Journal
ENGINEERING FRACTURE MECHANICS
Volume 207, Issue -, Pages 48-67Publisher
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.12.013
Keywords
Phase-field theory; Gradient enhanced damage model; Quasi-brittle fracture; Concrete
Categories
Funding
- Australian Research Council via DECRA project [DE160100577]
- Monash Graduate Scholarship
- Monash International Tuition Scholarship
- Australian Research Council [DE160100577] Funding Source: Australian Research Council
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This paper presents a comparative study of the gradient-enhanced damage models (GED) of Peerlings et al. (1996), Vandoren and Simone (2018) and the phase field damage/fracture model (PFM) of Wu (2017), Wu and Nguyen (2018) within the context of the computational modeling of the fracture of quasi-brittle materials (concrete, ceramic, rock, ice, etc.). Being continuous damage/fracture models, these two models enjoy the simplicity of modeling the fracture process on a fixed finite element mesh. The similarities and differences of the two models are discussed by examining governing equations and conducting numerical simulations of some mode I and mixed-mode fracture benchmark tests. The most worthy findings are: (i) both classes of models can handle the initiation and propagation of cohesive cracks, (ii) they are totally different-PFM behaves like a cohesive zone model (a sub-class of fracture mechanics) when the length scale is sufficiently small and the response is insensitive to this length scale whereas GED is a non-local damage model (a sub-class of continuum damage mechanics) of which response obviously depends on the length scale.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available