Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 53 references

A Combined Microbeam and Phase-Field Approach to Identify the Toughness and Ultimate Strength of Amorphous Silica

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A combined microbeam experiment and phase-field analysis yields both fracture toughness and intrinsic tensile strength of amorphous silica, including the first experimental value of the material's regularization length.

desk verdict A solid two-geometry calibration that plausibly gives silica's first experimental phase-field length scale, but the reported ℓc lower bound sits outside the validity condition the authors themselves stated, so the uncertainty bars should not be trusted as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27758 v1 pith:WMBNO7YA submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Gustavo Alberto Rosales-Sosa , Gergely Molnar , Yoshinari Kato , Taichi Nakashima , Takahito Ohmura , Etienne Barthel , Guillaume Kermouche , Sergio Sao Joao
show 2 more authors
Shingo Nakane Hiroki Yamazaki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords amorphoussilicaphase-fieldfracturemicrobeamtestingtoughnesscriticalenergyreleaserateultimatetensilestrengthregularizationlengthscalebrittle
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 tries to establish that two complementary micron-scale bending tests—a sharp notched beam and a new notch-free bone-shaped beam—can be combined with phase-field fracture simulations (which represent cracks as a diffuse damage field rather than a pre-defined surface) to determine simultaneously the critical energy release rate (toughness) and the ultimate tensile strength of a brittle solid. The notched beam isolates the toughness-dominated regime, while the bone-shaped beam isolates the strength-controlled regime, so the two geometries constrain different combinations of the model's two material parameters. Their intersection in parameter space gives, for amorphous silica, Gc = 5.1 J/m², KIC = 0.61 MPa·m^(1/2), ℓc = 9.1 nm, and σc = 6.8 GPa. If correct, this fills a gap left by conventional micromechanical tests, which usually return only a stress intensity factor and cannot reach the intrinsic strength.

What carries the argument

The central object is the phase-field fracture model, which smears a crack into a continuous damage field d and is governed by two material constants: the critical energy release rate Gc and the length scale ℓc that controls how far damage spreads. The identification procedure uses 'fracture-force-consistent curves' in (Gc, ℓc) space: for each beam geometry, finite element phase-field simulations are run over a range of ℓc, and for each ℓc the Gc value that reproduces the measured fracture force is recorded. The notched-beam curve is nearly flat in ℓc because the sharp notch tip becomes insensitive to ℓc when the tip radius is smaller than ℓc; the bone-beam curve is steep because its blunt g

What would settle it

Fabricate notched beams with deliberately blunter tips (say 15–20 nm, above the reported ℓc) and repeat the notched-beam calibration: if the fracture-force-consistent Gc still comes out independent of ℓc, then something other than the sharp-notch assumption is doing the work. Alternatively, test bone-shaped beams with and without a sharp pre-crack: if the identified σc changes, the strength-controlled branch is contaminated by crack-initiation geometry, and the intersection method would not separate toughness from strength as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that both brittle-fracture parameters—the critical energy release rate Gc and the regularization length ℓc, from which ultimate tensile strength σc follows—can be identified from one experimental protocol. Single-notched microbeams have a tip sharp enough that the measured fracture force depends only on Gc, so ℓc can be scanned without changing the fitted toughness; bone-shaped microbeams with a blunt, notch-free gauge section fail in the strength-controlled regime, where the fracture force depends on both Gc and ℓc. Plotting the fracture-force-consistent (Gc, ℓc) pairs for both geometries, the intersection of the two curves selects the material parameters: Gc = 5.1 J/m²

Load-bearing premise

The notched-beam calibration assumes the measured notch tip radius (about 7–8 nm) is smaller than the material length scale ℓc, so the identified Gc does not depend on ℓc; the reported ℓc range extends down to 5.2 nm, so at the lower bound that assumption fails and the intersection curves could be biased (Section 3.2.3, Tables 1 and 3).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fracture toughness and ultimate strength can be extracted from the same two sample geometries without prescribing a crack path in advance, so the method applies to materials where fracture surfaces cannot be predicted.
  • The first experimentally measured ℓc for silica, 9.1 nm, gives phase-field simulations of silica a calibrated damage width instead of an arbitrary smoothing parameter.
  • The parametric study supplies design rules: a notch tip radius below ℓc keeps the identified Gc independent of ℓc, while a notch deeper than ℓc but shallower than about 40% of the beam height keeps the test in the sharp-crack regime.
  • Because σc is obtained from Gc and ℓc, the protocol can separate environmental effects on toughness from effects on damage spread, which is not possible with toughness-only tests.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If ℓc really reflects the width of the diffuse bond-breaking zone, then the same two-geometry protocol applied to glasses with more open or more modified networks should show systematically larger ℓc and lower σc—a quantitative test of the paper's structural interpretation.
  • The reported Gc depends on the correction that converts the phase-field prediction into a material value; comparing the phase-field results with a direct linear-elastic fracture-mechanics evaluation on the same notched beams would show how much of the difference is model correction versus physical damage.
  • Testing identical bone beams after introducing a sharp pre-crack would clarify whether the strength-controlled branch is truly initiation-limited or slightly contaminated by the initiation site's geometry.
  • Repeating the protocol in an inert environment would test the paper's suggestion that humidity lowers the apparent strength by altering Gc or ℓc at the surface.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a combined experimental and numerical protocol to identify the critical energy release rate Gc and the phase-field regularization length ℓc of amorphous silica. Single-notched and newly designed bone-shaped microbeams are fabricated by FIB and tested in bending; both geometries are modeled with a phase-field fracture formulation in FEA. Gc and ℓc are determined from the intersection of the fracture-force-consistent Gc–ℓc curves for the two geometries, KIC is computed from Gc, and σc is obtained from a homogeneous phase-field relation (Eq. 6). The central reported results are Gc = 5.1 J/m², KIC = 0.61 MPa·m^1/2, ℓc = 9.1 nm, and σc = 6.8 GPa, claimed to agree with the literature and to constitute the first experimentally derived ℓc for amorphous silica.

Significance. If the identification is sound, the work provides a useful bridge between toughness-only micromechanical tests and strength-controlled characterization, and delivers a material length scale that is usually estimated only theoretically or by simulation. The paper's strengths include the use of two independent specimen geometries, an explicit mesh-correction discussion, a parametric sensitivity analysis, and a broad comparison with literature values. The reported values fall within the scattered experimental band for silica glass, which gives external plausibility. However, two load-bearing technical issues—an internal inconsistency in the reported mesh size and a violation of the D < ℓc premise in part of the identified ℓc range—currently prevent the central claim from being fully established.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3.2.3, Table 3, Table 1] The notched-beam calibration assumes that the measured notch-tip radius D is smaller than ℓc so that the identified Gc is independent of ℓc (§2.5). Table 1 lists D = 7–8 nm (±1 nm), while Table 3 reports an ℓc range of 5.2–12.3 nm with median 9.1 nm. The lower part of this range therefore lies in the D > ℓc regime, where Figure 7B shows that the fracture force—and hence the fitted Gc—is no longer independent of ℓc. Consequently, the notched-beam curve in Figure 6 is not flat over the entire reported range, and the intersection bounds, the quoted ℓc min/max, and the σc bounds from Eq. 6 are not reliably established. The median ℓc = 9.1 nm may survive, but the robustness of the intersection requires either restricting the identification to ℓc > D, or providing an explicit treatment of the D > ℓc region and its uncertainty propagation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'milling nd tested' should be 'milling and tested'.
  2. [§2.2] Missing spaces: 'complianceandthermal-driftcorrected' should read 'compliance and thermal-drift corrected'.
  3. [§4.1] The text uses 'hs/ℓc < 1' in the discussion of Figure 7A, but that figure's horizontal axis is the notch depth normalized by the total beam height h. As written, the condition is dimensionally inconsistent with the actual notch depths (hundreds of nanometers) and ℓc ≈ 9 nm. Please correct the normalization notation.
  4. [Figure 6] The legend is stated to contain the intersection values and bounds, but the legend is not readable in the provided manuscript figure. Please ensure the figure is legible in the final version.
  5. [Table 4] Several references are for preprints or in-press articles; please check that all bibliographic data (including arXiv IDs and DOIs) are correct and complete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: two independent microbeam geometries provide separate constraints; σc is a transparent model output, not a hidden input.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. Gc and ℓc are identified by matching two independent experimental datasets (notched and bone microbeam fracture forces) with phase-field simulations: the notched branch pins Gc under the stated D<ℓc premise, while the bone branch, whose blunt singularity makes Pc depend on both Gc and ℓc, supplies the second constraint. Their intersection is a standard parameter-identification argument, not an identity. σc is then computed from the identified (Gc, ℓc) via Eq. 6, which is stated explicitly and attributed to prior work [35,44]; it is compared to literature rather than used to define the fitted constants, so the strength result is a derived output, not a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. The self-citations (especially [35] for the UMAT, Eq. 3, and Eq. 6) are load-bearing but not circular: they are general published phase-field relations with stated assumptions and are not fit to the present silica data. The main caveat is robustness, not circularity: Table 1 gives D = 7–8 nm while Table 3 reports ℓc as low as 5.2 nm; in that lower range the stated premise D<ℓc for a flat notched-branch Gc–ℓc curve fails, so the lower intersection bounds are not fully established. This affects uncertainty assessment, not the logical derivation chain.

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

The central reported quantities Gc and ℓc are calibrated to bending fracture forces, not derived from a free-standing theory. The transformation σc = η√(EGc/ℓc) is a model result from prior phase-field theory. No new physical particle or force is introduced; the main unverified inputs are the AT1 phase-field assumptions, the mesh-correction formula, and the sharpness of the FIB notch.

free parameters (3)
  • Phase-field critical energy release rate Gc,pf (corrected to Gc) = 5.1 J/m² (range 4.6–5.7)
    Calibrated so simulated notched-beam fracture forces match measured values; median of 9 samples; Eq. 3 mesh correction applied.
  • Phase-field regularization length ℓc = 9.1 nm (range 5.2–12.3)
    Calibrated so the bone-beam Gc–ℓc curve intersects the notched-beam Gc band; previous theoretical/MD values were 2–3 nm.
  • Mesh ratio ms/ℓc and correction constants (α=1, cω=8/3) = ms/ℓc = 0.5, giving an 18.1% localization correction
    Numerical choice in Eq. 3; if different, the reported Gc shifts by the localization-error term. The stated mesh ratio is inconsistent with the sentence in §3.2.1 about the core mesh being 'about 10 times the size of ℓc'.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AT1 phase-field model with spectral tension-compression split and quadratic degradation captures brittle fracture of amorphous silica
    Used throughout §2.3; no plasticity was observed, but the AT1 damage model and spectral split are modeling choices.
  • domain assumption The homogeneous phase-field solution under pure uniaxial tension gives σc = η√(EGc/ℓc)
    Eq. 6 is taken from refs. [35,44] and applied to bending results; the local stress state in the bone microbeams may not be exactly homogeneous uniaxial tension.
  • domain assumption FIB-milled notch tip radius D (7–8 nm) behaves as an ideally sharp crack and Ga+ implantation does not significantly alter fracture properties
    Assumed in §2.5 and §3.2.3; the paper itself notes Ga+ effects could exist but calls them limited.
  • domain assumption Eq. 3 with α=1, cω=8/3, ms/ℓc=0.5 correctly removes the phase-field spatial-discretization error
    The 18.1% localization correction is central to the reported Gc value and is taken from prior work [35] without independent verification here.
  • standard math Amorphous silica is isotropic, linearly elastic, small-strain material in these tests
    Standard assumption for silica glass; invoked by the small-strain FEA and the elastic constants E=72 GPa, ν=0.17.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Combined Microbeam and Phase-Field Approach to Identify the Toughness and Ultimate Strength of Amorphous Silica." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WMBNO7YA

@misc{pith2026260727758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Combined Microbeam and Phase-Field Approach to Identify the Toughness and Ultimate Strength of Amorphous Silica},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WMBNO7YA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27758}
}
abstract

This work presents a new approach to evaluating the toughness, described by the critical energy release rate ($G_c$), and ultimate tensile strength ($\sigma_c$) of amorphous silica (SiO$_2$ glass), combining microbeam tests and phase-field calculations. The latter provides a numerical route to brittle fracture without prescribing explicit fracture surfaces \textit{a priori}, enabling crack initiation and propagation to be tracked. Single-notched microbeams and newly designed bone-shaped microbeams with a notch-free gauge section were fabricated by Focused Ion Beam (FIB) milling nd tested under bending in air, probing the brittle-fracture and strength-controlled regimes, respectively. Both geometries were modeled by Finite Element Analysis (FEA) coupled with a phase-field formulation. We found $G_c = 5.1$~J/m$^2$ (critical stress intensity factor $K_{IC} = 0.61$~MPa$\cdot$m$^{1/2}$), an intrinsic material length scale $\ell_c = 9.1$~nm, and $\sigma_c = 6.8$~GPa, consistent with previously reported brittle properties of silica glass. Through a parametric study, we show the effect of notch geometry on the fracture response of the microbeams and the impact of dimensional measurement error on the determined toughness. Unlike conventional micromechanical methods that yield only $K_{IC}$, our combined microbeam geometries and phase-field approach simultaneously deliver $G_c$ and $\sigma_c$, bridging brittle-fracture characterization and the strength-controlled regime inaccessible to toughness-only techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27758 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Top- and side-view diagrams of the notched and bone microbeam geometries b) scanning electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental load-displacement curves for a) notched and b) bone microbeams under bending test. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of the broken notched (a and c) and bone [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of FEA models used for the phase-field calculations using an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase-field damage maps at the point of fracture initiation and after propagation along with their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated fracture force-consistent Gc and ℓc for the notched (light red) and bone (light blue) mi￾crobeams. The optimal values correspond to the intersection of the median curves (dashed lines) and variation is given by the bounds (black lines). The values of intersec…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effects of microbeam geometry on the observed notched beam fracture forces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Molnár, A

    G. Molnár, A. Doitrand, A. Jaccon, B. Prabel, A. Gravouil, Thermodynamically con- sistent linear-gradient damage model in abaqus, Eng. Fract. Mech. 266 (2022) 108390. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2022.108390

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    R. E. Mould, R. D. Southwick, Strength and static fatigue of abraded glass under controlled ambient conditions: II, effect of various abrasions and the universal fatigue curve, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 42 (12) (1959) 582–592. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1959.tb13578.x

    arXiv 1959

  3. [2]

    A. K. Varshneya, Fundamentals of Inorganic Glasses, Elsevier, 2013

    2013

  4. [3]

    Wondraczek, J

    L. Wondraczek, J. C. Mauro, J. Eckert, U. Kühn, J. Horbach, J. Deubener, T. Rouxel, Towards ultrastrong glasses, Adv. Mater. 23 (39) (2011) 4578–4586. doi:10.1002/adma.201102795

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.201102795 2011

  5. [4]

    S. M. Wiederhorn, Influence of water vapor on crack propagation in soda-lime glass, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 50 (8) (1967) 407–414. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1967.tb15145.x

    arXiv 1967

  6. [5]

    S. M. Wiederhorn, Fracture surface energy of glass, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 52 (2) (1969) 99–105. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1969.tb13350.x

    arXiv 1969

  7. [6]

    Inagaki, K

    M. Inagaki, K. Urashima, S. Toyomasu, Y. Goto, M. Sakai, Work of fracture and crack healing in glass, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 68 (12) (1985) 704–706. doi:10.1111/j.1151- 2916.1985.tb10129.x

    arXiv 1985

  8. [7]

    J. P. Lucas, N. R. Moody, S. L. Robinson, J. Hanrock, R. Q. Hwang, Determining fracture toughness of vitreous silica glass, Scr. Metall. Mater. 32 (5) (1995) 743–748. doi:10.1016/0956-716X(95)91596-H

    work page doi:10.1016/0956-716x(95)91596-h 1995

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    F. Y. Cui, R. P. Vinci, A chevron-notched bowtie micro-beam bend test for frac- ture toughness measurement of brittle materials, Scr. Mater. 132 (2017) 53–57. doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2017.01.031

    2017 doi

  2. [9]

    T. To, F. Célarié, C. Roux-Langlois, A. Bazin, Y. Gueguen, H. Orain, M. Le Fur, V. Bur- gaud, T. Rouxel, Fracture toughness, fracture energy and slow crack growth of glass as investigated by the single-edge precracked beam (sepb) and chevron-notched beam (cnb) methods, Acta Ma...

    2018 doi

  3. [10]

    Rouxel, S

    T. Rouxel, S. Yoshida, The fracture toughness of inorganic glasses, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 100 (10) (2017) 4374–4396. doi:10.1111/jace.15108

    2017 doi

  4. [11]

    Rouxel, Fracture surface energy and toughness of inorganic glasses, Scr

    T. Rouxel, Fracture surface energy and toughness of inorganic glasses, Scr. Mater. 137 (2017) 109–113. doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2017.05.005

    2017 doi

  5. [12]

    D. G. Smith, M. Chowdary, The fracture toughness of slip-cast fused silica, Mater. Sci. Eng. 20 (1975) 83–88. doi:10.1016/0025-5416(75)90133-0. 20

    1975 doi

  6. [13]

    Rodriguez, A

    O. Rodriguez, A. Matinmanesh, S. Phull, E. H. Schemitsch, P. Zalzal, O. M. Clarkin, M. Papini, M. R. Towler, Silica-based and borate-based, titania-containing bioactive coat- ings characterization: Critical strain energy release rate, residual stresses, hardness, and thermal e...

    2016 doi

  7. [14]

    Matoy, H

    K. Matoy, H. Schönherr, T. Detzel, T. Schöberl, R. Pippan, C. Motz, G. Dehm, A compar- ative micro-cantilever study of the mechanical behavior of silicon based passivation films, Thin Solid Films 518 (1) (2009) 247–256. doi:10.1016/j.tsf.2009.07.143

    2009 doi

  8. [15]

    B. A. Proctor, I. Whitney, J. W. Johnson, The strength of fused silica, Proc. R. Soc. A 297 (1451) (1967) 534–557. doi:10.1098/rspa.1967.0085

    1967

  9. [16]

    J. K. R. Weber, B. Cho, A. D. Hixson, J. G. Abadie, P. C. Nordine, W. M. Kriven, B. R. Johnson, D. Zhu, Growth and crystallization of yag- and mullite-composition glass fibers, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 19 (13-14) (1999) 2543–2550. doi:10.1016/S0955-2219(99)00120-X

    1999 doi

  10. [17]

    C. R. Kurkjian, P. K. Gupta, R. K. Brow, N. Lower, The intrinsic strength and fatigue of ox- ide glasses, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 316 (1) (2003) 114–124. doi:10.1016/S0022-3093(02)01943- 9

    2003 doi

  11. [18]

    Z. Tang, N. P. Lower, P. K. Gupta, C. R. Kurkjian, R. K. Brow, Using the two-point bend technique to determine failure stress of pristine glass fibers, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 428 (2015) 98–104. doi:10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2015.08.005

    2015 doi

  12. [19]

    Brambilla, D

    G. Brambilla, D. N. Payne, The ultimate strength of glass silica nanowires, Nano Lett. 9 (2) (2009) 831–835. doi:10.1021/nl803581r

    2009 doi

  13. [20]

    J. Luo, J. Wang, E. Bitzek, J. Y. Huang, H. Zheng, L. Tong, Q. Yang, J. Li, S. X. Mao, Size- dependent brittle-to-ductile transition in silica glass nanofibers, Nano Lett. 16 (1) (2016) 105–113. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b03070

    2016 doi

  14. [21]

    Karlsson, M

    S. Karlsson, M. Kozłowski, L. Grund, S. A. K. Andersson, K. C. E. Haller, K. Persson, Non- destructive strength testing of microindented float glass by a nonlinear acoustic method, Constr. Build. Mater. 391 (2023) 131748. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131748

    2023

  15. [22]

    To, Fracture toughness and fracture energy of inorganic and non-metallic glass, Ph.D

    T. To, Fracture toughness and fracture energy of inorganic and non-metallic glass, Ph.D. thesis, Université de Rennes (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Z. L. Li, S. Wang, A. Li, J. O. Douglas, F. Bouville, O. Gavalda-Diaz, K. T. Marquardt, F. Giuliani, Fracture energy of 6h-sic at the microscale: effects of testing geometry and notch preparation, arXiv preprint (2026). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2606.03818

    2026 doi arXiv

  17. [24]

    M. G. Mueller, V. Pejchal, G. Žagar, A. Singh, M. Cantoni, A. Mortensen, Fracture tough- nesstestingofnanocrystallinealuminaandfusedquartzusingchevron-notchedmicrobeams, Acta Mater. 86 (2015) 385–395. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2014.12.016

    2015 doi

  18. [25]

    Žagar, V

    G. Žagar, V. Pejchal, M. G. Mueller, L. Michelet, A. Mortensen, Fracture toughness mea- surement in fused quartz using triangular chevron-notched micro-cantilevers, Scr. Mater. 112 (2016) 132–135. doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2015.09.032

    2016 doi

  19. [26]

    Bruns, L

    S. Bruns, L. Petho, C. Minnert, J. Michler, K. Durst, Fracture toughness determination of fused silica by cube corner indentation cracking and pillar splitting, Mater. Des. 186 (2020) 108311. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108311

    2020

  20. [27]

    D. S. Harding, W. C. Oliver, G. M. Pharr, Cracking during nanoindentation and its use in the measurement of fracture toughness, MRS Online Proc. Libr. 356 (1994) 663–668. doi:10.1557/PROC-356-663. 21

    1994 doi

  21. [28]

    Scholz, G

    T. Scholz, G. A. Schneider, J. Muñoz-Saldaña, M. V. Swain, Fracture toughness from submicron derived indentation cracks, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84 (16) (2004) 3055–3057. doi:10.1063/1.1711164

    2004 doi

  22. [29]

    A. A. Griffith, Vi. the phenomena of rupture and flow in solids, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 221 (582-593) (1921) 163–198. doi:10.1098/rsta.1921.0006

    1921

  23. [30]

    A. A. Griffith, The theory of rupture, in: International Congress for Applied Mechanics, 1924, pp. 55–63

    1924

  24. [31]

    Leguillon, Strength or toughness? a criterion for crack onset at a notch, Eur

    D. Leguillon, Strength or toughness? a criterion for crack onset at a notch, Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 21 (1) (2002) 61–72. doi:10.1016/S0997-7538(01)01184-6

    2002 doi

  25. [32]

    Bourdin, G

    B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, J. J. Marigo, Numerical experiments in revisited brittle frac- ture, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48 (4) (2000) 797–826. doi:10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00028-9

    2000 doi

  26. [33]

    Molnár, A

    G. Molnár, A. Gravouil, 2d and 3d abaqus implementation of a robust staggered phase- field solution for modeling brittle fracture, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 130 (2017) 27–38. doi:10.1016/j.finel.2017.03.002

    2017 doi

  27. [34]

    Molnár, A

    G. Molnár, A. Doitrand, R. Estevez, A. Gravouil, Toughness or strength? regularization in phase-field fracture explained by the coupled criterion, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 109 (2020) 102736. doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2020.102736

    2020

  28. [36]

    Molnár, A

    G. Molnár, A. Gravouil, R. Seghir, J. Réthoré, An open-source abaqus implementation of the phase-field method to study the effect of plasticity on the instantaneous fracture toughness in dynamic crack propagation, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 365 (2020) 113004. doi:10.1016...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Brinckmann, K

    S. Brinckmann, K. Matoy, C. Kirchlechner, G. Dehm, On the influence of microcantilever pre-crack geometries on the apparent fracture toughness of brittle materials, Acta Mater. 136 (2017) 281–287. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2017.07.014

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Francfort, J

    G. Francfort, J. J. Marigo, Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46 (8) (1998) 1319–1342. doi:10.1016/S0022-5096(98)00034-9

    1998 doi

  31. [39]

    P. E. Bernard, N. Moës, N. Chevaugeon, Damage growth modeling using the thick level set (tls) approach: Efficient discretization for quasi-static loadings, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 233 (2012) 11–27. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2012.02.020

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    Methods Appl

    Y.Lu, T.Helfer, B.Bary, O.Fandeur, Anefficientandrobuststaggeredalgorithmappliedto the quasi-static description of brittle fracture by a phase-field approach, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 370 (2020) 113218. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2020.113218

    2020

  33. [41]

    K. Pham, H. Amor, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, Gradient damage models and their use to approximate brittle fracture, Int. J. Damage Mech. 20 (4) (2011) 618–652. doi:10.1177/1056789510386852

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    M. L. Williams, On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary crack, J. Appl. Mech. 24 (1) (1957) 109–114. doi:10.1115/1.4011454

    1957 doi

  35. [43]

    Fujita, T

    S. Fujita, T. Ohji, T. Yahagi, M. Iijima, J. Tatami, Micro-scale mechanical properties of surface layer in ion-exchanged glass, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 107 (6) (2024) 3666–3672. doi:10.1111/jace.19755. 22

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Molnár, A

    G. Molnár, A. Doitrand, R. Estevez, A. Gravouil, A review of characteristic lengths in the coupled criterion framework and advanced fracture models, C. R. Méc. 353 (2025) 91–111. doi:10.5802/crmeca.280

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    G. A. Rosales-Sosa, E. Barthel, Y. Kato, M. Bourguignon, A. Yamada, T. Inoue, S. Nakane, H. Yamazaki, Indentation stress fields in brittle materials: A micro-photoelastic investiga- tion in silicate glasses, Acta Mater. 292 (2025) 120973. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2025.120973

    2025

  38. [46]

    Tomić, K

    Z. Tomić, K. Jukić, T. Jarak, T. A. Fabijanić, Z. Tonković, Phase-field model- ing of fused silica cone-crack vickers indentation, Nanomaterials 12 (14) (2022) 2356. doi:10.3390/nano12142356

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Molnár, E

    G. Molnár, E. Barthel, How glass breaks: damage explains the difference between surface and fracture energies in amorphous silica, Acta Mater.In press; preprint: arXiv:2412.11817 (2026). doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2026.121615

    2026

  40. [48]

    L. Liu, K. Shinozaki, Brittle–ductile transition and toughening of silica glass via ni nanopar- ticle incorporation at a small volume fraction, J. Alloys Compd. 940 (2023) 168874. doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.168874

    2023

  41. [49]

    L. G. Baikova, T. I. Pesina, C. R. Kurkjian, Z. Tang, M. F. Kireenko, L. V. Tikhonova, V. P. Pukh, On the method for determining the true strength of inorganic glasses, Tech. Phys. 58 (10) (2013) 1447–1452

    2013

  42. [50]

    Taniguchi, S

    T. Taniguchi, S. Ito, Deformation and fracture of soda-lime-silica glass under tension by molecular dynamics simulation, J. Ceram. Soc. Jpn. 116 (1356) (2008) 885–889. doi:10.2109/jcersj2.116.885

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    Tamura, M

    T. Tamura, M. Sakurai, T. Nakamura, R. Kobayashi, S. Ogata, Theoretical mechanical properties of silica glass: first-principles tensile tests, Trans. Mater. Res. Soc. Jpn. 36 (1) (2011) 35–40. doi:10.14723/tmrsj.36.35

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    Pedone, G

    A. Pedone, G. Malavasi, M. C. Menziani, U. Segre, A. N. Cormack, Molecular dynamics studies of stress-strain behavior of silica glass under a tensile load, Chem. Mater. 20 (13) (2008) 4356–4366. doi:10.1021/cm800413v

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    J. Du, A. N. Cormack, The medium range structure of sodium silicate glasses: a molecular dynamics simulation, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 349 (2004) 66–79. doi:10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2004.08.264. 23

    2004 doi

Pith tools

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