Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 50 references

Cohesive phase-field fracture with an explicit strength surface: an eigenstrain-based return-mapping formulation

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Fracture eigenstrains can be returned locally at each integration point, so cohesive phase-field fracture needs no extra global degrees of freedom.

desk verdict Clean, usable local return-map that finally puts the Vicentini/Bourdin eigenstrain cohesive model into ordinary FE codes; the math and benchmarks hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.21811 v1 pith:W4Z66KMM submitted 2026-03-23 cs.CE

Tim Hageman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE
keywords cohesivefracturephase-fieldeigenstrainscracknucleationfiniteelementmethodreturnmappingstrengthsurface
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

Standard phase-field fracture models inherit two limitations from brittle fracture theory: they do not prescribe a material strength for crack nucleation, and they struggle to produce true cohesive unloading. Recent formulations fix both problems by introducing fracture eigenstrains that decouple strength from fracture energy, but those formulations have so far required global energy-minimization solvers and extra field variables. This paper shows that the eigenstrains need no spatial gradients, so their evolution can be treated exactly like a plasticity return map evaluated at each integration point. The resulting cohesive model uses only the ordinary displacement and phase-field degrees of freedom, supplies consistent tangents for both a non-smooth tensile-shear surface and a smooth pressure-sensitive surface, and produces mesh-independent, length-scale-independent load-displacement curves in which fracture energy alone controls the brittle-to-cohesive transition and dynamic branching appears without extra criteria.

What carries the argument

The local eigenstrain return map: residual equations that keep the stress on the chosen strength surface (non-smooth r1 or smooth Drucker-Prager-like) together with closed-form consistent tangents obtained via the Schur complement, all evaluated pointwise and inserted into the ordinary staggered phase-field Newton scheme.

What would settle it

Run the plate-with-hole benchmarks while systematically varying residual strength and residual stiffness over several orders of magnitude; if peak load, post-peak residual force, or Newton convergence change appreciably, the claim that the residuals are merely numerical safeguards is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Because fracture eigenstrains carry no spatial gradients, their evolution can be resolved entirely at the integration-point level by a local return-mapping scheme analogous to plasticity. Consequently a cohesive phase-field model that already carries an explicit strength surface can be implemented inside any standard finite-element code without additional global unknowns, while still decoupling nucleation strength from fracture energy and recovering mesh- and length-scale-independent structural response.

Load-bearing premise

Two small residual parameters (strength floor and post-fracture stiffness) must be inserted by hand to keep the damaged strength surface and tangent matrix well-conditioned; their values are not fixed by material data.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reformulates the eigenstrain-based cohesive phase-field energy of Vicentini et al. so that fracture eigenstrains, which carry no spatial gradients, are evolved by a local return-mapping constitutive model at each integration point. Two strength surfaces are treated (non-smooth r1 with independent tensile/shear strengths, and a smooth Drucker-Prager-like surface with compressive strengthening controlled by ε_ref), closed-form consistent tangents are derived (including Schur-complement forms for multi-mode activation), and residual strength/stiffness parameters are introduced for conditioning. The scheme uses only the usual displacement and phase-field global degrees of freedom and is implemented in FEniCSx. Three plane-strain benchmarks (plate with hole under tension/compression, single-edge notched shear, dynamic notched plate) are used to argue mesh- and length-scale-independent load-displacement response, Gc-controlled brittle-to-cohesive transition, and natural dynamic branching. Source code is released.

Significance. If the local return-mapping is equivalent to the parent variational energy and the reported mesh/length-scale independence holds, the contribution is practically important: it removes the main barrier to using eigenstrain-based cohesive phase-field models inside standard finite-element codes without extra global fields or symbolic global optimizers. Explicit consistent tangents for both smooth and non-smooth surfaces, open FEniCSx sources, and standard benchmarks that separate nucleation (strength surface) from propagation (Gc) are concrete strengths. The work is primarily algorithmic and implementation-focused rather than a new fracture theory, but that is a legitimate and useful contribution for computational solid mechanics.

major comments (3)
  1. The central claim is that the local return-mapping (Eqs. 23–30) recovers the stationarity conditions of the Vicentini et al. energy without extra global DOFs. The derivation from the same energy is clear, but Section 4 never reports a side-by-side comparison (load-displacement curves, crack paths, or energy dissipation) against a global energy-minimization solution of the same energy on at least one shared benchmark. A short quantitative check would substantially strengthen the equivalence claim that the paper is built on.
  2. Table 1 and Eqs. (6), (23b) introduce residual strength κ = 10^{-3} and residual stiffness κ_t = 10^{-9} solely for well-posedness once the surface is fully degraded. These parameters are free regularisation devices; the manuscript does not show how peak load, post-peak residual transfer, or Newton convergence change when they are varied over even one order of magnitude. For a methods paper aimed at drop-in use in existing codes, a brief sensitivity note (or a recommended range) is needed so that practitioners know what is material and what is numerical.
  3. Section 4.1.2 documents a low-Gc compressive failure mode (horizontal crushing then delayed diagonal localization) that is robust to time-step, length-scale, staggered iterations, and both strength criteria, yet is left as a plausible stress-field explanation without further diagnostics (e.g., driving-force maps or comparison to an analytical hoop-stress estimate). Because this mode changes the qualitative crack path for the same strength surface, the paper should either (i) demonstrate that it is the intended continuum response of the energy or (ii) state clearly that it is a modelling limitation of the chosen potentials under mixed tension-shear around a hole.
minor comments (7)
  1. Nomenclature lists both κ (residual strength) and κ_t (residual stiffness); the abstract and introduction sometimes use “residual stiffness” language familiar from standard phase-field. A single clarifying sentence early in Section 2 would avoid confusion with the classical residual-stiffness parameter.
  2. Figure 3 and related load-displacement plots use ε_yy on the abscissa without stating whether it is the applied far-field strain U_ext/H or a local measure; please define consistently in the captions.
  3. The multi-pass staggered scheme (max 5 passes) and Newmark parameters (β = 0.5625, γ = 1.0) are stated but not justified beyond numerical damping. A short remark on why five passes suffice for the reported residuals would help reproducibility.
  4. Eq. (18a) inserts tr(ε) into F_d under compression while η remains the internal variable; a one-line remark that this is intentional (because tr(η) ≥ 0 by construction) would make the non-standard dependence on total strain easier to follow.
  5. In Section 4.3 the crack-length proxy L_crack = ∫ γ(φ) dΩ is correctly noted to underestimate length when φ < 1; consider also reporting a simple iso-φ contour length for the more cohesive cases so that branching trends remain comparable across Gc.
  6. Typos / polish: “Theresultingload-displacementbehaviour” and similar missing spaces appear in Section 4.2; “Allcrackspropagate” likewise. A pass for spacing and hyphenation would help.
  7. Data availability points to a public GitHub repository; please pin a release tag or commit hash corresponding to the submitted manuscript so that the exact results remain reproducible after future code changes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: local return-mapping is a genuine reformulation of an external variational energy; strength surfaces, Gc and residual regularisers are stated inputs, and benchmark outcomes are independent numerical predictions.

full rationale

The paper takes the total energy of Vicentini et al. (external) as given, derives the local stationarity conditions with respect to the eigenstrain multipliers (Eqs. 13–16), and solves them by a standard return-mapping scheme (Eqs. 23–30) whose consistent tangents are obtained by Schur complement. Strength surfaces (r1 and Drucker-Prager-like), fracture energy Gc, length scale ℓ and residual parameters κ, κ_t appear as free constitutive inputs (Table 1, Eqs. 6, 17–18, 23b); they are never fitted to the same quantities later reported as results. Mesh- and length-scale independence, the brittle-to-cohesive transition with Gc, and dynamic branching are therefore genuine predictions of the discrete scheme, not tautologies. Self-citations are limited to the author’s earlier multi-physics phase-field papers and do not underwrite the central algorithmic claim. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or uniqueness-import circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on the published variational energy of Vicentini et al., the observation that eigenstrains carry no gradients, standard AT2 regularisation and history-field irreversibility, plus two hand-chosen residual parameters needed for numerical stability. The new algorithmic objects (local residuals, Schur-complement tangents, DP-like surface) are invented for implementation convenience and validated only numerically inside the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • residual strength κ = 1e-3
    Set to 10^{-3} (Table 1) to keep the degraded strength surface non-zero; not measured from material data.
  • residual stiffness κ_t = 1e-9
    Set to 10^{-9} (Table 1, Eqs. 23b, 26) to regularise the tangent once the stress lies on the strength surface; chosen for solver robustness.
  • reference strain ε_ref (DP criterion) = varied
    Controls pressure-dependent strengthening under compression; varied parametrically (10^{-5}–10^{-1}) with no unique material calibration.
  • damping coefficient c = 1e6 s^{-1}
    Set to 10^6 s^{-1} for quasi-static cases to suppress stress waves; zero for the dynamic case; not a material property.
  • Newmark parameters β, γ = 0.5625, 1.0
    β=0.5625, γ=1.0 chosen for numerical damping; affect dynamic response.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Total energy Ψ = Ψ_el + Ψ_c + Ψ_f − Ψ_i − Ψ_b is stationary with respect to u, ϕ and η (Vicentini et al. energy).
    Section 2.1; the entire return-mapping derivation inherits this variational statement.
  • domain assumption Fracture eigenstrains admit the representation η = λ G(ε) (or sum of independent directions) with G constructed from the total strain.
    Eqs. 14–15; reduces the strength criterion to scalar multipliers solvable pointwise.
  • domain assumption AT2 phase-field distribution γ(ϕ) = (1/(2ℓ))(ϕ² + ℓ²|∇ϕ|²) and history-field irreversibility are admissible regularisations.
    Eqs. 4 and 11; chosen so that no extra nucleation threshold appears.
  • domain assumption Bulk response is isotropic linear elasticity under small strains.
    Eq. 2; stated as a simplifying assumption, not required by the framework.
  • ad hoc to paper A multi-pass staggered scheme (max 5 iterations) with Newmark time integration converges to the monolithic solution for the benchmarks considered.
    Section 3; numerical practice, not proved.
invented entities (3)
  • Local return-mapping residuals f1, f2 (and f3) for eigenstrain multipliers λ
    purpose: Convert the global eigenstrain field into a pointwise constitutive update analogous to plasticity.
    Eqs. 23 and 27; core algorithmic novelty of the paper.
  • Smooth Drucker-Prager-like strength potential (tension r2 + compressive cone controlled by ε_ref)
    purpose: Provide a continuously differentiable surface that hardens under compression while remaining compatible with eigenstrain directions.
    Eq. 18; new combination not present in the cited r1/r2 surfaces.
  • Schur-complement consistent tangent for the non-smooth multi-mode surface
    purpose: Obtain a well-conditioned algorithmic modulus when one or both failure modes are active.
    Eq. 30; required for robust Newton convergence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cohesive phase-field fracture with an explicit strength surface: an eigenstrain-based return-mapping formulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4Z66KMM

@misc{pith2026260321811,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cohesive phase-field fracture with an explicit strength surface: an eigenstrain-based return-mapping formulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4Z66KMM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.21811}
}
read the original abstract

Standard phase-field fracture methods are rooted in brittle fracture theory and therefore do not inherently prescribe a material strength for crack nucleation, while also struggling to capture cohesive fracture behaviour. Recent eigenstrain-based formulations overcome both limitations by introducing fracture eigenstrains that decouple the strength surface from the fracture energy, but their implementation has so far relied on direct energy-minimization frameworks rather than standard finite-element procedures. In this work, we exploit the fact that the eigenstrains require no spatial gradients and reformulate the eigenstrain evolution as a local constitutive model, analogous to those used in plasticity, that is resolved at each integration point. As a result, the cohesive phase-field requires no additional global degrees of freedom beyond those of a standard phase-field formulation and can be readily integrated into existing finite-element codes. Two strength criteria are considered: a non-smooth criterion with independent tensile and shear strengths, and a smooth Drucker-Prager-like criterion that captures pressure-dependent strengthening under compression. Consistent tangent operators are derived for both criteria, ensuring robust convergence of the global Newton-Raphson solver. The framework is validated against three benchmark problems: a plate with a hole under tension and compression, a single-edge notched plate under shear, and a notched plate under dynamic loading. The results demonstrate mesh-independent and phase-field length-scale-independent behaviour, confirm that the fracture energy governs the transition between brittle and cohesive regimes, and show that complex phenomena such as crack branching under dynamic loading are naturally captured. All source codes are openly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.21811 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Strength surfaces for a fully intact material ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Geometries and boundary conditions considered for the example cases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of element size on load-displacement behaviour under compression (negative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of element size on phase field for the tensile plate with hole case. Results shown at an applied strain of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Horizontal (a,d) and vertical (b,e) displacement, with deformations magnified by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of the fracture release energy Gc on the load-displacement behaviour for the tensile and compressive plate with hole cases. Cases using dashed lines correspond to the horizontal failure mode discussed in the text. the elements, causing a sawtooth-like crack. Upo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Vertical displacement (a,c) with deformations magnified by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effect of phase-field length scale on the load-displacement behaviour, and zooms on relevant regions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Vertical displacements (a,c, deformations magnified by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Load-displacement behaviour of the single-edge notched plate under shear loading, using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Horizontal displacements (a-c) and phase-field variable (d-f) obtained for the single-edge notched plate under shear loading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Impact of fracture energy release rate Gc on the combined crack length for the dynamic fracture case. displacement is imposed at a rate of U˙ Shear = 1 · 10−6 m/s. Due to the stress concentration at the tip of the notch, a crack will form at this location. If fracture…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Phase-field (left column) and vertical displacement (right column, magnified by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Egger, U

    A. Egger, U. Pillai, K. Agathos, E. Kakouris, E. Chatzi, I. A. Aschroft, S. P. Triantafyllou, Discrete and phase field methods for linear elastic fracture mechanics: A comparative study and state-of-the-art review, Applied Sciences 9 (12) (2019) 2436.doi:10.3390/app9122436

    work page doi:10.3390/app9122436 2019

  2. [2]

    de Borst, Fracture and damage in quasi-brittle materials: A comparison of approaches, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 122 (2022) 103652.doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2022.103652

    R. de Borst, Fracture and damage in quasi-brittle materials: A comparison of approaches, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 122 (2022) 103652.doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2022.103652. 22

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2022.103652 2022

  3. [3]

    Navidtehrani, C

    Y. Navidtehrani, C. Betegón, E. Martínez-Pañeda, A simple and robust Abaqus implementation of the phase field fracture method, Applications in Engineering Science 6 (2021) 100050.doi:10.1016/j.apples.2021. 100050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apples.2021 2021

  4. [4]

    Chen, J.-Y

    W.-X. Chen, J.-Y. Wu, Phase-field cohesive zone modeling of multi-physical fracture in solids and the open- sourceimplementationinComsolMultiphysics, TheoreticalandAppliedFractureMechanics117(2022)103153. doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.103153

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.103153 2022

  5. [5]

    Molnár, A

    G. Molnár, A. Gravouil, 2D and 3D Abaqus implementation of a robust staggered phase-field solution for modeling brittle fracture, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 130 (2017) 27–38.doi:10.1016/j.finel. 2017.03.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.finel 2017

  6. [6]

    Bourdin, J.-J

    B. Bourdin, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, P. Sicsic, Morphogenesis and propagation of complex cracks induced by thermal shocks, Physical Review Letters 112 (1) (2014) 014301.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.014301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.014301 2014

  7. [7]

    Hofacker, C

    M. Hofacker, C. Miehe, A phase field model of dynamic fracture: Robust field updates for the analysis of complex crack patterns, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 93 (3) (2013) 276–301. doi:10.1002/nme.4387

    doi:10.1002/nme.4387 2013

  8. [8]

    M. F. Wheeler, T. Wick, W. Wollner, An augmented-Lagrangian method for the phase-field approach for pressurized fractures, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 271 (2014) 69–85.doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2013.12.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2013.12.005 2014

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Clayton, R

    T. Clayton, R. Duddu, T. Hageman, E. Martínez-Pañeda, Modeling ice cliff stability using a new Mohr– Coulomb-based phase field fracture model, Journal of Glaciology 71 (2025) e70.doi:10.1017/jog.2025.21

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    X. Sun, R. Duddu, Hirshikesh, A poro-damage phase field model for hydrofracturing of glacier crevasses, Extreme Mechanics Letters 45 (2021) 101277.doi:10.1016/j.eml.2021.101277

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Miehe, S

    C. Miehe, S. Mauthe, S. Teichtmeister, Minimization principles for the coupled problem of Darcy–Biot-type fluid transport in porous media linked to phase field modeling of fracture, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 82 (2015) 186–217.doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2015.04.006

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    T.Wu, L.De Lorenzis, Aphase-fieldapproachto fracturecoupled withdiffusion, ComputerMethodsin Applied Mechanics and Engineering 312 (2016) 196–223.doi:10.1016/J.CMA.2016.05.024

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    F. P. Duda, A. Ciarbonetti, S. Toro, A. E. Huespe, A phase-field model for solute-assisted brittle fracture in elastic-plastic solids, International Journal of Plasticity 102 (2018) 16–40.doi:10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2017.11. 004

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Hageman, E

    T. Hageman, E. Martínez-Pañeda, A phase field-based framework for electro-chemo-mechanical fracture: Crack-contained electrolytes, chemical reactions and stabilisation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 415 (2023) 116235.doi:10.1016/j.cma.2023.116235. 23

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    T. K. Mandal, V. P. Nguyen, J. Y. Wu, Comparative study of phase-field damage models for hydrogen assisted cracking, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 111 (2021) 102840.doi:10.1016/J.TAFMEC.2020. 102840

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    P. K. Kristensen, C. F. Niordson, E. Martinez-Paneda, An assessment of phase field fracture: Crack initiation and growth, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 379 (2203) (2021) 20210021.doi:10.1098/ RSTA.2021.0021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Lopez-Pamies, J

    O. Lopez-Pamies, J. E. Dolbow, G. A. Francfort, C. J. Larsen, Classical variational phase-field models cannot predict fracture nucleation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 433 (2025) 117520. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2024.117520

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    A. A. Griffith, The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 221 (582-593) (1921) 163–198. doi:10.1098/rsta.1921.0006

    1921 doi

  11. [19]

    Tanné, T

    E. Tanné, T. Li, B. Bourdin, J. J. Marigo, C. Maurini, Crack nucleation in variational phase-field models of brittle fracture, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 110 (2018) 80–99.doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2017. 09.006

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    T. K. Mandal, V. P. Nguyen, J.-Y. Wu, Length scale and mesh bias sensitivity of phase-field models for brittle and cohesive fracture, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 217 (2019) 106532.doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech. 2019.106532

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Kumar, B

    A. Kumar, B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, O. Lopez-Pamies, Revisiting nucleation in the phase-field approach to brittle fracture, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 142 (2020) 104027.doi:10.1016/j.jmps. 2020.104027

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    De Lorenzis, C

    L. De Lorenzis, C. Maurini, Nucleation under multi-axial loading in variational phase-field models of brittle fracture, International Journal of Fracture (2021) 1–21doi:10.1007/s10704-021-00555-6

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Vicentini, C

    F. Vicentini, C. Zolesi, P. Carrara, C. Maurini, L. De Lorenzis, On the energy decomposition in variational phase-field models for brittle fracture under multi-axial stress states, International Journal of Fracture (Apr. 2024).doi:10.1007/s10704-024-00763-w

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Zhang, W

    S. Zhang, W. Jiang, M. R. Tonks, Assessment of four strain energy decomposition methods for phase field fracture models using quasi-static and dynamic benchmark cases, Materials Theory 2022 6:1 6 (1) (2022) 1–24. doi:10.1186/S41313-021-00037-1

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Infante-García, A

    D. Infante-García, A. R. Quiñonero-Moya, M. Álvarez-Blanco, E. Giner, Verification of strain energy splits of phase field fracture model using Westergaard’s problem under mixed-mode loading, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 308 (2024) 110371.doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2024.110371. 24

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    R. J. M. Geelen, Y. Liu, T. Hu, M. R. Tupek, J. E. Dolbow, A phase-field formulation for dynamic cohesive fracture, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 348 (2019) 680–711.doi:10.1016/j.cma. 2019.01.026

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Gupta, D

    A. Gupta, D. T. Nguyen, Hirshikesh, R. Duddu, Damage mechanics challenge: Predictions from an adaptive finite element implementation of the stress-based phase-field fracture model, Engineering Fracture Mechanics (2024) 110252doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2024.110252

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Y. Feng, J. Li, A unified regularized variational cohesive fracture theory with directional energy decomposition, International Journal of Engineering Science 182 (2023) 103773.doi:10.1016/j.ijengsci.2022.103773

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    K. Pham, H. Amor, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, Gradient damage models and their use to approximate brittle fracture, International Journal of Damage Mechanics 20 (4) (2011) 618–652.doi:10.1177/1056789510386852

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    C. V. Verhoosel, R. de Borst, A phase-field model for cohesive fracture, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 96 (1) (2013) 43–62.doi:10.1002/NME.4553

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Ghaffari Motlagh, R

    Y. Ghaffari Motlagh, R. de Borst, Considerations on a phase-field model for adhesive fracture, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 121 (13) (2020) 2946–2963.doi:10.1002/nme.6341

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Miehe, F

    C. Miehe, F. Aldakheel, A. Raina, Phase field modeling of ductile fracture at finite strains: A variational gradient-extended plasticity-damage theory, International Journal of Plasticity 84 (2016) 1–32.doi:10.1016/ j.ijplas.2016.04.011

    2016

  25. [33]

    Ambati, T

    M. Ambati, T. Gerasimov, L. De Lorenzis, Phase-field modeling of ductile fracture, Computational Mechanics 55 (5) (2015) 1017–1040.doi:10.1007/s00466-015-1151-4

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Alessi, J.-J

    R. Alessi, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, S. Vidoli, Coupling damage and plasticity for a phase-field regularisation of brittle, cohesive and ductile fracture: One-dimensional examples, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 149 (2018) 559–576.doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.05.047

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Vicentini, J

    F. Vicentini, J. Heinzmann, P. Carrara, L. De Lorenzis, Variational phase-field modeling of cohesive fracture with flexibly tunable strength surface, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 207 (2026) 106424. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2025.106424

    2026 doi

  28. [36]

    Bourdin, J.-J

    B. Bourdin, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, C. Zolesi, A variational approach to fracture incorporating any convex strength criterion (Jun. 2025).arXiv:2506.22558,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.22558

    2025 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Miehe, F

    C. Miehe, F. Aldakheel, S. Teichtmeister, Phase-field modeling of ductile fracture at finite strains: A robust variational-based numerical implementation of a gradient-extended theory by micromorphic regularization, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 11...

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Ambati, R

    M. Ambati, R. Kruse, L. De Lorenzis, A phase-field model for ductile fracture at finite strains and its experi- mental verification, Computational Mechanics 57 (1) (2016) 149–167.doi:10.1007/s00466-015-1225-3. 25

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Aldakheel, P

    F. Aldakheel, P. Wriggers, C. Miehe, A modified Gurson-type plasticity model at finite strains: Formulation, numerical analysis and phase-field coupling, Computational Mechanics 62 (4) (2018) 815–833.doi:10.1007/ s00466-017-1530-0

    2018

  32. [40]

    I.Ang, N.Bouklas, B.Li, Stabilizedformulationforphase-fieldfractureinnearlyincompressiblehyperelasticity, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 123 (19) (2022) 4655–4673.doi:10.1002/nme. 7050

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    F. Peng, W. Huang, Z.-Q. Zhang, T. Fu Guo, Y. E. Ma, Phase field simulation for fracture behavior of hyperelastic material at large deformation based on edge-based smoothed finite element method, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 238 (2020) 107233.doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.107233

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Zhang, R

    L. Zhang, R. Fleischhauer, M. Kaliske, A phase-field fracture model of nearly incompressible hyperelastic material based on a mixed formulation, Proceedings in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 25 (4) (2025) e70024.doi:10.1002/pamm.70024

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    T. K. Mandal, V. P. Nguyen, J.-Y. Wu, A length scale insensitive anisotropic phase field fracture model for hyperelastic composites, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 188 (2020) 105941.doi:10.1016/j. ijmecsci.2020.105941

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Bourdin, G

    B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, J. J. Marigo, Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48 (4) (2000) 797–826.doi:10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00028-9

    2000 doi

  37. [45]

    Miehe, F

    C. Miehe, F. Welschinger, M. Hofacker, Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: Varia- tional principles and multi-field FE implementations, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engi- neering 83 (10) (2010) 1273–1311.doi:10.1002/NME.2861

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    Gerasimov, L

    T. Gerasimov, L. De Lorenzis, On penalization in variational phase-field models of brittle fracture, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 354 (2019) 990–1026.doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.05.038

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    Ambrosio, V

    L. Ambrosio, V. M. Tortorelli, Approximation of functional depending on jumps by elliptic functional via t- convergence, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 43 (8) (1990) 999–1036.doi:10.1002/cpa. 3160430805

    1990 doi

  40. [48]

    I. A. Baratta, J. P. Dean, J. S. Dokken, M. Habera, J. S. Hale, C. N. Richardson, M. E. Rognes, M. W. Scroggs, N. Sime, G. N. Wells, DOLFINx: The next generation FEniCS problem solving environment (Dec. 2023).doi:10.5281/ZENODO.10447666

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    S. K. Lam, A. Pitrou, S. Seibert, Numba: A LLVM-based Python JIT compiler, in: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, LLVM ’15, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2015, pp. 1–6.doi:10.1145/2833157.2833162

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    Timoshenko, Theory of elasticity, third edition

    S. Timoshenko, Theory of elasticity, third edition. Edition, Engineering societies monographs, McGraw-Hill Education, New Delhi, India, 2010. 26

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.