Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Phase-field modelling of cohesive fracture. Part II: Reconstruction of the cohesive law

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that any admissible cohesive traction–separation law can be realized exactly as the surface energy density of a phase-field model in the Γ-convergence limit.

desk verdict Strong inverse-design theorems for cohesive phase-field laws, but the exponential example in §3.3.6 contains a real Abel-datum error and should not be trusted as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12172 v1 pith:XTKEIPFO submitted 2025-07-16 math.AP

Roberto Alessi , Francesco Colasanto , Matteo Focardi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 49J4574R1074G6535A15
keywords phase-fieldfracturecohesivetraction-separationlawGamma-convergenceAbelintegralequationdegradationfunctiondamagepotentialsurfaceenergydensitymechanics
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

This paper proves a constructive converse to Γ-convergence for cohesive fracture: given a target traction–separation law g0 of the type used in engineering practice, one can choose the phase-field ingredients so that the Γ-limit surface energy density is exactly g0, not merely close to it. The construction works for laws with either a finite initial slope (linear regime) or an infinite initial slope (superlinear regime), and it runs in two directions: fix the damage potential and solve for the degradation function, or fix the degradation and solve for the damage potential. The paper also maps out the boundary of what is achievable. If the auxiliary function controlling the minimization is non-decreasing, the only possible law is the Dugdale plateau; the purely exponential law falls outside the main theorem and is recovered only as a limit of approximating laws.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the auxiliary function $\Phi(x)=B(x,\vartheta^{1/2}(x))$, which separates the two regimes of the relaxed scalar problem: when $\Phi(m)\ge s$ the minimizer is $W^{1,1}$, and when $\Phi(m)<s$ it has a jump at the minimum point of the phase field. When $\Phi$ is strictly decreasing, $g$ is $C^1$ and concave with $g'(s)=\vartheta^{1/2}(\Phi^{-1}(s))$, and the reconstruction reduces to solving the Abel integral equation $R(t)=\int_0^t \phi(\tau)/(t-\tau)^{1/2}\,d\tau$ for a strictly increasing, continuous $\phi$, which then defines $\omega$ through the relation $\omega(1-t)=((\vartheta^{1/2}(t))'\phi(1-\vartheta(t)))^2$ or equivalently defines $l$ through its inverse. Abel inversion is the technical core that turns the target law into explicit model ingredients.

What would settle it

Fix a target law g0 satisfying the hypotheses, build ω and Q by the formulas of Theorem 3.1 for l(t)=$t^{2}$, and evaluate the infimum in (2.13) numerically on a fine grid of jump amplitudes s; any deviation from g0(s) beyond quadrature error would disprove the reconstruction. For the exponential law, compute φ(t)= (1/kπ)$\cosh$^{-1}((1-t)^{-1/2}) and observe that it is unbounded at t=1; if a single phase-field model with continuous ω and l exactly reproduced the exponential law, that would falsify the claim that (Hp8) is needed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorems 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5, is that for every admissible target law g0 satisfying (Hp6)–(Hp8) in the linear case or (Hp6')–(Hp7') in the superlinear case, there exist model ingredients l, Q, ω, φ such that the phase-field energies Fε in (1.3) Γ-converge to a functional whose surface energy density equals g0. The proof route is to characterize the surface energy density g(s) as the infimum of scalar one-dimensional energies, to express its derivative through the auxiliary function Φ, and then to invert the resulting Abel integral equation so that the target law fixes the damage potential or the degradation function. A companion theorem shows that if Φ is non-decreasing, every phase-field model of the class has a Dugdale-type surface energy, so non-monotone or strictly concave target laws require the strictly decreasing regime in which Φ is invertible.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction depends on the target law's auxiliary function R being convex on [0,$ς^{2}$] and $W^{{1,p}}$ with p>2, because that is what makes the Abel-inverted function φ continuous, strictly increasing, and admissible; the purely exponential law fails this and is recovered only as a limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For linear-at-zero laws, prescribing $\vartheta$ (equivalently the crack geometric function $l$) yields the damage potential $\omega$ by an explicit formula, and prescribing $\omega$ yields $l$ by an explicit inverse formula, both depending only on the Abel-inverted function $\phi$.
  • In the superlinear case the same inversion produces models with $\varsigma=\infty$, reproducing laws with infinite initial traction, which are used to describe ductile fracture via strain-gradient plasticity.
  • Standard engineering laws—Dugdale, linear, bilinear, hyperbolic, quadratic hyperbolic, and logarithmic softening—admit closed-form reconstructions; the quadratic hyperbolic law is the boundary case where $R'$ lies in $L^p$ only for $p<4$.
  • The exponential law, whose Abel-inverted function is unbounded, cannot be reproduced with continuous ingredients by the main theorems; it is obtained as the $\Gamma$-limit as $\delta\to0$ of linearized approximating laws, so the exact exponential law is a limit rather than a direct reconstruction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the construction is correct, experimental traction–separation curves that satisfy the hypotheses can be fed directly into the model-design process, and the same macroscopic law can be realized by many phase-field models that differ in the localized damage profile; which profile is physically selected would then be an additional modeling choice.
  • The obstruction examples suggest a general principle: laws whose auxiliary function $R$ is not convex or not $W^{1,p}$ for some $p>2$ force a trade-off between exact reproduction and regularity of the phase-field ingredients; such laws may still be approximated in a two-step $\Gamma$-limit.
  • The one-dimensional reconstruction likely lifts to vectorial and higher-dimensional settings through the companion vector-valued theory, in which case the same Abel-equation recipe would give interfacial cohesive laws for curved cracks.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a systematic inverse-design procedure for phase-field cohesive fracture models. Starting from the Gamma-convergence framework established in Part I, it derives a scalar characterization of the surface energy density g(s), analyzes it through an auxiliary function Phi, and then solves the reconstruction problem: given a target cohesive law g0, choose the phase-field ingredients (l, Q, omega, phi) so that the Gamma-limit of the energies F_epsilon has surface energy density exactly g0. The main theorems are Theorem 3.1 and 3.2 for laws that are linear at small jumps, and Theorem 3.4 and 3.5 for laws that are superlinear at small jumps; the proofs use Abel inversion with a convexity assumption (Hp8) on the auxiliary profile R. Several closed-form examples are worked out, including Dugdale, linear, bilinear, hyperbolic, quadratic hyperbolic, exponential, and logarithmic softening laws. The exponential law is treated by a delta-family approximation in Section 3.3.6 because it fails (Hp8).

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, this is a valuable and substantial contribution: it turns the heuristic calibration of phase-field cohesive models into a rigorous inverse problem, giving explicit formulas for the degradation function or the damage potential for a broad class of target laws. The approach is genuinely constructive rather than a parameter fit, and it places earlier results such as FFL21 and BI24 in a unified framework. The analysis of the relaxed scalar functional in Section 2, in particular the role of the function Phi and the Abel inversion, is mathematically substantial and carefully developed. The main caveats are that the reconstruction relies on the Gamma-convergence theorem imported from the unpublished Part I, and that the treatment of the exponential example in Section 3.3.6 contains an internal inconsistency that needs to be corrected. These issues do not by themselves undermine Theorems 3.1-3.5, but they affect the scope of the claims made for the exponential law.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3.6] The displayed R_delta is not the Abel datum of the stated law g_delta. For the stated linearized tail, with a=e^{-k s_delta} and y=(1-t)^{1/2}=g_delta'(s), one obtains on the tail t>1-a^2 the affine increasing expression R_delta(t)=(1/k)[1-a/2-(1-t)/(2a)]. The printed R_delta is instead constant on (s_hat_delta,1], which is the Abel datum of the discontinuous cutoff law g'(s)=e^{-ks} for s<=s_delta and g'(s)=0 for s>s_delta. That cutoff law is not C^1, so it violates (Hp6), and its R is not convex, so it does not satisfy (Hp8). Consequently the construction of omega_delta in Section 3.3.6 does not reconstruct the g_delta defined in the text, and the double Gamma-limit conclusion for the exponential law is unsupported as written. The section should either recompute R_delta and phi_delta for the genuine linearized tail, or state explicitly that the approximated law is the discontinuous cutoff and justify the Gamma-limit claim by another argument.
  2. [Section 3.3.6] The monotonicity assertion before the double Gamma-limit is reversed: for 0<delta_1<delta_2<1, the cutoff point s_delta is larger for the smaller delta, so one expects g_{delta_1}(s)>=g_{delta_2}(s) pointwise, not g_{delta_2}>=g_{delta_1}. The appeal to [DM93, Proposition 5.4] therefore uses the wrong monotonicity and should be corrected together with the R_delta computation.
  3. [Section 1.2 and Theorems 3.1-3.5] The main reconstruction theorems rely on Theorem 1.1 of [ACF25a], which is cited as 'submitted' and is not reproduced in this manuscript. Since the Gamma-convergence statement is load-bearing for the whole reconstruction procedure, the paper should either include a complete statement (and proof or precise reference) of the needed theorem, or the editor should confirm that Part I is available for the refereeing process. As it stands, the correctness of the reconstruction chain cannot be independently verified from the present text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.1] The word 'analitically' should be 'analytically'.
  2. [Section 2.2, proof of Proposition 2.6] There is a typo: 'there exists e sequence' should read 'there exists a sequence'.
  3. [Section 2.3, proof of Proposition 2.10] In the displayed estimate for I_j, the factor involving sup(ϑϑ')^{-1/2} should be written with parentheses for clarity; the intended bound is clear but the notation is compressed.
  4. [Figure 2 and Section 3.3] It would be helpful to specify in the caption of part (f) that the two curves correspond to g and an approximating g_delta, and to indicate the ordering of delta used in the figure.
  5. [Section 3.3.6] The closing remark that omega_delta coincides with the damage potential of [FFL21, Section 4.2] on [delta^{1/2},1] should be revisited after the R_delta correction, since the matching region depends on the correct Abel datum.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Genuine Abel-inversion reconstruction; the only self-citation is the Part I Gamma-convergence theorem, and the exponential-law handling in Section 3.3.6 is a correctness caveat rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The reconstruction in Theorems 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 is a genuine inverse problem: the target law g0 enters only as the datum R = g0((g0')^{-1}((ς^2−t)^{1/2})) in the linear case and R(t) = g0((g0')^{-1}(t^{1/2})) in the superlinear case, and the model ingredients are then built by Abel inversion via (3.2) or (3.8), followed by explicit formulas such as (3.3). The proof shows g((g')^{-1}(λ^{1/2})) = R(λ) and then inverts; this is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, nor does g0 define the auxiliary function Φ except through the Abel equation that is actually solved. The only self-citation in the load-bearing chain is Theorem 1.1 imported from the authors' Part I [ACF25a]; that theorem has independent content, since it establishes Gamma-convergence for the whole class (Hp1)-(Hp4) and does not assume the target reconstruction, so under the review rules it does not count as circular. The paper itself flags a limitation in Section 3.3.6: 'R′ notin Lp((0,1)) for any p>2, and thus R does not satisfy (Hp 8) so that we can apply neither Theorem 3.1 nor 3.2.' As written, however, the displayed Rδ is constant on the tail, which is the Abel datum of a discontinuous cutoff law rather than of the stated linearized gδ; this invalidates the claimed handling of the exponential exception, but it is an internal correctness issue, not a reduction of the central reconstruction to its own inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no constants. The target-law parameters such as k, a, b, k1, k2 are specified inputs defining the prescribed cohesive law, not free parameters tuned to make the derivation work. The exponential-law regularization parameter delta is an approximation device that disappears in the double Gamma-limit.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Theorem 1.1 of ACF25a: the phase-field energies F_epsilon Gamma-converge to F_sigma in (1.8), with surface energy g defined by (1.6).
    Imported from the companion Part I paper, cited as submitted. Every reconstruction theorem in Section 3 invokes this forward result.
  • standard math Relaxation formula (2.16), BV compactness, and Abel integral inversion results from GMS79, BB90, and GV91 are used as black boxes.
    Used in Propositions 2.6, 2.10, 3.3 and in the inverse Abel steps; these are standard results in the calculus of variations and integral equations literature.
  • domain assumption Admissibility and structural hypotheses (Hp1)-(Hp5'), (Hp6)-(Hp8), and the regularity of the constructed functions are assumed or enforced throughout.
    These define the class of reconstructible cohesive laws and admissible phase-field ingredients. They are stated explicitly, not hidden, but the validity of the reconstruction depends on them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-field modelling of cohesive fracture. Part II: Reconstruction of the cohesive law." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XTKEIPFO

@misc{pith2026250712172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-field modelling of cohesive fracture. Part II: Reconstruction of the cohesive law},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XTKEIPFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12172}
}
abstract

This is the second paper of a three-part work the main aim of which is to provide a unified consistent framework for the phase-field modelling of cohesive fracture. Building on the theoretical foundations of the first paper, where {$\Gamma$-convergence} results have been derived, this second paper presents a systematic procedure for constructing phase-field models that reproduce prescribed cohesive laws. By either selecting the degradation function and determining the damage potential or vice versa, we enable the derivation of multiple phase-field models that exhibit the same cohesive fracture behavior but differ in their localized phase-field evolution. This methodology provides a flexible and rigorous strategy for tailoring phase-field models to specific cohesive responses, as shown by the several examples worked out. The mechanical responses associated with these examples, highlighting their features and validating the theoretical results, are investigated in the third paper from a more engineering-oriented and applied perspective.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12172 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Qualitative trends of the surface energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cohesive laws considered in the examples of section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Strength-degradation phase-field regularization of cohesive fracture: the antiplane case

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In antiplane shear, a strength-degrading phase-field model yields an ℓ-independent equivalent cohesive law with independent strength and toughness, verified by closed-form solutions and simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ambrosio and A

    L. Ambrosio and A. Braides. Energies in SBV and variational models in fracture mechanics. In Homogenization and applications to material sciences ( N ice, 1995) , volume 9 of GAKUTO Internat. Ser. Math. Sci. Appl. , pages 1--22. Gakk\= o tosho, Tokyo, 1995

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Alessi, F

    R. Alessi, F. Colasanto, and M. Focardi. Phase-field modeling of cohesive fracture. Part I: -convergence results . submitted, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Alessi, F

    R. Alessi, F. Colasanto, and M. Focardi. Phase-field modeling of cohesive fracture. Part III: From mathematical results to engineering applications . submitted, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Ambrosio, N

    L. Ambrosio, N. Fusco, and D. Pallara. Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity problems . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Ambrosio and V

    L. Ambrosio and V. M. Tortorelli. On the approximation of free discontinuity problems . Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. , 6-B:105--123, 1992

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Ambrosio and P

    L. Ambrosio and P. Tilli. Topics on analysis in metric spaces , volume 25 of Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    G. I. Barenblatt. The mathematical theory of equilibrium of cracks in brittle fracture . Advances in Applied Mechanics , 7:55--129, 1962

    work page 1962

  8. [8]

    Bouchitt\' e and G

    G. Bouchitt\' e and G. Buttazzo. New lower semicontinuity results for nonconvex functionals defined on measures. Nonlinear Anal. , 15:679--692, 1990

    work page 1990

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Bonacini, S

    M. Bonacini, S. Conti, and F. Iurlano. Cohesive fracture in 1 D : quasi-static evolution and derivation from static phase-field models. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 239:1501--1576, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Bourdin, G

    B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, and J.-J. Marigo. Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 48:797--826, apr 2000

    2000

  3. [11]

    Bourdin, G

    B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, and J.-J. Marigo. The Variational Approach to Fracture . Journal of Elasticity , 91:5--148, mar 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    Bonacini and F

    M. Bonacini and F. Iurlano. Convergence of critical points for a phase-field approximation of 1 D cohesive fracture energies. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 63:Paper No. 192, 47, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Bourdin, J.-J

    B. Bourdin, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, and P. Sicsic. Morphogenesis and Propagation of Complex Cracks Induced by Thermal Shocks . Physical Review Letters , 112:014301, jan 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    A. Braides. Approximation of Free-Discontinuity Problems , volume 1694 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998

    1998

  7. [15]

    Conti, M

    S. Conti, M. Focardi, and F. Iurlano. Phase field approximation of cohesive fracture models . Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincar \' e C, Analyse non lin \' e aire , 33:1033--1067, aug 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Conti, M

    S. Conti, M. Focardi, and F. Iurlano. Phase-field approximation of a vectorial, geometrically nonlinear cohesive fracture energy. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 248:Paper No. 21, 60, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Conti, M

    S. Conti, M. Focardi, and F. Iurlano. Superlinear free-discontinuity models: relaxation and phase field approximation. in preparation , 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    H. A. W. Cornelissen, D. A. Hordijk, and H. W. Reinhardt. Experimental determination of crack softening characteristics of normalweight and lightweight concrete . Heron , 31:45--56, 1986

    1986

  11. [19]

    Colasanto

    F. Colasanto. Phase field approximation of cohesive functionals in the vectorial case. in preparation , 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Dal Maso

    G. Dal Maso. An introduction to -convergence . Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, 8. Birkh\"auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1993

    1993

  13. [21]

    D. Dugdale. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits . Journal of Mechanics Physics of Solids , 8:100--104, may 1960

    1960

  14. [22]

    Fokoua, S

    L. Fokoua, S. Conti, and M. Ortiz. Optimal scaling laws for ductile fracture derived from strain-gradient microplasticity . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 62:295--311, jan 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Y. Feng, J. Fan, and J. Li. Endowing explicit cohesive laws to the phase-field fracture theory . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 152:104464, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Freddi and F

    F. Freddi and F. Iurlano. Numerical insight of a variational smeared approach to cohesive fracture . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 98:156--171, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    G. A. Francfort and J.-J. Marigo. Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 46:1319--1342, 1998

    1998

  18. [26]

    M. Focardi. On the variational approximation of free-discontinuity problems in the vectorial case . Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , 11:663--684, jun 2001

    2001

  19. [27]

    Giaquinta, G

    M. Giaquinta, G. Modica, and J. Sou c ek. Functionals with linear growth in the calculus of variations. I , II . Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. , 20:143--156, 157--172, 1979

    1979

  20. [28]

    A. A. Griffith. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , A221:163--198, 1921

    1921

  21. [29]

    Gorenflo and S

    R. Gorenflo and S. Vessella. Abel integral equations , volume 1461 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991. Analysis and applications

    1991

  22. [30]

    Kumar, B

    A. Kumar, B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, and O. Lopez-Pamies. Revisiting nucleation in the phase-Field approach to brittle fracture . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 142:104027, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Lorentz, S

    E. Lorentz, S. Cuvilliez, and K. Kazymyrenko. Convergence of a gradient damage model toward a cohesive zone model . Comptes Rendus Mecanique , 339:20--26, 2011

    2011

  24. [32]

    Lammen, S

    H. Lammen, S. Conti, and J. Mosler. A finite deformation phase field model suitable for cohesive fracture . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 178:105349, sep 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Lammen, S

    H. Lammen, S. Conti, and J. Mosler. Approximating arbitrary traction–separation-laws by means of phase-field theory — Mathematical foundation and numerical implementation . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 197:106038, apr 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Lorentz and V

    E. Lorentz and V. Godard. Gradient damage models: Toward full-scale computations . Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 200:1927--1944, 2011

    1927

  27. [35]

    Lopez-Pamies, J

    O. Lopez-Pamies, J. E. Dolbow, G. A. Francfort, and C. J. Larsen. Classical variational phase-field models cannot predict fracture nucleation . 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    J.-J. Marigo. Initiation of Cracks in Griffith's Theory: An Argument of Continuity in Favor of Global Minimization . Journal of Nonlinear Science , 20:831--868, dec 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    J.-J. Marigo. Modelling of fracture by cohesive force models: A path to pursue . European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids , 102, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Mesgarnejad, B

    A. Mesgarnejad, B. Bourdin, and M. M. Khonsari. Validation simulations for the variational approach to fracture . Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 290:420--437, jun 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Pham and J.-J

    K. Pham and J.-J. Marigo. The variational approach to damage: I. The foundations . Comptes Rendus Mecanique , 338:191--198, 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    Pham and J.-J

    K. Pham and J.-J. Marigo. The variational approach to damage: II. The gradient damage models . Comptes Rendus Mecanique , 338:199--206, apr 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    Tann \' e , T

    E. Tann \' e , T. Li, B. Bourdin, J.-J. Marigo, and C. Maurini. Crack nucleation in variational phase-field models of brittle fracture . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 110:80--99, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Wu and V

    J.-Y. Wu and V. P. Nguyen. A length scale insensitive phase-field damage model for brittle fracture . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 119:20--42, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    J.-Y. Wu. A unified phase-field theory for the mechanics of damage and quasi-brittle failure . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 103:72--99, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    J.-Y. Wu. Unified analysis of phase-field models for cohesive fracture. preprint arXiv:2412.03836 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.