Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Why planar cracks fragment into echelon cracks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A strength-constrained energy minimization—not energy competition alone—predicts when and where a planar crack fragments into echelon daughter cracks.

desk verdict Interesting and likely important claim—strength matters for crack path—but the phase-field regularization that produces the echelon pattern is imported from prior work without a proof of fidelity in this geometry; the broad claims exceed the current evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.16053 v3 pith:TPELMMZW submitted 2025-12-18 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.soft

Olivia Ward , Aditya Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.soft
keywords echeloncracksbrittlefracturephase-fieldmodelstrengthsurfaceGriffithenergycrackpathpredictionmixed-modedimensionlessparameters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the classical energetic theory of fracture cannot explain a basic observation: a planar crack under out-of-plane shear often breaks into staggered, disconnected daughter cracks (echelon cracks). The authors show that adding a material strength surface to the variational energy-minimization framework reproduces this morphogenesis in simulations of both hard and soft brittle materials, without any assumed disorder or defects. They identify two dimensionless parameters—shear-to-tensile strength ratio and plate-thickness-to-material-length ratio—that set whether and how strongly a crack fragments. If correct, this resolves a long-standing dispute between energy-based and stress-based crack path criteria.

What carries the argument

The strength-constrained phase-field formulation: the classical variational fracture functional is minimized subject to the constraint that the crack set lies inside the region where the stress satisfies the Drucker–Prager strength surface F(S)=0. In practice, this is implemented by adding an explicit stress-based driving force ce to the phase-field evolution equation, with coefficients calibrated on uniform stress states. Crack growth then requires both that the strength surface be exceeded (nucleation) and that energy be minimized (propagation).

What would settle it

A tearing experiment on a brittle material with known strength ratio, varying plate thickness H while holding the material length scale fixed: if echelon cracks appear for H/lss_ch below the critical threshold (or fail to appear above it), the predicted scaling is wrong. Alternatively, varying the shear-to-tensile strength ratio by changing the material should move the crack orientation angle between about 0° and 45° as the paper's Fig. 4(b) predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Echelon crack formation is a nucleation phenomenon, not an instability of a smooth crack front: the parent crack spawns disconnected daughter cracks in regions where the local stress state first violates the material's strength surface. A phase-field model that minimizes elastic plus surface energy only among crack sets confined to these strength-exceeded regions reproduces the observed angled, stepped crack patterns; the purely energetic model instead predicts continued planar growth. The orientation angle of the daughter cracks increases with the shear-to-tensile strength ratio, and fragmentation occurs only when the plate thickness exceeds a characteristic strength-based length scale. Thu

Load-bearing premise

The specific analytical driving force that encodes the strength constraint, calibrated on simple axisymmetric test geometries, is assumed to remain a faithful regularization of the constrained energy minimization in the mixed-mode tearing geometry; if it does not, the predicted echelon fragmentation could be a numerical artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Predicts echelon crack formation in both soft and hard brittle materials without invoking disorder, defects, or front perturbations.
  • Reconciles energy-based (maximum energy release rate) and stress-based (local mode I) path criteria: which one dominates is controlled by the shear-to-tensile strength ratio.
  • Identifies two non-dimensional parameters, σss/σts and H/lss_ch, that govern crack orientation and fragmentation, giving experimentally testable scaling laws.
  • Shows the purely variational Griffith model to be fundamentally incomplete for large-crack growth under mixed tension/shear.
  • Because the framework uses only measurable elastic, toughness, and strength properties, it offers a direct route to prediction in new materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same strength-constraint mechanism may explain other 'spontaneous fragmentation' fracture patterns, such as crack front segmentation under mixed-mode loading in geological or composite materials.
  • If the two-parameter scaling is robust, experiments that vary only the sample thickness should show a sharp transition from planar to echelon cracking at a critical H/lss_ch, which could be tested with a series of hydrogel or polymer plates.
  • The authors' claim that the phase-field regularization length ε is freely tunable suggests the model may be used to resolve process-zone effects directly, perhaps linking echelon spacing to microstructure.
  • The framework's extension to anisotropic strength surfaces (e.g., Mohr-Coulomb or Hoek-Brown) is straightforward, which may yield orientation preferences in rocks with anisotropic cleavage.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Using two phase-field formulations, the paper revisits Knauss's mode-III tearing experiment on a notched plate. The classical variational Griffith model (3), minimizing elastic plus fracture energy, predicts continued planar crack growth for both graphite and PDMS. The authors then introduce a strength-constrained model (10)-(13) in which a Drucker-Prager strength surface restricts where crack growth can occur; this model spontaneously produces echelon daughter cracks without stochastic disorder or geometric imperfections. From the simulations, the paper identifies the shear-to-tensile strength ratio sigma_ss/sigma_ts and the thickness-to-material-length ratio H/l_ss^ch as the controlling parameters, and argues that energy-based and stress-based crack-path criteria are reconciled within one framework. The central conclusion is that Griffith energy minimization alone is fundamentally incomplete for predicting large-crack growth and that a strength constraint is necessary.

Significance. If correct, these results would be a substantive advance: they offer a deterministic explanation of a classical crack morphogenesis problem and tie together competing empirical criteria. The paper's strengths include a clean binary comparison between the classical and strength-constrained models on the same geometry, use of independently measurable material parameters (with the PDMS caveat below), and distribution of an open-source FEniCS implementation. However, the main prediction depends on an imported phase-field regularization of the strength constraint whose validity in the mixed-mode tearing state is not established; and the quantitative experimental support is a single historical data point. Thus the work is promising, but at present the force of the central claim exceeds its verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (10)-(13)] The echelon patterns in Figs. 1(d), 3, and 5 are generated entirely by the added driving force c_e in Eq. (10). Equations (11)-(13) are taken from Refs. [30,40], where the coefficients beta1^eps, beta2^eps, delta_eps were calibrated against homogeneous uniaxial and hydrostatic stress states (poker-chip, indentation). It is not demonstrated that this analytical form enforces the sharp constrained minimization (9) in the strongly inhomogeneous, mixed-mode stress field of the tearing problem. Since the classical model (3) gives planar growth in the same geometry, the strength-surface explanation is currently as sensitive to the regularization as to the physics. The paper's own caveat in the §3 summary ('the phase-field model is not completely connected') underscores the gap. I request an eps-convergence study at fixed h/eps, an independent implementation check, or a direct comparison with t
  2. [Appendix A, Table 2] For PDMS, the paper states 'We have considered lower strength values than the actual values to make the simulations computationally less expensive.' This is a significant departure from the stated goal of using standard, experimentally measured material parameters. The PDMS results in Figs. 2(d) and 3(b), and the abstract claim of 'general applicability to any brittle material', are therefore not a test of the model for actual PDMS. In addition, the full-geometry comparison with Knauss's experiment (§3, Fig. 1(d)) does not state which material parameters were used; if those are the reduced PDMS values, the approximate 40° result cannot be viewed as a quantitative validation. Please rerun at least one PDMS case at actual strength or reframe the claim as qualitative.
  3. [§3 and Fig. 5] The text states that 'both the number and orientation of daughter cracks were found to depend primarily on the value of l_ss^ch,' but Fig. 5 plots only the number of daughter cracks. No orientation data are shown for the H/l_ss^ch study, so the second key parameter is not supported by the presented data. Also, the error bars are not defined and no statistical procedure is described. Please either add orientation results or temper the claim.
  4. [§3, experimental comparison] The sole quantitative experimental benchmark is Knauss's reported inclination of about 45° compared with the predicted approximately 40°. There is no uncertainty on either value, no discussion of how the experimental angle was measured, and no account of the differences between Solithane (experiment) and the constitutive models used here. Given that the Abstract states the model is shown 'through comparison with classical experiments' to explain echelon formation, this comparison is too thin to carry the load. Additional validation against existing hydrogel/glass data, or at least a more careful treatment of this single data point, is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The sharp constrained minimization statement is informal: 'Gamma subset V_F(t)' conflates a 2D crack set with a 3D point set, and no topology/admissibility is specified. A precise formulation would help, especially because the paper argues that (10) is its regularization.
  2. [§3, angle extraction] Please define how theta is measured from the phase-field contours. Only two crack extensions are used to support the orientation claim, so the measurement procedure matters.
  3. [§3 and Fig. 5] There is an inconsistency in whether the sweep varied sigma_ss or sigma_ss^2 by factors of 1-5. The text near Eq. (14) says 'sigma_ss^2' and a few lines later says 'sigma_ss was varied.' Please check consistency.
  4. [Appendix B] The regularization length eps is described as a free parameter, but no convergence study in eps is reported. A sentence or figure showing that the reported morphologies are stable as eps decreases, with h=eps/4, would strengthen the paper.
  5. [Throughout] Some figure panels are difficult to read in the current typesetting (e.g., Fig. 2(b) axes, Fig. 4(d) labels). A cleaner presentation would improve reproducibility and readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: echelon prediction is not built from fitted inputs, but the central phase-field regularization is inherited from the authors' prior work without proof of fidelity in the tearing geometry.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) show that the classical variational model (3) predicts planar growth; (ii) introduce the strength-constrained minimization (9); (iii) implement it through the phase-field driving force ce in Eqs. (10)-(13); (iv) simulate echelon fragmentation; and (v) map orientation and crack count versus σss/σts and H/lch. The claimed outputs are not equivalent to the inputs by construction: the two 'governing parameters' are independent material/geometric quantities (graphite strengths come from Sato's tube tests; PDMS properties from prior characterization, with lower strengths chosen only to reduce computational cost), and the echelon angle and fragmentation count emerge from the boundary-value problem rather than being fit to Knauss's observations. The main weakness is that the strength-constrained phase-field model itself is taken from the authors' own prior work [30,40], and the paper admits 'the phase-field model is not completely connected' to the sharp constrained minimization (9). No Γ-convergence or numerical equivalence proof is given for the mixed-mode tearing geometry; if Eqs. (11)-(13) do not faithfully regularize (9), the echelon morphology could be an artifact of the imported ansatz. That is a genuine verification gap and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the paper does not fit the model to the echelon data it claims to predict, and the cited prior work was validated on independent problems. Under the stated rules, this warrants a low circularity score rather than a charge of circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model pulls the entire strength-constrained framework, including the analytical driving force and its coefficients, from the authors' earlier papers [28,30,35,40]. The genuinely new inputs are geometry, loading, and the application to echelon cracks; PDMS strength values are reduced from true values, which is a free adjustment affecting those predictions.

free parameters (2)
  • PDMS tensile and hydrostatic strengths (reduced) = σts = 0.1 MPa, σhs = 0.125 MPa
    Appendix A, Table 2 note: 'We have considered lower strength values than the actual values to make the simulations computationally less expensive.' The soft-material demonstration therefore uses adjusted inputs rather than real material properties.
  • Phase-field regularization length ε = ε = l_ss^ch / 3 in final runs (mesh h = ε/4)
    ε is a free numerical parameter; the paper tests ε/lch sensitivity in §5, but the predictive simulations use one chosen value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Drucker–Prager surface with parameters σts and σss adequately describes the fracture strength of graphite and PDMS under the triaxial stress states near the crack front.
    Eq (7); this surface determines where the model allows crack nucleation and hence is load-bearing for the echelon prediction.
  • ad hoc to paper The regularized strength-constrained model (10)–(13), including the analytical driving force ce and coefficients β1ε, β2ε, δε, faithfully represents the sharp constrained minimization (9).
    The coefficients are imported from the authors' prior poker-chip work [30] without re-derivation or independent validation in this tearing geometry; Eq (11)–(13).
  • domain assumption The reduced geometry in Fig 2(a) (and the non-strict mode III loading) yields qualitatively equivalent results to the full Knauss tearing experiment.
    §2: 'we adopt a reduced geometry for further analysis... yields qualitatively similar results'; full-geometry success is claimed in Fig 1(d).
  • domain assumption The classical variational phase-field model without energy split is the correct baseline for the claim that 'purely energetic minimization is insufficient.'
    §2 argues an energy split is unnecessary, but this is contested in the cited literature [32,34]; the baseline choice affects the corollary claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Why planar cracks fragment into echelon cracks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPELMMZW

@misc{pith2026251216053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Why planar cracks fragment into echelon cracks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPELMMZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.16053}
}
read the original abstract

Predicting the path and shape of growing cracks is fundamental to understanding of fracture. Under out-of-plane shear loading, an initially planar crack may spontaneously fragment into multiple cracks, forming a striking echelon crack pattern. Explaining this crack morphogenesis in brittle materials has been a long-standing open problem essential to developing a complete theory of crack growth. Here, through comparison with classical experiments, we show that a strength-constrained minimization of the sum of elastic and surface energies explains echelon crack formation. Results are presented for both soft and hard materials, confirming the model's general applicability to any brittle material. As a corollary, we show that, contrary to prevailing views, a purely energetic minimization model is insufficient to predict the growth of large cracks. We identify two key non-dimensional parameters governing crack fragmentation and orientation, and demonstrate that these reconcile the various energy-based and stress-based empirical criteria proposed in the literature for crack path.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.16053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the tearing test over a thick notch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic of a smaller geometry used for compre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulations with the strength-constrained phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Crack contours for five increasing values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Number of daughter cracks as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    Sommer, Formation of fracture ‘lances’ in glass, Engi neering Fracture Mechanics 1 (1969) 539–546

    E. Sommer, Formation of fracture ‘lances’ in glass, Engi neering Fracture Mechanics 1 (1969) 539–546

    1969

  3. [3]

    Knauss, An observation of crack propagation in anti-p lane shear, International Journal of Fracture Mechanics 6 ( 1970) 183–187

    W. Knauss, An observation of crack propagation in anti-p lane shear, International Journal of Fracture Mechanics 6 ( 1970) 183–187

    1970

  4. [4]

    Ronsin, C

    O. Ronsin, C. Caroli, T. Baumberger, Crack front echelon instability in mixed mode fracture of a strongly nonlinear elastic solid, Europhysics Letters 105 (2014) 34001

    2014

  5. [5]

    K. Pham, K. Ravi-Chandar, On the growth of cracks under mi xed-mode I+ III loading, International Journal of Fracture 199 (2016) 105–134

    2016

  6. [6]

    W ang, M

    M. W ang, M. Adda-Bedia, J. M. Kolinski, J. Fineberg, How h idden 3D structure within crack fronts reveals energy balance, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 161 ( 2022) 104795

    2022

  7. [7]

    M. L. Cooke, D. D. Pollard, Fracture propagation paths un der mixed mode loading within rectangular blocks of polymet hyl methacrylate, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Eart h 101 (1996) 3387–3400

    1996

  8. [8]

    E. A. Zimmermann, M. E. Launey, H. D. Barth, R. O. Ritchie, Mixed-mode fracture of human cortical bone, Biomaterials 30 (2009) 5877–5884

    2009

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    A. T. Zehnder, N. K. Zella, Spiral to flat fracture transit ion for notched rods under torsional loading, Internationa l Journal of Fracture 195 (2015) 87–92

    2015

  2. [10]

    Barenblatt, G

    G. Barenblatt, G. Cherepanov, On brittle cracks under l ongitudinal shear, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mech anics 25 (1961) 1654–1666

    1961

  3. [11]

    Erdogan, G

    F. Erdogan, G. Sih, On the crack extension in plates unde r plane loading and transverse shear, Journal of basic engin eering 85 (1963) 519–525

    1963

  4. [12]

    G. C. Sih, Strain-energy-density factor applied to mix ed mode crack problems, International Journal of fracture 1 0 (1974) 305–321

    1974

  5. [13]

    R. V. Gol’dstein, R. L. Salganik, Brittle fracture of so lids with arbitrary cracks, International Journal of Fract ure 10 (1974) 507–523

    1974

  6. [14]

    Nuismer, An energy release rate criterion for mixed m ode fracture, International Journal of Fracture 11 (1975) 2 45–250

    R. Nuismer, An energy release rate criterion for mixed m ode fracture, International Journal of Fracture 11 (1975) 2 45–250

    1975

  7. [15]

    W u, Fracture under combined loads by maximum-ene rgy-release-rate criterion, Journal of Applied Mechanics 45 (1978) 553

    C.-H. W u, Fracture under combined loads by maximum-ene rgy-release-rate criterion, Journal of Applied Mechanics 45 (1978) 553

    1978

  8. [16]

    Lazarus, F.-G

    V. Lazarus, F.-G. Buchholz, M. Fulland, J. Wiebesiek, C omparison of predictions by mode II or mode III criteria on cr ack front twisting in three or four point bending experiments, I nternational Journal of Fracture 153 (2008) 141–151

    2008

  9. [17]

    Chambolle, G

    A. Chambolle, G. A. Francfort, J.-J. Marigo, When and ho w do cracks propagate?, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 57 (2009) 1614–1622

    2009

  10. [18]

    K. Pham, K. Ravi-Chandar, The formation and growth of ec helon cracks in brittle materials, International Journal o f Fracture 206 (2017) 229–244

    2017

  11. [19]

    Mittelman, Z

    B. Mittelman, Z. Yosibash, Energy release rate cannot p redict crack initiation orientation in domains with a sharp V-notch under mode III loading, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 141 (2015) 230–241

    2015

  12. [20]

    A. J. Pons, A. Karma, Helical crack-front instability i n mixed-mode fracture, Nature 464 (2010) 85–89

    2010

  13. [21]

    Leblond, A

    J.-B. Leblond, A. Karma, V. Lazarus, Theoretical analy sis of crack front instability in mode I+ III, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 59 (2011) 1872–1887

    2011

  14. [22]

    Kolvin, G

    I. Kolvin, G. Cohen, J. Fineberg, Topological defects g overn crack front motion and facet formation on broken surfa ces, Nature materials 17 (2018) 140–144

    2018

  15. [23]

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

    1998

  16. [24]

    Chambolle, G

    A. Chambolle, G. A. Francfort, J.-J. Marigo, Revisitin g energy release rates in brittle fracture, Journal of Nonli near Science 20 (2010) 395–424

    2010

  17. [25]

    Francfort, Variational fracture: twenty years afte r, International Journal of Fracture 237 (2022) 3–13

    G. Francfort, Variational fracture: twenty years afte r, International Journal of Fracture 237 (2022) 3–13

    2022

  18. [26]

    Bourdin, G

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

    2000

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    Poulain, V

    X. Poulain, V. Lefevre, O. Lopez-Pamies, K. Ravi-Chand ar, Damage in elastomers: nucleation and growth of cavities , micro-cracks, and macro-cracks, International Journal of Fracture 205 (2017) 1–21. 12

    2017

  22. [30]

    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 188 (2024) 105683

    2024

  23. [31]

    Moln´ ar, A

    G. Moln´ ar, A. Doitrand, V. Lazarus, Phase-field simula tion and coupled criterion link echelon cracks to internal l ength in antiplane shear, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of S olids 188 (2024) 105675

    2024

  24. [32]

    Khayaz, A

    U. Khayaz, A. Dahal, A. Kumar, A comparison of phase field models of brittle fracture incorporating strength, I: Mixe d- mode loading, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 330 (2025) 11 1679

    2025

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    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 247 (2024) 291–317

    2024

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    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

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [38]

    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

  31. [39]

    Kamarei, B

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

    2026

  32. [40]

    Lopez-Pamies, F

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

    2025

  33. [41]

    S. Chockalingam, On the construction of explicit analy tical driving forces for crack nucleation in the phase field a pproach to brittle fracture with application to mohr–coulomb and dr ucker–prager strength surfaces, Journal of Applied Mechan ics 92 (2025) 041002

    2025

  34. [42]

    Chockalingam, A

    S. Chockalingam, A. B. Tepole, A. Kumar, The phase-field model of fracture incorporating mohr-coulomb, mogi-coulo mb, and hoek-brown strength surfaces, arXiv preprint arXiv:25 11.04627 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    W ard, A

    O. W ard, A. Kumar, Data for echelon crack formation, https://github.com/Aditya-Kumar-Lab-GT/Echelon-Crack-Formation,

  36. [44]

    Santarossa, N

    A. Santarossa, N. R. Varela-Rosales, P. Steinmann, M. A . Moreno-Mateos, Configurational forces explain echelon cr acks in soft materials, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12247 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Slootman, V

    J. Slootman, V. W altz, C. J. Yeh, C. Baumann, R. G¨ ostl, J . Comtet, C. Creton, Quantifying rate-and temperature- dependent molecular damage in elastomer fracture, Physica l Review X 10 (2020) 041045. 13

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.