Abstract
Phase-field models of brittle fracture can be regarded as gradient damage models including an intrinsic internal length. This length determines the stability threshold of solutions with homogeneous damage and thus the strength of the material, and is often tuned to retrieve the experimental strength in uniaxial tensile tests. In this paper, we focus on multiaxial stress states and show that the available energy decompositions, introduced to avoid crack interpenetration and to allow for unsymmetric fracture behavior in tension and compression, lead to multiaxial strength surfaces of different but fixed shapes. Thus, once the length scale is tailored to recover the experimental tensile strength, it is not possible to match the experimental compressive or shear strength. We propose a new energy decomposition that enables the straightforward calibration of a multi-axial failure surface of the Drucker-Prager type. The new decomposition, which hinges upon the theory of structured deformations, encompasses the volumetric-deviatoric and the no-tension models as special cases. Preserving the variational structure of the model, it includes an additional free parameter that can be calibrated based on the experimental ratio of the compressive to the tensile strength (or, if possible, of the shear to the tensile strength), as successfully demonstrated on two data sets taken from the literature.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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(8):1209–1229
Angelillo M (1993) Constitutive relations for no-tension materials. Meccanica 28(3):195–202
Ballard P (2013) Steady sliding frictional contact problems in linear elasticity. J Elast 110(1):33–61
Borden MJ, Verhoosel CV, Scott MA, Hughes TJ, Landis CM (2012) A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 217–220:77–95
Bourdin B, Francfort G-A, Marigo J-J (2000a) Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 48:787–826
Bourdin B, Francfort G, Marigo J-J (2000b) Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 48(4):797–826
Boyd S, Vandenberghe L (2004) Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Comi C, Perego U (2001) Fracture energy based bi-dissipative damage model for con-crete. Int J Solids Struct 38(36):6427–6454
Cuomo M, Ventura G (2000) A complementary energy formulation of no tension masonry-like solids. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 189(1):313–339
Del Piero G (1989) Constitutive equation and compatibility of the external loads for linear elastic masonry-like materials. Meccanica 24(3):150–162
Del Piero G, Owen DR (1993) Structured deformations of continua. Arch Rational Mech Anal 124(2):99–155
Ely RE (1972) Strength of titania and aluminum silicate under combined stresses. J Am Ceramic Soc 55(7):347–350
Francfort G, Bourdin B, Marigo J-J (2008) The variational approach to fracture. J Elast 91(1–3):5–148
Francfort G, Marigo J-J (1998) Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. J Mech Phys Solids 46(8):1319–1342
Freddi F, Royer-Carfagni G (2010) Regularized variational theories of fracture: a unified approach. J Mech Phys Solids 58:1154–1174
Giacomini A (2005) Ambrosio-Tortorelli approximation of quasi-static evolution of brittle fractures. Calc Variations Partial Differ Equ 22:129–172
Giaquinta M, Giusti E (1985) Researches on the equilibrium of masonry structures. Arch Rational Mech Anal 88(4):359–392
Goggin PR, Reynolds WN (1967) The elastic constants of reactor graphites. Philos Mag 16(140):317–330
Iuga M, Steinle-Neumann G, Meinhardt J (2007) Ab-initio simulation of elastic constants for some ceramic materials. Eur Phys J B 58(2):127–133
Kumar A, Bourdin B, Francfort GA, Lopez-Pamies O (2020) Revisiting nucleation in the phase-field approach to brittle fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 142:104027
Lancioni G, Royer-Carfagni G (2009) The variational approach to fracture mechanics. A practical application to the French Panthéon in Paris. J Elast 95:1–30
Larsen CJ (2010) Epsilon-stable quasi-static brittle fracture evolution. Commun Pure Appl Math 63(5):630–654
Li T (2016) Gradient-damage modeling of dynamic brittle fracture: variational principles and numerical simulations. PhD thesis
Lorentz E (2017) A nonlocal damage model for plain concrete consistent with cohesive fracture. Int J Fract 207(2):123–159
Lucchesi M, Padovani C, Zani N (1996) Masonry-like solids with bounded compressive strength. Int J Solids Struct 33(14):1961–1994
Marigo J (1989) Constitutive relations in plasticity, damage and fracture mechanics based on a work property. Nuclear Eng Des 114(3):249–272
Marigo J-J, Maurini C, Pham K (2016) An overview of the modelling of fracture by gradient damage models. en. Meccanica 51(12):3107–3128
Mesgarnejad A, Bourdin B, Khonsari MM (2015) Validation simulations for the variational approach to fracture. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 290:420–437
Miehe C, Welschinger F, Hofacker M (2010) Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: variational principles and multi-field FE implementations. Int J Numeri Methods Eng 83(10):1273–1311
Negri M (2010) A comparative analysis on variational models for quasi-static brittle crack propagation. Adv Calc Variations 3(2):149–212
Nguyen TT, Yvonnet J, Bornert M, Chateau C, Sab K, Romani R, Le Roy R (2016) On the choice of parameters in the phase field method for simulating crack initiation with experimental validation. Int J Fracture 197(2):213–226
Pham K, Amor H, Marigo J-J, Maurini C (2011a) Gradient damage models and their use to approximate brittle fracture. Int J Damage Mech 20(4):618–652
Pham K, Marigo J-J (2010a) The variational approach to damage: II. The gradient damage models [Approche variationnelle de l’endommagement: II. Les modèles à gradient]. Comptes Rendus Mécanique 338(4):199–206
Pham K, Marigo J-J (2013) Stability of homogeneous states with gradient damage models: size effects and shape effects in the three-dimensional setting. J Elast 110(1):63–93
Pham K, Marigo J-J, Maurini C (2011b) The issues of the uniqueness and the stability of the homogeneous response in uniaxial tests with gradient damage models. J Mech Phys Solids 59(6):1163–1190
Pham KH, Ravi-Chandar K, Landis CM (2017) Experimental validation of a phase-field model for fracture. Int J Fracture 205(1):83–101
Pham K, Amor H, Marigo J-J, Maurini C (2011c) Gradient damage models and their use to approximate brittle fracture. Int J Damage Mech 20(4):618–652
Pham K, Marigo J-J (2010b) Approche variationnelle de l’endommagement: II. Les modèles à gradient. Comptes Rendus Mecanique 338(4):199–206
Sacco E (1990) Modellazione e calcolo di strutture in materiale non resistente a trazione. ita. In: Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali. Rendiconti Lincei. Matematica e Applicazioni 1(3), 235–258
Sato S, Awaji H, Kawamata K, Kurumada A, Oku T (1987) Fracture criteria of reactor graphite under multiaxial stesses. Nuclear Eng Des 103(3):291–300
Sicsic P, Marigo J-J, Maurini C (2014) Initiation of a periodic array of cracks in the thermal shock problem: a gradient damage modeling. J Mech Phys Solids 63:256–284
Tanné E, Li T, Bourdin B, Marigo J-J, Maurini C (2018) Crack nucleation in variational phase-field models of brittle fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 110:80–99
Wu T, Carpiuc-Prisacari A, Poncelet M, De Lorenzis L (2017) Phase-field simulation of interactive mixed-mode fracture tests on cement mortar with full-field displacement boundary conditions. Eng Fracture Mech 182:658–688
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
The spectral strain energy decomposition
The stress-strain relationship is again given by Eq.(17a17b) with
which can be inverted most easily in component form. Thus, whereas the strain domain is directly obtained as
the stress domain must be found componentwise by distinguishing several cases. Assuming, without loss of generality, \(\varepsilon _{1}\ge \varepsilon _{2}\ge \varepsilon _{3}\), \({\mathcal {R}}^{*}\left( \alpha \right) \) is obtained as the set of \(\varvec{\sigma }\in Sym\) such that
-
if \(\sigma _{3}-\nu \left( \sigma _{1}+\sigma _{2}\right) \ge 0\)
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{18\kappa }\mathrm {tr}^{2}\left( \varvec{\sigma }\right) +\frac{1}{4\mu }\left\| \varvec{\sigma }_{\mathrm {dev}}\right\| ^{2} \le \frac{w_{1}w'\left( \alpha \right) }{s'\left( \alpha \right) } \end{aligned}$$ -
else if \(\left[ \left( 1+a\left( \alpha \right) \right) \lambda +2\mu \right] \sigma _{2}-\lambda \sigma _{1}-a\left( \alpha \right) \lambda \sigma _{3}\ge 0\) and \(\sigma _{1}+\sigma _{2}+a\left( \alpha \right) \sigma _{3}\ge 0\)
$$\begin{aligned}&\frac{1}{4a^{2}\left( \alpha \right) \mu \left[ \left( 2+a\left( \alpha \right) \right) \lambda +2\mu \right] ^{2}}\\&\qquad \cdot \left\{ 4\mu ^{2}\left( \sigma _{1}^{2}+\sigma _{2}^{2}\right) +2\lambda \mu \left[ \left( 3+2a\left( \alpha \right) \right) \sigma _{1}^{2}\right. \right. \\&\left. \qquad -2\sigma _{1}\sigma _{2}+\left( 3+2a\left( \alpha \right) \right) \sigma _{2}^{2}+a^{2}\left( \alpha \right) \sigma _{3}^{2}\right] \\&\qquad +\lambda ^{2}\left[ \left( 2+2a\left( \alpha \right) +a^{2}\left( \alpha \right) \right) \left( \sigma _{1}^{2}+\sigma _{2}^{2}\right) \right. \\&\qquad -2a^{2}\left( \alpha \right) \sigma _{2}\sigma _{3}+2a^{2}\left( \alpha \right) \sigma _{3}^{2}\\&\qquad \left. \left. -2\sigma _{1}\left( 2\sigma _{2}+2a\left( \alpha \right) \sigma _{2}+a^{2}\left( \alpha \right) \sigma _{3}\right) \right] \right\} \\&\quad \le -\frac{w_{1}w'\left( \alpha \right) }{a'\left( \alpha \right) } \end{aligned}$$ -
else if \(\left[ \left( 1+a\left( \alpha \right) \right) \lambda +2a\left( \alpha \right) \mu \right] \sigma _{2}-\lambda \sigma _{1}-a\left( \alpha \right) \lambda \sigma _{3}\ge 0\) and \(\sigma _{1}+\sigma _{2}+a\left( \alpha \right) \sigma _{3}\le 0\)
$$\begin{aligned}&\frac{1}{4a^{2}\left( \alpha \right) \mu \left[ \left( 2+a\left( \alpha \right) \right) \lambda +2a\left( \alpha \right) \mu \right] ^{2}}\\&\quad \cdot \left\{ \left[ \left( \lambda +a\left( \alpha \right) \lambda +2a\left( \alpha \right) \mu \right) \sigma _{1}-\lambda \sigma _{2}-a\left( \alpha \right) \lambda \sigma _{3}\right] ^{2}\right. \\&\qquad +\left. \left[ \left( \lambda \!+\!a\left( \alpha \right) \lambda \!+\!2a\left( \alpha \right) \mu \right) \sigma _{2}\!-\!\lambda \sigma _{1}\!-\!a\left( \alpha \right) \lambda \sigma _{3}\right] ^{2}\right\} \\&\quad \le -\frac{w_{1}w'\left( \alpha \right) }{a'\left( \alpha \right) } \end{aligned}$$ -
else if \(2\mu \sigma _{1}+a\left( \alpha \right) \lambda \left( 2\sigma _{1}-\sigma _{2}-\sigma _{3}\right) \ge 0\) and \(\sigma _{1}+a\left( \alpha \right) \left( \sigma _{2}+\sigma _{3}\right) \ge 0\)
$$\begin{aligned}&\frac{1}{4a^{2}\left( \alpha \right) \mu \left[ \left( 1+2a\left( \alpha \right) \right) \lambda +2\mu \right] ^{2}}\\&\quad \cdot \left\{ \left[ \left( 8a\left( \alpha \right) +2\right) \lambda \mu +4\mu ^{2}\right] \sigma _{1}^{2}\right. \\&\quad +\left. a^{2}\left( \alpha \right) \lambda \left[ 2\mu \left( \sigma _{2}\!+\!\sigma _{3}\right) ^{2}\!+\!\lambda \left( \!-2\sigma _{1}\!+\!\sigma _{2}\!+\!\sigma _{3}\right) ^{2}\right] \right\} \\&\le -\frac{w_{1}w'\left( \alpha \right) }{a'\left( \alpha \right) } \end{aligned}$$ -
else if \(2\left( \lambda +\mu \right) \sigma _{1}-\lambda \left( \sigma _{2}+\sigma _{3}\right) \ge 0\) and \(\sigma _{1}+a\left( \alpha \right) \left( \sigma _{2}+\sigma _{3}\right) \le 0\)
$$\begin{aligned}&\frac{1}{4\mu \left[ \left( 1+2a\left( \alpha \right) \right) \lambda +2a\left( \alpha \right) \mu \right] ^{2}}\\&\quad \cdot \left[ 2\left( \lambda +\mu \right) \sigma _{1}-\lambda \left( \sigma _{2}+\sigma _{3}\right) \right] ^{2}\le -\frac{w_{1}w'\left( \alpha \right) }{a'\left( \alpha \right) } \end{aligned}$$
Tensile, compressive and shear strengths according to all models considered in this paper, including the newly proposed generalized one.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Lorenzis, L., Maurini, C. Nucleation under multi-axial loading in variational phase-field models of brittle fracture. Int J Fract 237, 61–81 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-021-00555-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-021-00555-6