arxiv: 2604.26210 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

Recognition: unknown

Proximal Galerkin for Phase Field Fracture

Miguel Castill\'on , Biswajit Khara , J{\o}rgen S. Dokken , Thomas M. Surowiec , Brendan Keith , Yuri Bazilevs

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA

keywords proximal Galerkinphase-field fracturesaddle-point problemsirreversibility conditionconstrained optimizationfracture mechanicslatent variablesnumerical methods

0 comments

The pith

The proximal Galerkin method enforces physical bounds and irreversibility in phase-field fracture by recasting the problem as saddle-point systems with latent variables.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper presents the proximal Galerkin method to address numerical challenges when simulating fracture with phase-field models. It converts the inequality constraints that keep the phase-field variable between zero and one and enforce irreversible damage into a sequence of saddle-point problems using auxiliary latent variables. This produces a consistent mathematical treatment that automatically respects the physical rules without penalty approximations or other fixes. A reader would care because these constraints determine whether the computed fracture paths and loads remain realistic in engineering contexts. The authors verify through examples that the results align with known theory and laboratory observations for both static and time-dependent cases.

Core claim

The proximal Galerkin framework reformulates the inequality-constrained optimization problem of phase-field fracture into a sequence of saddle-point problems involving latent variables. This reformulation rigorously enforces the physical bounds of the phase-field variable and naturally handles the irreversibility condition. The approach applies to both static and dynamic problems and produces results that match theoretical predictions and experimental observations.

What carries the argument

Reformulation of the constrained optimization problem into a sequence of saddle-point problems with latent variables, which carries the enforcement of bounds and irreversibility.

If this is right

The method provides a unified, mathematically consistent treatment of the constraints in phase-field fracture modeling.
It accurately reproduces theoretical predictions for fracture behavior.
It matches experimental observations in numerical tests.
It applies directly to both static and dynamic phase-field fracture problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The latent-variable approach may simplify adding constraint enforcement to existing finite-element codes for solid mechanics.
Similar reformulations could address inequality constraints in related models such as plasticity or contact problems.
Testing on three-dimensional geometries with multiple cracks would clarify how well the method scales.

Load-bearing premise

Converting the original constrained problem into saddle-point problems with latent variables leaves the physical fracture behavior unchanged and introduces no new numerical errors or artifacts.

What would settle it

Running the method on a standard benchmark such as the single-edge notched tension test and finding that the simulated crack path or force-displacement curve deviates markedly from established reference solutions.

read the original abstract

The phase-field method has emerged as a powerful tool for simulating fracture mechanics, yet it presents significant numerical challenges, particularly regarding the enforcement of physical constraints such as irreversibility and boundedness of the phase-field variable. This work proposes the proximal Galerkin (PG) methodology as a robust and efficient framework for solving phase-field fracture problems. By reformulating the inequality-constrained optimization problem into a sequence of saddle-point problems involving latent variables, the PG method rigorously enforces the physical bounds of the phase-field variable and naturally handles the irreversibility condition. This approach is directly applicable to both static and dynamic phase-field fracture problems. The numerical results demonstrate that the PG framework accurately reproduces theoretical predictions and experimental observations, while offering a unified, mathematically consistent treatment of the constraints inherent to phase-field fracture modeling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper's main move is turning the inequality constraints in phase-field fracture into a sequence of saddle-point problems with latent variables via proximal Galerkin, which looks like a direct way to enforce bounds and irreversibility without extra parameters.

read the letter

The central idea here is the proximal Galerkin reformulation that converts the constrained optimization for phase-field fracture into saddle-point systems. Latent variables handle the [0,1] bounds and the irreversibility condition exactly, and the approach applies to both static and dynamic cases. This is presented as a clean mapping that stays close to the original variational structure, which is the part that stands out as new compared to standard penalty or augmented Lagrangian tricks in the literature they cite. The numerical examples are said to match theoretical predictions and experimental observations, which suggests the method preserves the expected fracture behavior in practice. That counts as a solid contribution for people who need reliable constraint enforcement in these models. The math lines up with known proximal operator techniques, so there is no obvious internal inconsistency or hidden approximation in the construction. The stress-test note is right that the mapping itself does not introduce new artifacts if the saddle-point systems are solved accurately. The main soft spot is that the abstract gives no concrete numbers on error measures, mesh convergence rates, or direct comparisons to existing solvers, so it is hard to gauge how much cheaper or more robust it actually is in practice. If the full paper includes those details and shows clear gains without extra tuning, the claim holds up; otherwise the efficiency story stays thin. This work is for computational mechanics groups already running phase-field simulations who want a different handle on the constraints. A reader who cares about variational inequalities or mixed finite-element methods will get the most out of it. It is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee, even if the numerics need more scrutiny in review. I would send it out rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Proximal Galerkin (PG) methodology for phase-field fracture problems. It reformulates the inequality-constrained optimization problem into a sequence of saddle-point problems involving latent variables to rigorously enforce the physical bounds [0,1] on the phase-field variable and the irreversibility condition. The approach is claimed to apply directly to both static and dynamic problems, with numerical results asserted to accurately reproduce theoretical predictions and experimental observations.

Significance. If the proximal reformulation is variationally equivalent to the original constrained problem and the saddle-point systems are solved to sufficient accuracy, the method would provide a parameter-free, mathematically consistent framework for constraint enforcement in phase-field models. This could improve reliability in fracture simulations by avoiding relaxation parameters that alter the variational structure. The unified treatment for static and dynamic cases would be a notable contribution to computational mechanics if supported by rigorous verification.

major comments (1)

Numerical results section: the claim that the PG framework accurately reproduces theoretical predictions and experimental observations is not accompanied by specific quantitative details such as error norms (e.g., L2 or energy errors), convergence rates, baseline comparisons, or verification procedures. This leaves the central assertion of accuracy and exact constraint enforcement with limited verifiable support, as noted in the abstract's description of the results.

minor comments (1)

Abstract: the description of the numerical validation could briefly indicate the types of tests (e.g., specific benchmark problems) to give readers an immediate sense of the evidence provided.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive feedback. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the numerical results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Numerical results section: the claim that the PG framework accurately reproduces theoretical predictions and experimental observations is not accompanied by specific quantitative details such as error norms (e.g., L2 or energy errors), convergence rates, baseline comparisons, or verification procedures. This leaves the central assertion of accuracy and exact constraint enforcement with limited verifiable support, as noted in the abstract's description of the results.

Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation. The current numerical examples demonstrate agreement with theoretical predictions and experimental observations primarily through visual and qualitative comparisons in the figures. We acknowledge that explicit quantitative metrics, such as L2 and energy error norms, convergence rates, baseline comparisons, and detailed verification procedures, are not presented with sufficient specificity. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Numerical Results section to include these quantitative details for the benchmark problems, along with a description of the verification procedures. We will also update the abstract if necessary to align with the strengthened evidence. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in the proximal Galerkin reformulation

full rationale

The paper introduces the proximal Galerkin method as an independent reformulation that converts the inequality-constrained phase-field fracture optimization problem into a sequence of saddle-point problems using latent variables. This construction is presented as a direct, mathematically consistent mapping that enforces bounds [0,1] and irreversibility without relaxation parameters or hidden approximations. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain, fitted input renamed as prediction, or ansatz smuggled via prior work by the same authors. Numerical validation against external theoretical predictions and experimental observations provides independent content, confirming the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on the abstract alone, no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable. The reformulation is presented as a mathematical technique without explicit new postulates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5451 in / 1070 out tokens · 44380 ms · 2026-05-07T13:18:45.643136+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , author =

Francfort, G.A., Marigo, J.-J.: Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimiza- tion problem. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids46(8), 1319–1342 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5096(98)00034-9

work page doi:10.1016/s0022-5096(98)00034-9 1998
[2]

Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48, 797–826

Bourdin, B., Francfort, G.A., Marigo, J.-J.: Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids48(4), 797–826 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00028-9

work page doi:10.1016/s0022-5096(99)00028-9 2000
[3]

Approximation of functional depending on jumps by elliptic functional via t-convergence

Ambrosio, L., Tortorelli, V.M.: Approximation of functional depending on jumps by elliptic functional via t-convergence. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics43(8), 999–1036 (1990) https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160430805 41

work page doi:10.1002/cpa.3160430805 1990
[4]

Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics42(5), 577–685 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160420503

Mumford, D., Shah, J.: Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth func- tions and associated variational problems. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics42(5), 577–685 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160420503

work page doi:10.1002/cpa.3160420503 1989
[5]

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineer- ing46(1), 131–150 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19990910) 46:1⟨131::AID-NME726⟩3.0.CO;2-J

Mo¨ es, N., Dolbow, J., Belytschko, T.: A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineer- ing46(1), 131–150 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19990910) 46:1⟨131::AID-NME726⟩3.0.CO;2-J

work page doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0207(19990910 1999
[6]

Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering29(2), 1009–1083 (2022) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11831-021-09604-8

Cervera, M., Barbat, G.B., Chiumenti, M., Wu, J.-Y.: A comparative review of xfem, mixed fem and phase-field models for quasi-brittle cracking. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering29(2), 1009–1083 (2022) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11831-021-09604-8

work page doi:10.1007/s11831-021-09604-8 2022
[7]

Engineering Fracture Mechanics141, 170– 195 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.05.023

Branco, R., Antunes, F.V., Costa, J.D.: A review on 3D-FE adaptive remeshing techniques for crack growth modelling. Engineering Fracture Mechanics141, 170– 195 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.05.023

work page doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.05.023 2015
[8]

Miehe, M

Miehe, C., Hofacker, M., Welschinger, F.: A phase field model for rate- independent crack propagation: Robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 199(45), 2765–2778 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.04.011

work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2010.04.011 2010
[9]

Computational Materials Science108, 374–384 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2015.05.034

Kuhn, C., Schl¨ uter, A., M¨ uller, R.: On degradation functions in phase field fracture models. Computational Materials Science108, 374–384 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2015.05.034 . Selected Articles from Phase-field Method 2014 International Seminar

work page doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2015.05.034 2015
[10]

Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids57(8), 1209–1229 (2009) https://doi.org/10

Amor, H., Marigo, J.-J., Maurini, C.: Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical experiments. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids57(8), 1209–1229 (2009) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jmps.2009.04.011

2009
[11]

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 354, 990–1026 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.05.038

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

work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.05.038 2019
[12]

In: Bordas, S.P.A., Balint, D.S

Wu, J.-Y., Nguyen, V.P., Nguyen, C.T., Sutula, D., Sinaie, S., Bordas, S.P.A.: Phase-field modeling of fracture. In: Bordas, S.P.A., Balint, D.S. (eds.) Advances in Applied Mechanics vol. 53, pp. 1–183. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2020). Chap. 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aams.2019.08.001

work page doi:10.1016/bs.aams.2019.08.001 2020
[13]

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering348, 680–711 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.01.026 42

Geelen, R.J., Liu, Y., Hu, T., Tupek, M.R., Dolbow, J.E.: A phase-field formula- tion for dynamic cohesive fracture. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering348, 680–711 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.01.026 42

work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.01.026 2019
[14]

Dal Maso, G., Iurlano, F.,et al.: Fracture models asγ-limits of damage mod- els. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal12(4), 1657–1686 (2013) https://doi.org/10.3934/ cpaa.2013.12.1657

2013
[15]

International Journal for Numer- ical Methods in Engineering108(11), 1381–1405 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1002/ nme.5262

Li, T., Marigo, J.-J., Guilbaud, D., Potapov, S.: Gradient damage modeling of brittle fracture in an explicit dynamics context. International Journal for Numer- ical Methods in Engineering108(11), 1381–1405 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1002/ nme.5262

2016
[16]

Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 1–97 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10208-024-09681-8

Keith, B., Surowiec, T.M.: Proximal Galerkin: A structure-preserving finite ele- ment method for pointwise bound constraints. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 1–97 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10208-024-09681-8

work page doi:10.1007/s10208-024-09681-8 2024
[17]

and Teboulle, M

Chen, G., Teboulle, M.: Convergence analysis of a proximal-like minimization algorithm using Bregman functions. SIAM Journal on Optimization3(3), 538–543 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1137/0803026

work page doi:10.1137/0803026 1993
[18]

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering445, 118181 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2025.118181

Dokken, J.S., Farrell, P.E., Keith, B., Papadopoulos, I.P.A., Surowiec, T.M.: The latent variable proximal point algorithm for variational problems with inequal- ity constraints. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering445, 118181 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2025.118181

work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2025.118181 2025
[19]

Mathematics of Computation (to appear) (2026)

Fu, G., Keith, B., Masri, R.: A locally-conservative proximal Galerkin method for pointwise bound constraints. Mathematics of Computation (to appear) (2026)

2026
[20]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13733 (2024)

Papadopoulos, I.: Hierarchical proximal Galerkin: a fasthp-FEM solver for variational problems with pointwise inequality constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13733 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[21]

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization68(4), 74 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00158-025-04008-9

Kim, D., Lazarov, B.S., Surowiec, T.M., Keith, B.: A simple introduction to the SiMPL method for density-based topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization68(4), 74 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00158-025-04008-9

2025
[22]

SIAM Journal on Optimization35(2), 1134–1164 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1137/24M1708863

Keith, B., Kim, D., Lazarov, B.S., Surowiec, T.M.: Analysis of the SiMPL method for density-based topology optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization35(2), 1134–1164 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1137/24M1708863

work page doi:10.1137/24m1708863 2025
[23]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13516 (2025)

Keith, B., Masri, R., Zeinhofer, M.: A priori error analysis of the proximal Galerkin method. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13516 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.14967 (2026)

Fu, G., Keith, B., Kim, D., Masri, R., Pazner, W.: The proximal Galerkin method for non-symmetric variational inequalities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.14967 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[25]

Proximal Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Variational Inequalities

Ern, A., Keith, B., Kim, D., Masri, R., Riviere, B.: Proximal discontinuous Galerkin methods for variational inequalities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.19708 43 (2026)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[26]

Phd thesis, Universidad Polit´ ecnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain (2026)

Castill´ on, M.: Numerical methods and algorithms for phase-field fracture model- ing (submitted). Phd thesis, Universidad Polit´ ecnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain (2026). Department of Mechanical Engineering

2026
[27]

Gradient Damage Models and Their Use to Approximate Brittle Fracture

Pham, K., Amor, H., Marigo, J.-J., Maurini, C.: Gradient damage models and their use to approximate brittle fracture. International Journal of Damage Mechanics20(4), 618–652 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1177/1056789510386852

work page doi:10.1177/1056789510386852 2011
[28]

Miehe, F

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 engineering83(10), 1273–1311 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.2861

work page doi:10.1002/nme.2861 2010
[30]

Mathematical Programming170(1), 67–96 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10107-018-1284-2

Teboulle, M.: A simplified view of first order methods for optimization. Mathematical Programming170(1), 67–96 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10107-018-1284-2

2018
[31]

The relaxation method of finding the common point of convex sets and its application to the solution of problems in convex programming

Bregman, L.M.: The relaxation method of finding the common point of convex sets and its application to the solution of problems in convex programming. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics7(3), 200–217 (1967) https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-5553(67)90040-7

work page doi:10.1016/0041-5553(67)90040-7 1967
[32]

Rockafellar, R.T.: Conjugates and Legendre transforms of convex functions. Canad. J. Math.19, 200–205 (1967) https://doi.org/10.4153/CJM-1967-012-4

work page doi:10.4153/cjm-1967-012-4 1967
[33]

Princeton University Press, Princeton (1970)

Rockafellar, R.T.: Convex Analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1970)

1970
[34]

Borwein, J.M., Reich, S., Sabach, S.: A characterization of Bregman firmly non- expansive operators using a new monotonicity concept. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal 12(1), 161–184 (2011)

2011
[35]

Information Geometry and Its Applications

Amari, S.-i.: Information Geometry and Its Applications. Springer, Tokyo (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55978-8

work page doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55978-8 2016
[36]

Wriggers, P.: Computational Contact Mechanics vol. 2. Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32609-0

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-32609-0 2006
[37]

Journal of Applied Mechanics (1993) https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2900803 44

Chung, J., Hulbert, G.: A Time Integration Algorithm for Structural Dynamics With Improved Numerical Dissipation: The Generalized-αMethod. Journal of Applied Mechanics (1993) https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2900803 44

work page doi:10.1115/1.2900803 1993
[38]

Computational Fluid–Structure Interaction

Bazilevs, Y., Takizawa, K., Tezduyar, T.E.: Computational Fluid-Structure Inter- action: Methods and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118483565

work page doi:10.1002/9781118483565 2013
[39]

SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 48(3), 980–1012 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1137/080741033

Burke, S., Ortner, C., S¨ uli, E.: An Adaptive Finite Element Approximation of a Variational Model of Brittle Fracture. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 48(3), 980–1012 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1137/080741033

work page doi:10.1137/080741033 2010
[40]

Computational Mechanics 55(2), 383–405 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-014-1109-y

Ambati, M., Gerasimov, T., De Lorenzis, L.: A review on phase-field models of brittle fracture and a new fast hybrid formulation. Computational Mechanics 55(2), 383–405 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-014-1109-y

work page doi:10.1007/s00466-014-1109-y 2015
[41]

Spence, T

Borden, M.J., Verhoosel, C.V., Scott, M.A., Hughes, T.J., Landis, C.M.: A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering217, 77–95 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma. 2012.01.008

work page doi:10.1016/j.cma 2012
[42]

Interfaces and free boundaries9(3), 411–430 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.4171/IFB/171

Bourdin, B.: Numerical implementation of the variational formulation for quasi- static brittle fracture. Interfaces and free boundaries9(3), 411–430 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.4171/IFB/171

work page doi:10.4171/ifb/171 2007
[43]

Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013)

Glowinski, R.: Numerical Methods for Nonlinear Variational Problems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-12613-4

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-12613-4 2013
[44]

Nocedal, J., Wright, S.J.: Interior-Point Methods for Nonlinear Program- ming, pp. 563–597. Springer, New York, NY (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-0-387-40065-5 19

1999
[45]

SIAM Journal on Optimization33(1), 237–266 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1137/ 20m1378399

Antil, H., Kouri, D.P., Ridzal, D.: ALESQP: An Augmented Lagrangian Equality-Constrained SQP Method for Optimization with General Constraints. SIAM Journal on Optimization33(1), 237–266 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1137/ 20m1378399

2023
[46]

Journal of Open Source Software10(108), 7307 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.21105/joss.07307

Castill´ on, M.: PhaseFieldX: An Open-Source Framework for Advanced Phase- Field Simulations. Journal of Open Source Software10(108), 7307 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.21105/joss.07307

work page doi:10.21105/joss.07307 2025
[47]

https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.10447666

Baratta, I.A., Dean, J.P., Dokken, J.S., Habera, M., Hale, J.S., Richardson, C.N., Rognes, M.E., Scroggs, M.W., Sime, N., Wells, G.N.: DOLFINx: the next gen- eration FEniCS problem solving environment (2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.10447666

2023
[48]

The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications38(5), 447–467 (2024) https://doi.org/10

Andrej, J., Atallah, N., B¨ acker, J.-P., Camier, J.-S., Copeland, D., Dobrev, V., Dudouit, Y., Duswald, T., Keith, B., Kim, D., Kolev, T., Lazarov, B., Mittal, K., Pazner, W., Petrides, S., Shiraiwa, S., Stowell, M., Tomov, V.: High- Performance Finite Elements with MFEM. The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications38(5), 447–467 ...

2024
[49]

Technical report, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States) (2025)

Balay, S., Abhyankar, S., Adams, M.F., Brown, J., Brune, P., Buschelman, K., Constantinescu, E., Dalcin, L., Benson, S., Dener, A., et al.: PETSc/TAO users Manual Revision 3.24. Technical report, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States) (2025)

2025
[50]

Message Passing Interface Forum: MPI: A Message-Passing Interface Standard Version 4.0. (2021). https://www.mpi-forum.org/docs/mpi-4.0/mpi40-report. pdf

2021
[51]

Geuzaine, J.-F

Geuzaine, C., Remacle, J.-F.: Gmsh: A 3-d finite element mesh generator with built-in pre-and post-processing facilities. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering79(11), 1309–1331 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1002/nme. 2579

work page doi:10.1002/nme 2009
[52]

Technical report, Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Minnesota (1997)

Karypis, G., Schloegel, K., Kumar, V.: PARMETIS: Parallel Graph Partitioning and Sparse Matrix Ordering Library. Technical report, Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Minnesota (1997)

1997
[53]

Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids121, 81–98 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2018.07.010

Kamensky, D., Moutsanidis, G., Bazilevs, Y.: Hyperbolic phase field modeling of brittle fracture: Part I - theory and simulations. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids121, 81–98 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2018.07.010

work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2018.07.010 2018
[54]

Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids121, 114–132 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2018.07.008

Moutsanidis, G., Kamensky, D., Chen, J., Bazilevs, Y.: Hyperbolic phase field modeling of brittle fracture: Part II - immersed IGA–RKPM coupling for air- blast–structure interaction. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids121, 114–132 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2018.07.008

work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2018.07.008 2018
[55]

SIAM Journal on Optimization1(1), 93–113 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1137/0801008

Mor´ e, J.J., Toraldo, G.: On the Solution of Large Quadratic Programming Prob- lems with Bound Constraints. SIAM Journal on Optimization1(1), 93–113 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1137/0801008

work page doi:10.1137/0801008 1991
[56]

Optimization Methods and Software21(1), 155–168 (2006) https: //doi.org/10.1080/10556780500065382

Benson, S.J., Munson, T.S.: Flexible complementarity solvers for large-scale applications. Optimization Methods and Software21(1), 155–168 (2006) https: //doi.org/10.1080/10556780500065382

work page doi:10.1080/10556780500065382 2006
[57]

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering109(5), 648–667 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.5300

Farrell, P., Maurini, C.: Linear and nonlinear solvers for variational phase- field models of brittle fracture. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering109(5), 648–667 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.5300

work page doi:10.1002/nme.5300 2017
[58]

Impact Load Dyn Behav Mater1, 185 (1988)

Kalthoff, J.: Failure mode transition at high rates of shear loading. Impact Load Dyn Behav Mater1, 185 (1988)

1988
[59]

Modes of dynamic shear failure in solids

Kalthoff, J.F.: Modes of dynamic shear failure in solids. International Journal of fracture101(1), 1–31 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007647800529 46

work page doi:10.1023/a:1007647800529 2000