering and Design 103 (1987) 291–300

    1987

  38. [46]

    Chambolle, S

    A. Chambolle, S. Conti, G. A. Francfort, Approximation of a brittle fracture energy with a constraint of non- interpenetration, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Anal ysis 228 (2018) 867–889

    2018

  39. [47]

    Navidtehrani, C

    Y. Navidtehrani, C. Betegon, E. Martinez-Paneda, A gen eral framework for decomposing the phase field fracture driv ing force, particularised to a drucker–prager failure surface , Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 121 (2022) 103 555

    2022

  40. [48]

    Zhang, W

    S. Zhang, W. Jiang, M. R. Tonks, Assessment of four strai n energy decomposition methods for phase field fracture mode ls using quasi-static and dynamic benchmark cases, Materials Theory 6 (2022) 6

    2022

  41. [49]

    Steinke, M

    C. Steinke, M. Kaliske, A phase-field crack model based o n directional stress decomposition, Computational Mechan ics 63 (2019) 1019–1046

    2019

  42. [50]

    Strobl, T

    M. Strobl, T. Seelig, A novel treatment of crack boundar y conditions in phase field models of fracture, Pamm 15 (2015) 155–156

    2015

  43. [51]

    C. Senthilnathan, On the construction of explicit anal ytical driving forces for crack nucleation in the phase field approach to brittle fracture with application to mohr-coulomb and dr ucker-prager strength surfaces, Journal of Applied Mechan ics (2025) 1–12

    2025

  44. [52]

    L. Meng, H. W. Lee, M. I. Ashkpour, C. M. Sales, Y. A. Farna m, M. H. Hubler, A. R. Najafi, Strength-based revisited phase field model for fracture initiation and propagation: a comparative analysis, Unpublished Manuscript (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    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

  46. [54]

    Larsen, J

    C. Larsen, J. Dolbow, O. Lopez-Pamies, A variational fo rmulation of griffith phase-field fracture with material stre ngth, International Journal of Fracture (2024) 1–9

    2024

  47. [55]

    M. E. Gurtin, Configurational forces as basic concepts o f continuum physics, volume 137, Springer Science & Busines s Media, 1999

    1999

  48. [56]

    Kumar, K

    A. Kumar, K. Ravi-Chandar, O. Lopez-Pamies, The configu rational-forces view of the nucleation and propagation of fracture and healing in elastomers as a phase transition, In ternational Journal of Fracture 213 (2018) 1–16

    2018

  49. [57]

    Lorentz, V

    E. Lorentz, V. Godard, Gradient damage models: Toward f ull-scale computations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 200 (2011) 1927–1944

    2011

  50. [58]

    De Vree, W

    J. De Vree, W. Brekelmans, M. van Gils, Comparison of non local approaches in continuum damage mechanics, Computers & Structures 55 (1995) 581–588

    1995

  51. [59]

    Yosibash, B

    Z. Yosibash, B. Mittelman, A 3-d failure initiation cri terion from a sharp v-notch edge in elastic brittle structur es, 25 European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids 60 (2016) 70–94

    2016

  52. [60]

    L. Hug, S. Kollmannsberger, Z. Yosibash, E. Rank, A 3d be nchmark problem for crack propagation in brittle fracture, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 364 ( 2020) 112905

    2020

  53. [61]

    Hossain, C.-J

    M. Hossain, C.-J. Hsueh, B. Bourdin, K. Bhattacharya, E ffective toughness of heterogeneous media, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 71 (2014) 15–32

    2014

  54. [62]

    Goggin, W

    P. Goggin, W. Reynolds, The elastic constants of reacto r graphites, Philosophical Magazine 16 (1967) 317–330

    1967

  55. [63]

    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

  56. [64]

    Bilgen, K

    C. Bilgen, K. W einberg, On the crack-driving force of ph ase-field models in linearized and finite elasticity, Comput er Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 353 (2019) 348 –372

    2019

  57. [65]

    Hesammokri, H

    P. Hesammokri, H. Yu, P. Isaksson, An extended hydrosta tic–deviatoric strain energy density decomposition for ph ase-field fracture theories, International Journal of Solids and Str uctures 262 (2023) 112080

    2023

  58. [66]

    T. Hu, J. E. Dolbow, Z. Yosibash, Towards validation of c rack nucleation criteria from v-notches in quasi-brittle m etallic alloys: Energetics or strength?, Computer Methods in Appli ed Mechanics and Engineering 402 (2022) 115419

    2022

  59. [67]

    Kamarei, J

    F. Kamarei, J. E. Dolbow, O. Lopez-Pamies, Nucleation o f fracture: The first-octant evidence against classical var iational phase-field models, Journal of Applied Mechanics 92 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    NOORU-MOHAMED, Mixed-mode fracture of concrete: an experimental approach, Ph

    M. NOORU-MOHAMED, Mixed-mode fracture of concrete: an experimental approach, Ph. D. Thesis, Technische Universiteit (1992)

    1992

  61. [69]

    Nooru-Mohamed, E

    M. Nooru-Mohamed, E. Schlangen, J. G. van Mier, Experim ental and numerical study on the behavior of concrete subjected to biaxial tension and shear, Advanced cement bas ed materials 1 (1993) 22–37

    1993

  62. [70]

    Carpiuc-Prisacari, M

    A. Carpiuc-Prisacari, M. Poncelet, K. Kazymyrenko, H. Leclerc, F. Hild, A complex mixed-mode crack propagation te st performed with a 6-axis testing machine and full-field measu rements, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 176 (2017) 1–22

    2017

  63. [71]

    Dumstorff, G

    P. Dumstorff, G. Meschke, Crack propagation criteria in the framework of x-fem-based structural analyses, Interna tional Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechani cs 31 (2007) 239–259

    2007

  64. [72]

    Jiefan, C

    H. Jiefan, C. Ganglin, Z. Yonghong, W. Ren, An experimen tal study of the strain field development prior to failure of a marble plate under compression, Tectonophysics 175 (1990) 269–284. 26

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.