Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Workshop on Mathematical Challenges in Brittle Material Failure

  • 77 Accesses

Abstract

The Army Research Office funded an invitation-only workshop entitled “Identifying Mathematical Challenges Associated with Failure of Brittle Materials” at the Johns Hopkins University, Maryland on May 20–21, 2019. The workshop brought together mathematicians, statisticians, and mechanics of materials researchers with diverse academic and research backgrounds to discuss the state-of-the-art in brittle material failure prediction and to identify new directions for future research. Three specific goals of the workshop were: (1) to identify the state-of-the-art for modeling failure of brittle materials (e.g., ceramics, glasses); (2) to discuss the major mathematical and statistical challenges experienced by academics and scientists studying brittle failure; and (3) to propose novel and unexplored research collaborations between mechanics researchers and mathematicians to address the identified challenges. By virtue of the Army Research Office’s interests and the expertise of participants, these three goals were broadly pursued within the context of understanding and predicting dynamic behavior of brittle materials. This document provides a summary of workshop presentations, discussions, and recommendations for future work (and research funding) that emerged from the workshop. The recommendations for future work are organized into four major thrusts: (i) defining robust quantities of interest; (ii) understanding and modeling variability and stochasticity; (iii) model parameter importance and calibration; and (iv) transitioning from discrete to continuum behaviors. For each thrust, specific future work discussed in the workshop is described in this article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Scholz CH (2019) The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  2. 2.

    Karandikar PG, Evans G, Wong S, Aghajanian MK, Sennett M (2009) A review of ceramics for armor applications. Adv Ceram Armor IV 29:163–175

  3. 3.

    Chen WW, Rajendran AM, Song B, Nie X (2007) Dynamic fracture of ceramics in armor applications. J Am Ceram Soc 90(4):1005–1018

  4. 4.

    Bazant ZP (2019) Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasibrittle materials. Routledge, London

  5. 5.

    Aydelotte BB, Meyer CS, Rubinstein AA (2016) Summary and findings of the ARL dynamic failure forum. Technical Report ARL-TR-7834, Army Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground Md Weapons and Materials Research

  6. 6.

    Chocron S, Anderson CE Jr, Nicholls AE, Dannemann KA (2010) Characterization of confined intact and damaged borosilicate glass. J Am Ceram Soc 93(10):3390–3398

  7. 7.

    Brian Leavy R, Brannon RM, Erik Strack O (2010) The use of sphere indentation experiments to characterize ceramic damage models. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 7(5):606–615

  8. 8.

    LaSalvia JC, Normandia MJ, Miller HT, MacKenzie DE (2005) Sphere impact induced damage in ceramics: I. Armor-grade sic and tib2. In: Advances in ceramic armor: a collection of papers presented at the 29th international conference on advanced ceramics and composites, 23–28 Jan 2005, Cocoa Beach, Florida, ceramic engineering and science proceedings, vol 26. Wiley Online Library, pp 170–181.

  9. 9.

    LaSalvia JC, Normandia MJ, Miller HT, MacKenzie DE (2009) Sphere impact induced damage in ceramics: ll. armor-grade 34c and. In: Advances in ceramic armor: a collection of papers presented at the 29th international conference on advanced ceramics and composites, 23–28 Jan, 2005, Cocoa Beach, FL, vol 296. Wiley, pp 183

  10. 10.

    Boedihardjo H, Geng X, Lyons T, Yang D (2016) The signature of a rough path: uniqueness. Adv Math 293:720–737

  11. 11.

    Keyhani A, Rong Y, Zhou M (2019) Microscale in-situ high-speed imaging of temperature and deformation fields. 21st Biennial conference of the APS topical group on shock compression of condensed matter, vol 64, no 8. Bulletin of the American Physical Society

  12. 12.

    Keyhani A, Yang R, Zhou M (2019) Novel capability for microscale in-situ imaging of temperature and deformation fields under dynamic loading. Exp Mech 59:775–790

  13. 13.

    Tonge AL, Ramesh KT (2016) Multi-scale defect interactions in high-rate brittle material failure. Part I: model formulation and application to alon. J Mech Phys Solids 86:117–149

  14. 14.

    Crestaux T, Le Maıtre O, Martinez J-M (2009) Polynomial chaos expansion for sensitivity analysis. Reliability Eng Syst Saf 94(7):1161–1172

  15. 15.

    Queipo NV, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Goel T, Vaidyanathan R, Kevin Tucker P (2005) Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Progr Aerosp Sci 41(1):1–28

  16. 16.

    Shin Y, Xiu D (2016) Nonadaptive quasi-optimal points selection for least squares linear regression. SIAM J Sci Comput 38(1):A385–A411

  17. 17.

    Shin Y, Xiu D (2016) On a near optimal sampling strategy for least squares polynomial regression. J Comput Phys 326:931–946

  18. 18.

    Voight B (1987) Phenomenological law enables accurate time forecasts of slope failure. In: International society for rock mechanics, 7th international congress of rock mechanics, Montreal, Canada

  19. 19.

    Voight B (1988) Materials science law applies to time forecasts of slope failure. Landslide News 3:8–11

  20. 20.

    Voight B (1988) A method for prediction of volcanic eruptions. Nature 332(6160):125

  21. 21.

    Pukelsheim F (2006) Optimal design of experiments. SIAM, Philadelphia

  22. 22.

    Houchmandzadeh B, Vallade M (2017) Fisher waves: an individual-based stochastic model. Phys Rev E 96(1):012414

  23. 23.

    Durrett R, Fan W-TL et al (2016) Genealogies in expanding populations. Ann Appl Probab 26(6):3456–3490

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the U.S. Army Research Office (ARO), discussions with ARO program manager Dr. Michael Bakas, and all workshop participants for their time and efforts.

Author information

Correspondence to Ryan C. Hurley.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hurley, R.C., Hogan, J.D. Workshop on Mathematical Challenges in Brittle Material Failure. J. dynamic behavior mater. 6, 14–23 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870-019-00224-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dynamic fracture
  • Fragmentation
  • Brittle
  • Constitutive modeling