4.7 Article

A quasi-monolithic phase-field description for mixed-mode fracture using predictor-corrector mesh adaptivity

Journal

ENGINEERING WITH COMPUTERS
Volume 38, Issue SUPPL 4, Pages 2879-2903

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00366-021-01423-6

Keywords

Phase-field fracture; Mixed-mode fracture; Uniaxial compression test; Finite elements; Predictor-corrector mesh refinement

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation [1748, DFG SPP 1748, 392587580]
  2. China Scholarships Council [201806440069]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51490651]
  4. Projekt DEAL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A mixed-mode phase-field fracture model is developed in this work, utilizing a parallel-adaptive quasi-monolithic framework. The model is tested and compared with existing models on rock-like and masonry-like materials, demonstrating numerical robustness and physical soundness.
In this work, we develop a mixed-mode phase-field fracture model employing a parallel-adaptive quasi-monolithic framework. In nature, failure of rocks and rock-like materials is usually accompanied by the propagation of mixed-mode fractures. To address this aspect, some recent studies have incorporated mixed-mode fracture propagation criteria to classical phase-field fracture models, and new energy splitting methods were proposed to split the total crack driving energy into mode-I and mode-II parts. As extension in this work, a splitting method for masonry-like materials is modified and incorporated into the mixed-mode phase-field fracture model. A robust, accurate and efficient parallel-adaptive quasi-monolithic framework serves as basis for the implementation of our new model. Three numerical tests are carried out, and the results of the new model are compared to those of existing models, demonstrating the numerical robustness and physical soundness of the new model. In total, six models are computationally analyzed and compared.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available