Advertisement

Circumventing mesh bias by r- and h-adaptive techniques for variational eigenfracture

  • Aurel Qinami
  • Eric Cushman Bryant
  • WaiChing Sun
  • Michael KaliskeEmail author
Computational Mechanics
First Online:

Abstract

This article introduces and compares mesh r- and h-adaptivity for the eigenfracture model originally proposed in Schmidt et al. (Multiscale Model Simul 7:1237–1266, 2009), Pandolfi and Ortiz (J Numer Methods Eng 92:694–714, 2012), with the goal of suppressing potential mesh bias due to the element deletion. In the r-adaptive approach, we compute the configurational force at each incremental step and move nodes near the crack tip parallel to the normalized configurational forces field such that the crack propagation direction can be captured more accurately within each incremental step. In the h-adapative approach, we introduce mesh refinement via a quad-tree algorithm to introduce more degrees of freedom within the nonlocal \(\epsilon \)-neighborhood such that a more refined crack path can be reproduced with a higher mesh resolution. Our numerical examples indicate that the r-adaptive approach is able to replicate curved cracks and complex geometrical features, whereas the h-adaptive approach is advantageous in simulating sub-scale fracture when the nonlocal regions are smaller than the un-refined coarse mesh.

Keywords

Eigenerosion Mesh sensitivity R-adaptivity H-adaptivity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is primarily supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within Research Training Group GRK 2250, Project B4. Additional funding that supports Eric Bryant and WaiChing Sun’s contributions is provided by the Earth Materials and Processes program from the Dynamic Materials and Interactions Program of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Grant contract FA9550-17-1-0169, and the nuclear energy university program of the Department of Energy under Grant contract DE-NE0008534. These supports are gratefully acknowledged. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors, and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the sponsors, including the Army Research Laboratory or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein.

References

  1. Ambati M, Gerasimov T, De Lorenzis L (2015) A review on phase-field models of brittle fracture and a new fast hybrid formulation. Comput Mech 55:383–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amor H, Marigo J-J, Maurini C (2009) Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: numerical experiments. J Mech Phys Solids 57:1209–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bangerth W, Davydov D, Heister T, Heltai L, Kanschat G, Kronbichler M, Maier M, Turcksin B, Wells D (2016) The deal. II Library, Version 8.4. J Numer Math 24:135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barenblatt GI (1962) The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Adv Appl Mech 7:55–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bažant ZP, Jirásek M (2002) Nonlocal integral formulations of plasticity and damage: survey of progress. J Eng Mech 128:1119–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borden MJ, Verhoosel CV, Scott MA, Hughes TJ, Landis CM (2012) A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 217:77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borja RI (2008) Assumed enhanced strain and the extended finite element methods: a unification of concepts. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:2789–2803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdin B, Francfort GA, Marigo J-J (2008) The variational approach to fracture. J Elast 91:5–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryant EC, Sun W (2018) A mixed-mode phase field fracture model in anisotropic rocks with consistent kinematics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 342:561–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burstedde C, Wilcox LC, Ghattas O (2011) p4est: scalable algorithms for parallel adaptive mesh refinement on forests of octrees. SIAM J Sci Comput 33:1103–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cazes F, Moës N (2015) Comparison of a phase-field model and of a thick level set model for brittle and quasi-brittle fracture. Int J Numer Methods Eng 103:114–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Choo J, Sun W (2018) Coupled phase-field and plasticity modeling of geological materials: from brittle fracture to ductile flow. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 330:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Borst R, Verhoosel CV (2016) Gradient damage versus phase-field approaches for fracture: similarities and differences. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 312:78–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geelen RJ, Liu Y, Dolbow JE, Rodríguez-Ferran A (2018) An optimization-based phase-field method for continuous-discontinuous crack propagation. Int J Numer Methods Eng 116:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gravouil A, Moës N, Belytschko T (2002) Non-planar 3D crack growth by the extended finite element and level sets—part II: level set update. Int J Numer Methods Eng 53:2569–2586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffith AA (1921) The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 221:163–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grosu E, Harari I (2007) Stability of semidiscrete formulations for elastodynamics at small time steps. Finite Elem Anal Des 43:533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gürses E, Miehe C (2009) A computational framework of three-dimensional configurational-force-driven brittle crack propagation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198:1413–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harari I (2004) Stability of semidiscrete formulations for parabolic problems at small time steps. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193:1491–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heider Y, Markert B (2017) A phase-field modeling approach of hydraulic fracture in saturated porous media. Mech Res Commun 80:38–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingraffea AR, Grigoriu M (1990) Probabilistic fracture mechanics: a validation of predictive capability, Technical Report, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Department of Structural EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu Y, Sun W, Yuan Z, Fish J (2016) A nonlocal multiscale discrete-continuum model for predicting mechanical behavior of granular materials. Int J Numer Methods Eng 106:129–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miehe C, Gürses E (2007) A robust algorithm for configurational-force-driven brittle crack propagation with r-adaptive mesh alignment. Int J Numer Methods Eng 72:127–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miehe C, Hofacker M, Welschinger F (2010) A phase field model for rate-independent crack propagation: robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199:2765–2778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moës N, Dolbow J, Belytschko T (1999) A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng 46:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mota A, Knap J, Ortiz M (2008) Fracture and fragmentation of simplicial finite element meshes using graphs. Int J Numer Methods Eng 73:1547–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mueller R, Kolling S, Gross D (2002) On configurational forces in the context of the finite element method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 53:1557–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Na S, Sun W (2018) Computational thermomechanics of crystalline rock, part i: a combined multi-phase-field/crystal plasticity approach for single crystal simulations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 338:657–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Na S, Sun W, Ingraham MD, Yoon H (2017) Effects of spatial heterogeneity and material anisotropy on the fracture pattern and macroscopic effective toughness of mancos shale in brazilian tests. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 122:6202–6230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Navas P, Rena CY, Li B, Ruiz G (2018) Modeling the dynamic fracture in concrete: an eigensoftening meshfree approach. Int J Impact Eng 113:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Özenç K, Kaliske M (2014) An implicit adaptive node-splitting algorithm to assess the failure mechanism of inelastic elastomeric continua. Int J Numer Methods Eng 100:669–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Özenç K, Chinaryan G, Kaliske M (2016) A configurational force approach to model the branching phenomenon in dynamic brittle fracture. Eng Fract Mech 157:26–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pandolfi A, Ortiz M (2012) An eigenerosion approach to brittle fracture. Int J Numer Methods Eng 92:694–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paulino GH, Park K, Celes W, Espinha R (2010) Adaptive dynamic cohesive fracture simulation using nodal perturbation and edge-swap operators. Int J Numer Methods Eng 84:1303–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Radovitzky R, Seagraves A, Tupek M, Noels L (2011) A scalable 3D fracture and fragmentation algorithm based on a hybrid, discontinuous Galerkin, cohesive element method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200:326–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rice JR (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech 35:379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rice JR (1974) Limitations to the small scale yielding approximation for crack tip plasticity. J Mech Phys Solids 22:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rice J, Paris P, Merkle J (1973) Some further results of J-integral analysis and estimates. In: Progress in flaw growth and fracture toughness testing, ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  39. Rimoli JJ, Rojas JJ (2015) Meshing strategies for the alleviation of mesh-induced effects in cohesive element models. Int J Fracture 193:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmidt B, Fraternali F, Ortiz M (2009) Eigenfracture: an eigendeformation approach to variational fracture. Multiscale Model Simul 7:1237–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Song J-H, Wang H, Belytschko T (2008) A comparative study on finite element methods for dynamic fracture. Comput Mech 42:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stochino F, Qinami A, Kaliske M (2017) Eigenerosion for static and dynamic brittle fracture. Eng Fract Mech 182:537–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sukumar N, Moës N, Moran B, Belytschko T (2000) Extended finite element method for three-dimensional crack modelling. Int J Numer Methods Eng 48:1549–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sun WC, Andrade JE, Rudnicki JW (2011a) Multiscale method for characterization of porous microstructures and their impact on macroscopic effective permeability. Int J Numer Methods Eng 88:1260–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sun W, Andrade JE, Rudnicki JW, Eichhubl P (2011b) Connecting microstructural attributes and permeability from 3D tomographic images of in situ shear-enhanced compaction bands using multiscale computations. Geophys Res Lett 38:L10302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sun W, Cai Z, Choo J (2017) Mixed Arlequin method for multiscale poromechanics problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 111:624–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang K, Sun W (2017) A unified variational eigen-erosion framework for interacting brittle fractures and compaction bands in fluid-infiltrating porous media. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 318:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Structural AnalysisTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering MechanicsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options