Advertisement

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 406–416 | Cite as

High-order phase-field model with the local and second-order max-entropy approximants

  • Fatemeh AmiriEmail author
Research Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

We approximate the fracture surface energy functional based on phase-field method with smooth local maximum entropy (LME) and second-order maximum entropy (SME) approximants. The higher-order continuity of the meshfree methods such as LME and SME approximants allows to directly solve the fourth-order phase-field equations without splitting the fourth-order differential equation into two second-order differential equations.We will first show that the crack surface functional can be captured more accurately in the fourth-order model with smooth approximants such as LME, SME and B-spline. Furthermore, smaller length scale parameter is needed for the fourth-order model to approximate the energy functional.We also study SME approximants and drive the formulations. The proposed meshfree fourth-order phase-field formulation show more stable results for SME compared to LME meshfree methods.

Keywords

second-order maximum entropy local maximum entropy second- and fourth-order phase-field models B-spline 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Fatemeh Amiri would like to thank “Presidency of Islamic Republic of Iran National Elites Foundation” and “School of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM)” for financial support during the project.

References

  1. 1.
    Amiri F, Anitescu C, Arroyo M, Bordas S P A, Rabczuk T. XLME interpolants, a seamless bridge between XFEM and enriched meshless methods. Computational Mechanics, 2014, 53(1): 45–57MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winne D H, Wundt B M. Application of the Griffith-Irwin theory of crack propagation to the bursting behavior of disks, including analytical and experimental studies. Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1958, 80: 1643–1655Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T. Finite strain fracture of plates and shells with configurational forces and edge rotations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2013, 94(12): 1099–1122MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T, Camanho P P. Finite strain fracture of 2D problems with injected anisotropic softening elements. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 72: 50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T, Dias da Costa D. Element-wise fracture algorithm based on rotation of edges. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2013, 110: 113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nguyen-Xuan H, Liu G R, Bordas S, Natarajan S, Rabczuk T. An adaptive singular ES-FEM for mechanics problems with singular field of arbitrary order. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2013, 253: 252–273MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belytschko T, Black T. Elastic crack growth in finite elements with minimal remeshing. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1999, 45(5): 601–620CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moës N, Dolbow J, Belytschko T. A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1999, 46(1): 131–150CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Strouboulis T, Babuska I, Copps K. The design and analysis of the generalized finite element method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2000, 181(1–3): 43–69MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ma G, An X, He L. The numerical manifold method: A review. International Journal of Computational Methods, 2010, 7(1): 1–32MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhardwaj G, Singh I V, Mishra B K, Bui T Q. Numerical simulation of functionally graded cracked plates using {NURBS} based {XIGA} under different loads and boundary conditions. Composite Structures, 2015, 126: 347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghorashi S Sh, Valizadeh N, Mohammadi S, Rabczuk T. T-spline based {XIGA} for fracture analysis of orthotropic media. Computers & Structures, 2015, 147: 138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen-Thanh N, Valizadeh N, Nguyen M N, Nguyen-Xuan H, Zhuang X, Areias P, Zi G, Bazilevs Y, De Lorenzis L, Rabczuk T. An extended isogeometric thin shell analysis based on Kirchhoff-Love theory. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2015, 284: 265–291MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amiri F, Millan D, Shen Y, Rabczuk T, Arroyo M. Phase-field modeling of fracture in linear thin shells. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 69(2): 102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li S, Liu W K. Meshfree and particle methods and their applications. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 2002, 55(1): 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rabczuk T, Bordas S, Zi G. On three-dimensional modelling of crack growth using partition of unity methods. Computers & Structures, 2010, 88(23–24): 1391–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang S, Zhang H. Partition of unity-based thermomechanical meshfree method for two-dimensional crack problems. Archive of Applied Mechanics, 2011, 81(10): 1351–1363CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhuang X, Cai Y, Augarde C. A meshless sub-region radial point interpolation method for accurate calculation of crack tip fields. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 69: 118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Cracking particles: A simplified meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 61(13): 2316–2343CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. A three-dimensional large deformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 196(29–30): 2777–2799MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Borst R. Damage, Material Instabilities, and Failure. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Borst R, Benallal A, Heeres O M. A gradient-enhanced damage approach to fracture. Journal de Physique Archives IV France, 1996, 6(C6): 491–502Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liang J, Zhang Z, Prevost J H, Suo Z. Time-dependent crack behavior in an integrated structure. International Journal of Fracture, 2004, 125(3–4): 335–348CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peerlings R H J, de Borst R, Brekelmans W A M, de Vree J H P. Gradient enhanced damage for quasi-brittle materials. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1996, 39(19): 3391–3403CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peerlings R H J, de Borst R, Brekelmans W A M, de Vree J H P, Spee I. Some observations on localization in non-local and gradient damage models. European Journal of Mechanics. A, Solids, 1996, 15(6): 937–953zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sluys L J, de Borst R. Dispersive properties of gradient-dependent and rate-dependent media. Mechanics of Materials, 1994, 18(2): 131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bažant Z. Imbricate continuum and its variational derivation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1984, 110(12): 1693–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bažant Z, Chang T P. Instability of nonlocal continuum and strain averaging. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1984, 110(10): 1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bažant Z, Jirasek M. Nonlocal integral formulations of plasticity and damage: Survey of progress. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2002, 128(11): 1119–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bažant Z, Lin F B. Nonlocal smeared cracking model for concrete fracture. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988, 114(11): 2493–2510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T, de Sá J C. A novel two-stage discrete crack method based on the screened Poisson equation and local mesh refinement. Computational Mechanics, 2016, 58(6): 1003–1018MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Areias P, Msekh M A, Rabczuk T. Damage and fracture algorithm using the screened Poisson equation and local remeshing. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2016, 158(Suppl C): 116–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hofacker M, Miehe C. A phase field model of dynamic fracture: Robust field updates for the analysis of complex crack patterns. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2013, 93(3): 276–301MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miehe C, Welschinger F, Hofacker M. Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: Variational principles and multi-field FE implementations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2010, 83(10): 1273–1311MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mumford D, Shah J. Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth functions and associated variational problems. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1989, 42(5): 577–685MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ambrosio L. Variational problems in SBV and image segmentation. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 1989, 17(1): 1–40MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ambrosio L, Tortorelli V M. Approximation of functionals depending on jumps by elliptic functionals via G-convergence. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1990, 43(8): 999–1036MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gómez H, Calo V M, Bazilevs Y, Hughes T J R. Isogeometric analysis of the Cahn-Hilliard phase-field model. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2008, 197(49–50): 4333–4352MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Esedoglu S, Shen J. Digital inpainting based on the Mumford-Shah-Euler image model. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 2002, 13(4): 353–370MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Amiri F, Millan D, Arroyo M, Silani M, Rabczuk T. Fourth order phase-field model for local max-ent approximants applied to crack propagation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2016, 312: 254–275MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bourdin B, Francfort G A, Marigo J J. The variational approach to fracture. Journal of Elasticity, 2008, 91(1–3): 5–148MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Francfort G A, Marigo J J. Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1998, 46(8): 1319–1342MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Borden M J, Verhoosel C V, Scott M A, Hughes T J R, Landis C M. A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2012, 217–220: 77–95MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T, Msekh M A. Phase-field analysis of finitestrain plates and shells including element subdivision. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2016, 312(Suppl C): 322–350MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kiendl J, Ambati M, de Lorenzis L, Gomez H, Reali A. Phase-field description of brittle fracture in plates and shells. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2016, 312: 374–394MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hughes T J R, Cottrell J A, Bazilevs Y. Isogeometric analysis: CAD, finite elements, NURBS, exact geometry and mesh refinement. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2005, 194(39–41): 4135–4195MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sukumar N. Construction of polygonal interpolants: A maximum entropy approach. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 61(12): 2159–2181MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shannon C E. A mathematical theory of communication. Sigmobile Mobile Computing & Communications Review, 2001, 5(1): 3–55MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jaynes E T. Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical Review, 1957, 106(4): 620–630MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jaynes E T. Information theory and statistical mechanics. II. Physical Review, 1957, 108(2): 171–190MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Arroyo M, Ortiz M. Local maximum-entropy approximation schemes: A seamless bridge between finite elements and meshfree methods. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2006, 65(13): 2167–2202MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shepard D. A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data. In: Proceedings of the 1968 23rd ACM National Conference. New York: ACM, 1968, 517–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rosolen A, Millan D, Arroyo M. Second-order convex maximum entropy approximants with applications to high-order PDE. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2013, 94(2): 150–182MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cyron C J, Arroyo M, Ortiz M. Smooth, second order, non-negative meshfree approximants selected by maximum entropy. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2009, 79(13): 1605–1632MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ortiz A, Puso M A, Sukumar N. Maximum-entropy meshfree method for incompressible media problems. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 2011, 47(6): 572–585MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Millán D, Rosolen A, Arroyo M. Thin shell analysis from scattered points with maximum-entropy approximants. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2011, 85(6): 723–751CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Millán D, Rosolen A, Arroyo M. Nonlinear manifold learning for meshfree finite deformations thin shell analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2013, 93(7): 685–713MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ortiz A, Puso M A, Sukumar N. Maximum-entropy meshfree method for compressible and near-incompressible elasticity. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 199 (25–28): 1859–1871MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Belytschko T, Lu Y Y, Gu L. Element-free Galerkin methods. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1994, 37(2): 229–256MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rosolen A, Millan D, Arroyo M. On the optimum support size in meshfree methods: A variational adaptivity approach with maximum entropy approximants. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2010, 82(7): 868–895zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shannon C. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 1948, 27(4): 623–656MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sukumar N, Moran B, Belytschko T. The natural element method in solid mechanics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1998, 43(5): 839–887MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cirak F, Ortiz M, Schröder P. Subdivision surfaces: A new paradigm for thin-shell finite-element analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2000, 47(12): 2039–2072CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rajan V T. Optimality of the Delaunay triangulation in Rd. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 1994, 12(2): 189–202MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Borden M J, Hughes T J R, Landis C M, Verhoosel C V. A higherorder phase-field model for brittle fracture: Formulation and analysis within the isogeometric analysis framework. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2014, 273(5): 100–118MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Apostolatos A, Schmidt R, Wüchner R, Bletzinger K U. A Nitschetype formulation and comparison of the most common domain decomposition methods in isogeometric analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2014, 97(7): 473–504MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hughes T J R. The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis. New York: Dover Publications, 2000zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cottrell J A, Hughes T J R, Bazilevs Y. Isogeometric Analysis: Toward Integration of CAD and FEA. Chichester: Wiley, 2009CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Piegl L, Tiller W. The NURBS Book. 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 1997CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bazilevs Y, Calo V M, Cottrell J A, Evans J A, Hughes T J R, Lipton S, ScottMA, Sederberg T W. Isogeometric analysis using T-splines. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 199(5–8): 229–263MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rogers D F. An Introduction to NURBS With Historical Perspective. San Diego: Academic Press, 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran
  2. 2.School of MathematicsInstitute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM)TehranIran

Personalised recommendations