pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06169 · v1 · pith:LBRKHAPGnew · submitted 2026-06-04 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · math.AP

Endowing variational phase-field fracture models with custom strength criteria

Roberto Alessi , Matteo Brunetti , Roshan Udaram Patil , Jacinto Ulloa This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 00:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci math.AP
keywords phase-field fracturestrength criteriadissipation potentialvariational modelselastic domaincrack nucleationmultiaxial loadinggeneralized standard materials
0
0 comments X

The pith

Letting the dissipation potential depend on material state incorporates arbitrary elastic domains into phase-field fracture models while preserving variational structure.

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

The paper introduces a method to add custom strength criteria to variational phase-field fracture models by making the dissipation potential state-dependent. This approach maintains the variational framework of generalized standard materials, unlike methods that split energies or add extra variables. A reader would care because it separates the control of elastic degradation from the strength criterion, enabling better modeling of crack nucleation under multiaxial stresses. The work shows simple models and simulations demonstrating this for various strength surfaces.

Core claim

By letting the dissipation potential depend on the current state of the material, arbitrary elastic domains can be incorporated into phase-field fracture models while preserving the variational structure, with elastic degradation and the strength criterion remaining two distinct and independently controllable aspects of the material response.

What carries the argument

A state-dependent dissipation potential that encodes an arbitrary elastic domain.

If this is right

  • The evolution of the elastic domain can be investigated in both strain and stress spaces.
  • Numerical simulations demonstrate crack nucleation processes under multiaxial loading for various analytical strength surfaces.
  • Elastic degradation and the strength criterion are independently controllable.
  • Simple representative models preserve the variational structure of generalized standard materials.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This method could be extended to incorporate other nonlinear material behaviors while maintaining variational consistency.
  • Comparisons with experimental data on crack initiation under complex loading would validate the approach.
  • Future models might combine this with plasticity without sacrificing the generalized standard material framework.

Load-bearing premise

A state-dependent dissipation potential can be formulated to encode an arbitrary elastic domain without inconsistencies in the evolution equations or violating the variational structure.

What would settle it

A simulation or analytical check showing that for a chosen strength criterion the resulting evolution equations lead to non-dissipative behavior or non-uniqueness would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06169 by Jacinto Ulloa, Matteo Brunetti, Roberto Alessi, Roshan Udaram Patil.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Qualitative representation of the elastic domain, evolving as a function of the phase-field variable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Elastic moduli degradation: (a) FED model, (b) PED model, and (c) a model with three different degradation laws. Fracture function. Concerning the fracture function, we assume Gf(ε, α) = Gc (1 + f(ε, α)), (33) with (ε, α) 7→ f(ε, α) hereafter referred to as the fracture perturbation function. This function describes the deviation of the fracture criterion from that of standard phase-field models, accountin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Elastic domain of M1 for (a) α = 0 and (b) α > 0 with the strength surface of the sound material in dashed black. With respect to these non-dimensional variables, (38) and (39) can be expressed as R(α) =  ε ∈ Sym : ˜ε 2 v + ˜ε 2 d ≤ 1 (1 − α)  , (44) R∗ (α) =  σ ∈ Sym : ˜σ 2 h + ˜σ 2 d ≤ (1 − α) 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Elastic domain of M2 for (a) α = 0 and (b) α > 0 with c ∗(α) = c(α)(1 − α) 2 . The gray region in (a) corresponds to the initial elastic domain of M1. The black dashed curve in (b) represents the strength surface of the sound material. follows as ˜f ∗ (˜σh, α) = ˜f(s(α)˜σh, α). The fracture perturbation functions appearing in (33) and (34) are then given by f(ε, α) = ˜f(˜εv(ε), α), f ∗ (σ, α) = ˜f ∗ (˜σh(σ… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Elastic domain evolution as a function of damage for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Elastic domain of M3 and M4 for (a) α = 0 and (b) α > 0. The gray region in (a) corresponds to the initial elastic domain of M1. The black dashed curve in (b) represents the strength surface of the sound material. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Elastic domain evolution as a function of damage for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Elastic domain of M5 for (a) α = 0 and (b) α > 0. The gray region in (a) corresponds to the initial elastic domain of M1. The black dashed curve in (b) represents the elastic strength of the sound material. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Elastic domain evolution as a function of damage for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Boundary value problem for the biaxial disk. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Illustration of paradigmatic loading conditions and corresponding angles in strain space employed in the simu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Elastic domains for all considered models in the ε˜v– ε˜d plane and (b) corresponding homogeneous responses for the loading directions ϑ ∈ 0, π4 , π2 , 3π4 , π . 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: See next figure caption. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Analytical elastic domains versus numerical (dots) nucleation domains and damage fields after nucleation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

By now, several approaches have been proposed to endow phase-field fracture models with the ability to describe crack nucleation under multiaxial stress states. These include techniques for splitting the free energy, direct modifications of the phase-field driving or resisting forces that sacrifice the variational structure of the problem, and the introduction of additional internal variables, such as plastic strains or other nonlinear strains. In this paper, we propose a fundamentally different strategy for incorporating arbitrary elastic domains into phase-field fracture models, formulated within the variational framework of generalized standard materials. The proposed approach relies on letting the dissipation potential depend on the current state of the material. In this way, the variational structure of the problem is preserved, while elastic degradation and the strength criterion remain two distinct and independently controllable aspects of the material response. Simple yet representative models are presented and thoroughly discussed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology. The resulting evolution of the elastic domain is investigated in both strain and stress spaces. Moreover, numerical simulations demonstrate a range of crack nucleation processes under multiaxial loading conditions for various analytical strength surfaces. This work paves the way for future developments and applications in several directions.

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.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new strategy within the generalized standard materials (GSM) framework to incorporate arbitrary elastic domains (strength criteria) into variational phase-field fracture models. By making the dissipation potential state-dependent on the current material state, the approach preserves the variational structure while keeping elastic degradation (via the free-energy function) and the strength criterion as independent, separately tunable aspects. Representative analytical models are derived and analyzed for the evolution of the elastic domain in strain and stress space; numerical simulations then demonstrate crack nucleation under multiaxial loading for several custom strength surfaces.

Significance. If the construction holds, the work provides a clean variational route to custom multiaxial strength criteria without energy splitting, auxiliary internal variables, or loss of the variational structure. This is a meaningful advance for phase-field modeling of fracture in materials where nucleation is sensitive to stress triaxiality or other non-standard surfaces. The explicit separation of degradation and nucleation threshold, together with the reported recovery of the initial strength surface and independent tunability, are concrete strengths. The numerical examples across multiple analytical surfaces further support practical utility.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.3] §2.3: the notation for the state-dependent dissipation potential Φ(·,·) should explicitly distinguish the dependence on the current elastic strain versus the phase-field variable to avoid ambiguity when taking the subdifferential.
  2. [Figure 7] Figure 7 and accompanying text: the evolution plots in stress space would benefit from an overlay of the initial elastic domain for direct visual comparison of how the surface translates or distorts.
  3. [§5] The discussion of numerical implementation (likely §5) should state the solver tolerances and mesh-size convergence checks used to confirm that the reported nucleation loads are insensitive to discretization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our manuscript, the recognition of its significance, and the recommendation for minor revision. No major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; new construction within GSM framework

full rationale

The paper advances a modeling construction: a state-dependent dissipation potential is introduced inside the standard generalized standard materials (GSM) variational setting so that an arbitrary elastic domain can be encoded while the free-energy degradation function stays independent. No derivation chain reduces a claimed result to its own inputs by construction; there are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no self-definitional loops, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work. The abstract and described strategy treat the state dependence as an explicit modeling choice whose consistency with convexity and subdifferentiation is asserted directly from GSM axioms rather than derived from the target strength surfaces. The resulting models are therefore self-contained proposals, not re-derivations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or detailed axioms are stated beyond the general framework. The central construction rests on the domain assumption of generalized standard materials.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Formulation within the variational framework of generalized standard materials
    The proposed approach is explicitly placed inside this framework (abstract).

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5736 in / 1306 out tokens · 29136 ms · 2026-06-28T00:39:26.627753+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    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 (2000) 797–826. URL:http://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022509699000289. doi:10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00028-9

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

  2. [2]

    Alessi, J.-J

    R. Alessi, J.-J. Marigo, S. Vidoli, Gradient Damage Models Coupled with Plasticity and Nucleation of Cohesive Cracks, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 214 (2014) 575–615. URL:http: //link.springer.com/10.1007/s00205-014-0763-8. doi:10.1007/s00205-014-0763-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00205-014-0763-8 2014

  3. [3]

    Ambati, T

    M. Ambati, T. Gerasimov, L. De Lorenzis, Phase-field modeling of ductile fracture, Computational Mechanics55(2015)1017–1040.URL:http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00466-015-1151-4. doi:10.1007/s00466-015-1151-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00466-015-1151-4 2015

  4. [4]

    Miehe, S

    C. Miehe, S. Teichtmeister, F. Aldakheel, Phase-field modelling of ductile fracture: a variational gradient-extended plasticity-damage theory and its micromorphic regulariza- tion., Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 374 (2016). URL:http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/374/2066/20150170. abstra...

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2015.0170 2016

  5. [5]

    URL:https://doi.org/10

    F.Dammaß, M.Ambati, M.Kästner, Aunifiedphase-fieldmodeloffractureinviscoelasticmaterials, Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics 33 (2021) 1907–1929. URL:https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00161-021-01013-3. doi:10.1007/s00161-021-01013-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00161-021-01013-3 2021

  6. [6]

    Kamarei, E

    F. Kamarei, E. Breedlove, O. Lopez-Pamies, Nucleation and propagation of fracture in viscoelas- tic elastomers: A complete phase-field theory, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 446 (2025) 118337. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0045782525006097. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2025.118337. 29

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2025.118337 2025

  7. [7]

    Ciambella, G

    J. Ciambella, G. Lancioni, N. Stortini, Viscous Effects on the Crack Propagation in Elas- tomers, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2025, pp. 217–228. URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-84379-2_17. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84379-2_17

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84379-2_17 2025

  8. [8]

    Alessi, S

    R. Alessi, S. Vidoli, L. De Lorenzis, Variational approach to fatigue phenomena with a phase-field model: the one-dimensional case, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 190 (2018) 53–73

    2018

  9. [9]

    Alessi, V

    R. Alessi, V. Crismale, G. Orlando, Fatigue Effects in Elastic Materials with Variational Damage Models: A Vanishing Viscosity Approach, Journal of Nonlinear Science 29 (2019). doi:10.1007/ s00332-018-9511-9

    2019

  10. [10]

    Mesgarnejad, A

    A. Mesgarnejad, A. Imanian, A. Karma, Phase-field models for fatigue crack growth, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 103 (2019) 102282. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec. 2019.102282. doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2019.102282

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tafmec 2019

  11. [11]

    Seiler, T

    M. Seiler, T. Linse, P. Hantschke, M. Kästner, An efficient phase-field model for fatigue frac- ture in ductile materials, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 224 (2020) 106807. URL:https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013794419303200. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech. 2019.106807.arXiv:1903.06465

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech 2020

  12. [13]

    M. J. Borden, C. V. Verhoosel, M. A. Scott, T. J. R. Hughes, C. M. Landis, A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 217 (2012) 77–95. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2012.01.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2012.01.008 2012

  13. [14]

    Li, J.-J

    T. Li, J.-J. Marigo, D. Guilbaud, S. Potapov, Gradient damage modeling of brittle fracture in an explicit dynamics context, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 108 (2016) 1381–1405. URL:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nme.5262http: //dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.5262https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/ hal-012...

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.5262http: 2016

  14. [15]

    Mikelić, M

    A. Mikelić, M. F. Wheeler, T. Wick, Phase-field modeling of a fluid-driven fracture in a poroelas- tic medium, Computational Geosciences 19 (2015) 1171–1195. URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10596-015-9532-5. doi:10.1007/s10596-015-9532-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10596-015-9532-5 2015

  15. [16]

    Martínez-Pañeda, A

    E. Martínez-Pañeda, A. Golahmar, C. F. Niordson, A phase field formulation for hydrogen assisted cracking, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 342 (2018) 742–761. doi:10. 1016/j.cma.2018.07.021.arXiv:1808.03264

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [17]

    Dittmann, F

    M. Dittmann, F. Aldakheel, J. Schulte, F. Schmidt, M. Krüger, P. Wriggers, C. Hesch, Phase-field modeling of porous-ductile fracture in non-linear thermo-elasto-plastic solids, Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 361 (2020) 112730. URL:https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782519306206. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j....

    arXiv 2020

  17. [18]

    Amor, J.-J

    H. Amor, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical experiments, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 57 (2009) 1209–1229. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2009.04.011. doi:10.1016/j. jmps.2009.04.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2009.04.011 2009

  18. [19]

    Miehe, F

    C. Miehe, F. R. Welschinger, M. Hofacker, Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of frac- ture: Variational principles and multi-field FE implementations, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 83 (2010) 1273–1311. URL:http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/nme.2861. doi:10.1002/nme.2861

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.2861 2010

  19. [20]

    Freddi, G

    F. Freddi, G. F. Royer-Carfagni, Regularized variational theories of fracture: A uni- fied approach, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 58 (2010) 1154–1174. URL:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022509610000475http: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022509610000475http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jmps.2010.02.010. doi:10.10...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2010.02.010 2010

  20. [21]

    Freddi, G

    F. Freddi, G. Royer-Carfagni, Variational fracture mechanics to model compressive splitting of masonry-like materials, Annals of Solid and Structural Mechanics 2 (2011) 57–67. URL:http: //link.springer.com/10.1007/s12356-011-0018-4. doi:10.1007/s12356-011-0018-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12356-011-0018-4 2011

  21. [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). URL:https://link.springer.com/ 10.1007/s10704-021-00555-6. doi:10.1007/s10704-021-00555-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10704-021-00555-6 2021

  22. [23]

    Navidtehrani, C

    Y. Navidtehrani, C. Betegón, E. Martínez-Pañeda, A general framework for decomposing the phase field fracture driving force, particularised to a Drucker–Prager failure surface, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 121 (2022) 103555. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2022. 103555. doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2022.103555

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

  23. [24]

    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 Jour- nalofFracture247(2024)291–317.URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-024-00763-whttps: //hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-04231075. doi:10.1007/s10704-024-00763-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10704-024-00763-whttps: 2024

  24. [25]

    P.-L. Bian, H. Qing, T. Yu, S. Schmauder, A novel and simple variationally-consistent phase-field cohesive zone model for mixed-mode fracture, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 130 (2024)104324.URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2024.104324.doi:10.1016/j.tafmec. 2024.104324

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2024.104324.doi:10.1016/j.tafmec 2024

  25. [26]

    Miehe, L.-M

    C. Miehe, L.-M. Schänzel, H. Ulmer, Phase field modeling of fracture in multi-physics problems. Part I. Balance of crack surface and failure criteria for brittle crack propagation in thermo-elastic solids, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 294 (2015) 449–485. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045782514004423. doi:10.1...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2014.11 2015

  26. [27]

    Zhang, S

    X. Zhang, S. W. Sloan, C. Vignes, D. Sheng, A modification of the phase-field model for mixed mode crack propagation in rock-like materials, Computer Methods in Applied Mechan- ics and Engineering 322 (2017) 123–136. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2017.04.028. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2017.04.028. 31

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2017.04.028 2017

  27. [28]

    T. Wang, X. Ye, Z. Liu, D. Chu, Z. Zhuang, Modeling the dynamic and quasi-static compression- shear failure of brittle materials by explicit phase field method, Computational Mechanics 64 (2019) 1537–1556. URL:http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00466-019-01733-z. doi:10. 1007/s00466-019-01733-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00466-019-01733-z 2019

  28. [29]

    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. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2020.104027. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2020.104027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2020.104027 2020

  29. [30]

    Y. Feng, J. Li, Phase-field method with additional dissipation force for mixed-mode cohesive frac- ture, JournaloftheMechanicsandPhysicsofSolids159(2022)104693.URL:https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022509621003148. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2021.104693

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2021.104693 2022

  30. [31]

    Abrari Vajari, M

    S. Abrari Vajari, M. Neuner, P. K. Arunachala, C. Linder, Investigation of driving forces in a phase field approach to mixed mode fracture of concrete, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 417 (2023) 116404. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0045782523005285. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2023.116404

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2023.116404 2023

  31. [32]

    Kamarei, B

    F. Kamarei, B. Zeng, J. E. Dolbow, O. Lopez-pamies, Nine circles of elastic brittle fracture : A series of challenge problems to assess fracture models, Computer Methods in Applied Mechan- ics and Engineering 448 (2026) 118449. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2025.118449. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2025.118449

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2025.118449 2026

  32. [34]

    Vicentini, J

    F. Vicentini, J. Heinzmann, P. Carrara, L. D. Lorenzis, Variational phase-field modeling of cohesive fracture with flexibly tunable strength surface, 2025. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12188. arXiv:2506.12188

    arXiv 2025

  33. [35]

    Bourdin, J.-J

    B. Bourdin, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, C. Zolesi, A variational approach to fracture incorporating any convex strength criterion, 2025. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22558.arXiv:2506.22558

    arXiv 2025

  34. [36]

    Dal Maso, G

    G. Dal Maso, G. Orlando, R. Toader, Fracture models for elasto-plastic materials as limits of gradient damage models coupled with plasticity: the antiplane case, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 55 (2016) 45. URL:http://cvgmt.sns.it/paper/2677/

    2016

  35. [37]

    Maggiorelli, M

    E. Maggiorelli, M. Negri, F. Vicentini, L. De Lorenzis,Γ-convergence for a phase-field cohesive en- ergy, MechanicsofMaterials215(2026)105606.URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0167663626000104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2026.105606

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2026.105606 2026

  36. [38]

    Carrara, M

    P. Carrara, M. Ambati, R. Alessi, L. De Lorenzis, A framework to model the fatigue behavior of brittle materials based on a variational phase-field approach, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 361 (2020) 112731. URL:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0045782519306218. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.112731. 32

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.112731 2020

  37. [39]

    Alessi, J

    R. Alessi, J. Ulloa, Endowing Griffith’s fracture theory with the ability to describe fatigue cracks, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 281 (2023) 109048. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0013794423000061. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109048

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109048 2023

  38. [40]

    G. A. Francfort, Recovering convexity in non-associated plasticity, Comptes Rendus - Mecanique 346 (2018) 198–205. doi:10.1016/j.crme.2017.12.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crme.2017.12.005 2018

  39. [41]

    Ulloa, R

    J. Ulloa, R. Alessi, J. Wambacq, G. Degrande, S. François, On the variational modeling of non-associative plasticity, International Journal of Solids and Structures 217-218 (2021) 272–296. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768320304212. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2020.10.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2020.10.027 2021

  40. [42]

    Mielke, A Mathematical Framework for Generalized Standard Materials in the Rate-Independent Case, in: R

    A. Mielke, A Mathematical Framework for Generalized Standard Materials in the Rate-Independent Case, in: R. Helmig, A. Mielke, B. Wohlmuth (Eds.), Multifield Problems in Solid and Fluid Mechanics, volume 28 ofLecture Notes in Applied and Computational Mechanics, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 399–428. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-34961-7_12

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-34961-7_12 2006

  41. [43]

    Pham, J.-J

    K. Pham, J.-J. Marigo, The variational approach to damage: I. The foundations, Comptes Rendus Mecanique 338 (2010) 191–198. doi:10.1016/j.crme.2010.03.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crme.2010.03.009 2010

  42. [44]

    Marigo, Constitutive relations in plasticity, damage and fracture mechanics based on a work property, Nuclear Engineering and Design 114 (1989) 249–272

    J.-J. Marigo, Constitutive relations in plasticity, damage and fracture mechanics based on a work property, Nuclear Engineering and Design 114 (1989) 249–272. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/0029-5493(89)90105-2. doi:10.1016/0029-5493(89)90105-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0029-5493(89)90105-2 1989

  43. [45]

    Halphen, Q

    B. Halphen, Q. S. Nguyen, Generalized Standard Materials, Journal de Mécanique 14 (1975) 39–63

    1975

  44. [46]

    Q. S. Nguyen, Stability and Nonlinear Solid Mechanics, Wiley, 2000. URL:https://hal. archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00105248/

    2000

  45. [47]

    Q. S. Nguyen, On standard dissipative gradient models, Annals of Solid and Structural Mechanics 1 (2010) 79–86. URL:http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-77952287745& partnerID=40&md5=8bcaf218bf850f40deaf0839e572cf58. doi:10.1007/s12356-010-0006-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s12356-010-0006-0 2010

  46. [48]

    URL:http://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s00707-016-1636-z

    R.Alessi, Energeticformulationforrate-independentprocesses: remarksondiscontinuousevolutions with a simple example, Acta Mechanica 227 (2016) 2805–2829. URL:http://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s00707-016-1636-z. doi:10.1007/s00707-016-1636-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00707-016-1636-z 2016

  47. [49]

    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 (2011) 618–652. doi:10.1177/1056789510386852

    work page doi:10.1177/1056789510386852 2011

  48. [50]

    Zolesi, C

    C. Zolesi, C. Maurini, Stability and crack nucleation in variational phase-field models of fracture: Effects of length-scales and stress multi-axiality, Journal of the Mechan- ics and Physics of Solids 192 (2024) 105802. URL:https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/ hal-04552309https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022509624002680. doi:10. 1016/j.jmps....

    arXiv 2024

  49. [51]

    Marigo, C

    J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, K. Pham, An overview of the modelling of fracture by gradient damage models, Meccanica 51 (2016) 3107–3128. URL:http://link.springer.com/10.1007/ s11012-016-0538-4https://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01321465/. doi:10.1177/ 1056789510386852. 33

    2016

  50. [52]

    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

    2018

  51. [53]

    Alessi, D

    R. Alessi, D. Bernardini, Analysis of localization phenomena in Shape Memory Alloys bars by a variational approach, International Journal of Solids and Structures 73-74 (2015) 113–133. URL:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768315002851. doi:http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.06.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.06.021 2015

  52. [54]

    Mielke, T

    A. Mielke, T. Roubíček, Rate-Independent Systems: Theory and Application, Springer, 2015. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=RN3HCgAAQBAJ&pgis=1

    2015

  53. [55]

    Pham, J.-J

    K. Pham, J.-J. Marigo, C. Maurini, The issues of the uniqueness and the stability of the homogeneous response in uniaxial tests with gradient damage models, Journal of the Me- chanics and Physics of Solids 59 (2011) 1163–1190. URL:http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/B6TXB-52GXVJG-2/2/76efa9d53fe4f29eff9170a066d1302e. doi:DOI:10.1016/ j.jmps.2011.03.010

    2011

  54. [56]

    A. A. León Baldelli, C. Maurini, Numerical bifurcation and stability analysis of variational gradient- damage models for phase-field fracture, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 152 (2021) 104424. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022509621001010. doi:10. 1016/j.jmps.2021.104424

    arXiv 2021

  55. [57]

    Hansen, I

    G. Hansen, I. Herburt, H. Martini, M. Moszyńska, Starshaped sets, Aequationes mathematicae 94 (2020) 1001–1092. URL:https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00010-020-00720-7. doi:10. 1007/s00010-020-00720-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00010-020-00720-7 2020

  56. [58]

    tcs.2020.02.014,doi:10.1016/J.TCS.2020.02.014

    C. Miehe, A multi-field incremental variational framework for gradient-extended standard dissipative solids, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 59 (2011) 898–923. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022509610002358. doi:10.1016/j. jmps.2010.11.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2011

  57. [59]

    Mielke, R

    A. Mielke, R. Rossi, Existence and uniqueness results for general rate-independent hysteresis prob- lems, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 17 (2007) 81–123. URL:https://www. worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S021820250700184X. doi:10.1142/S021820250700184X

    work page doi:10.1142/s021820250700184x 2007

  58. [60]

    Luege, A

    M. Luege, A. Orlando, M. E. Almenar, E. A. Pilotta, An energetic formulation of a gradient damage model for concrete and its numerical implementation, International Journal of Solids and Structures 155 (2018) 160–184. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2018.07.017. doi:10.1016/j. ijsolstr.2018.07.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2018.07.017 2018

  59. [61]

    L. Stainier, Consistent incremental approximation of dissipation pseudo-potentials in the variational formulation of thermo-mechanical constitutive updates, Mechanics Research Communications 38 (2011) 315–319. doi:10.1016/j.mechrescom.2011.03.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mechrescom.2011.03.011 2011

  60. [62]

    A. C. Correas, J. Reinoso, P. Cornetti, M. Corrado, On the (lack of) representativeness of quasi- static variational fracture models for unstable crack propagation, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids (2024) 105573. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2024.105573. doi:10. 1016/j.jmps.2024.105573. 34

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2024.105573 2024

  61. [63]

    Alessi, F

    R. Alessi, F. Freddi, L. Mingazzi, Phase-field numerical strategies for deviatoric driven frac- tures, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 359 (2020) 112651. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045782519305365. doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.112651

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.112651 2020

  62. [64]

    Chambolle, S

    A. Chambolle, S. Conti, G. A. Francfort, Approximation of a Brittle Fracture Energy with a Constraint of Non-interpenetration, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 2 (2017) 1–

    2017

  63. [65]

    Approximation of a Brittle Fracture Energy with a Constraint of Non-Interpenetration

    URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.04208https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-017-1207-z. doi:10.1007/s00205-017-1207-z.arXiv:1709.04208

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s00205-017-1207-z

  64. [66]

    P. Li, W. Li, B. Li, S. Yang, Y. Shen, Q. Wang, K. Zhou, A review on phase field models for fracture and fatigue, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 289 (2023) 109419. URL:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109419. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109419

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109419 2023

  65. [67]

    Carlsson, P

    J. Carlsson, P. Isaksson, Crack dynamics and crack tip shielding in a material containing pores analysedbyaphasefieldmethod, EngineeringFractureMechanics206(2019)526–540.URL:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.11.013. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.11.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.11.013 2019

  66. [68]

    Miehe, M

    C. Miehe, M. Hofacker, F. R. Welschinger, A phase field model for rate-independent crack prop- agation: Robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits, Computer Methods in Ap- plied Mechanics and Engineering 199 (2010) 2765–2778. URL:http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0045782510001283. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2010.04.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2010.04.011 2010

  67. [69]

    On the crack-driving force of phase-field models in linearized and finite elasticity

    C. Bilgen, K. Weinberg, On the crack-driving force of phase-field models in linearized and finite elas- ticity, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 353 (2019) 348–372. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.05.009. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.05.009.arXiv:1808.00542

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.05.009 2019

  68. [70]

    Negri, A unilateral L2-gradient flow and its quasi-static limit in phase-field fracture by an alternate minimizing movement, Advances in Calculus of Variations 12 (2019) 1–29

    M. Negri, A unilateral L2-gradient flow and its quasi-static limit in phase-field fracture by an alternate minimizing movement, Advances in Calculus of Variations 12 (2019) 1–29. doi:10.1515/ acv-2016-0028. 35

    2019