Comparison of the phase-field approach and cohesive element modeling to analyze the double cleavage drilled compression fracture test of an elastoplastic material
Source abstract
Abstract
Brittle material Mode I fracture may be characterized by the double cleavage drilled compression test. For linear elastic materials, the critical energy release rate, or fracture toughness, can be estimated simply using the linear elastic fracture mechanics. For other types of constitutive behavior, the material parameter has to be determined with numerical fracture modeling. In this paper, we have used two approaches, the phase-field damage model and the cohesive elements, in order to estimate the critical energy release rate of an elastoplastic material. Firstly, we assessed the numerical models and discussed their parameters by comparison of available data from double cleavage drilled compression experimental tests run on a silica glass. Both phase-field damage and cohesive zone models were able to reproduce fracture initiation at the observed macroscopic stress for the linear elastic material. However, the material toughness could not be predicted by the phase-field approach due to the result dependence on the model regularization parameter. Secondly, an elastoplastic methyl methacrylate polymer was submitted to the compression test in our lab. Both models were then extended for elastic-perfectly plastic materials. Crack initiation was obtained at the observed macroscopic strain for similar critical energy release rate ranges for both approaches, providing good confidence in the estimated material toughness.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Numerical methods in engineering · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Fluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. Abaqus, SIMULIA Abaqus User Assistance (Simulia, 2021)
2. Alessi R, Ambati M, Gerasimov T, Vidoli S, Lorenzis LD (2018) Comparison of Phase-Field Models of Fracture Coupled with Plasticity. Adv Comput Plast 46:110.1007/978-3-319-60885-3_1 ↗
3. Ambati M, Gerasimov T, Lorenzis L (2015) Phase-field modeling of ductile fracture. Comput Mech 55:101710.1007/s00466-015-1151-4 ↗
4. Amor H, Marigo JJ, Maurini C (2009) Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical experiments. J Mech Phys Solids 57:120910.1016/j.jmps.2009.04.011 ↗
5. Bourdin B, Francfort GA, Marigo JJ (2000) Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 48:79710.1016/S0022-5096(99)00028-9 ↗
6. Bourdin B, Francfort GA, Marigo JJ (2008) The variational approach to fracture. J Elast 91:510.1007/s10659-007-9107-3 ↗
7. Brach S, Tanné E, Bourdin B, Bhattacharya K (2019) Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 353:4410.1016/j.cma.2019.04.027 ↗
8. de Lorenzis L, Maurini C (2022) Nucleation under multi-axial loading in variational phase-field models of brittle fracture. Int J Fract 237:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-021-00555-610.1007/s10704-021-00555-6 ↗
9. Doitrand A, Estevez R, Leguillon D (2019) Comparison between cohesive zone and coupled criterion modeling of crack initiation in rhombus hole specimens under quasi-static compression. Theo Appl Fract Mech 99:51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2018.11.00710.1016/j.tafmec.2018.11.007 ↗
10. Elices M, Guinea G, Gómez J, Planas J (2002) The cohesive zone model: advantages, limitations and challenges. Eng Fract Mech 69:13710.1016/S0013-7944(01)00083-2 ↗
11. Fett T, Rizzi G, Munz D (2005) T-stress solution for DCDC specimens. Eng Fract Mech 72:14510.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.03.006 ↗
12. Francfort GA, Marigo JJ (1998) Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. J Mech Phys Solids 46:131910.1016/S0022-5096(98)00034-9 ↗
13. Geuzaine C, Remacle JF (2009) Gmsh: a three-dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities. Int J Num Methods Eng 79:130910.1002/nme.2579 ↗
14. Gharbi H, Wenlong W, Giraudet C, Allain J, Vennat E (2022) Measure of the hygroscopic expansion of human dentin
15. He M, Turner M, Evans A (1995) Analysis of the Double Cleavage Drilled Compression Specimen for Interface Fracture Energy Measurements over a Range of Mode Mixities. Acta Metall Mater 84:104070
16. Janssen C (1974) in Proc. 10th Int. Cong. On Glass (Ceramic Society of Japan, Weinheim, Germany), pp. 10.23–10.30
17. Kumar A, Bourdin B, Fracfrot G, Loez-Pamies O (2020) Revisiting nucleation in the phase-Field approach to brittle fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 142:10402710.1016/j.jmps.2020.104027 ↗
18. Leguillon D (2002) Strength or toughness? A criterion for crack onset at a notch. Eur J Mech Solids/A 21:61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0997-7538(01)01184-610.1016/S0997-7538(01)01184-6 ↗
19. Logg A, Mardal KA, Wells GN (eds) (2012) Automated Solution of Differential Equations by the Finite Element Method. Springer, Germany
20. Luo Z, Chen L, Wang N, Li B (2022) A phase-field fracture model for brittle anisotropic materials. Comput Mech 70:93110.1007/s00466-022-02192-9 ↗
21. Maso GD, Toader R (2020) On the jerky crack growth in elastoplastic materials. Calc Var Partial Differ Eqs 59:110.1007/s00526-019-1640-y ↗
22. Michalske T, Smith W, Chen E (1993) Stress intensity calibration for the double cleavage drilled compression specimen. Eng Fract Mech 45:63710.1016/0013-7944(93)90269-X ↗
23. Miehe C, Welschinger F, Hofacker M (2010) Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: Variational principles and multi-field FE implementations. Int J Num Methods Eng 83:127310.1002/nme.2861 ↗
24. Nguyen T, Yvonnet J, Bornert M, Chateau C, Sab K, Romani R, Roy RL (2016) On the choice of parameters in the phase field method for simulating crack initiation with experimental validation. Int J Fract 196:21310.1007/s10704-016-0082-1 ↗
25. Nguyen T, Yvonnet J, Waldmann D, He Q (2020) Implementation of a new strain split to model unilateral contact within the phase field method. International J Num Methods Eng 121:471710.1002/nme.6463 ↗
26. Nielsen C, Amirkhizi AV, Nemat-Nasser S (2012) The effect of geometry on fracture strength measurement using DCDC samples. Eng Fract Mech 91:1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.04.03010.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.04.030 ↗
27. Ortiz M, Pandolfi A (1999) Finite-deformation irreversible cohesive elements for three-dimensional crack-propagation analysis. Int J Num Methods Eng 44:126710.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19990330)44:9<1267::AID-NME486>3.0.CO;2-7 ↗
28. Pallares G, Ponson L, Grimaldi A, George M, Prevot G, Ciccotti M (2009) Crack opening profile in DCDC specimen. Int J Fract 156:11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-009-9341-810.1007/s10704-009-9341-8 ↗
29. Pham K, Ravi-Chandar K, Landis C (2017) Experimental validation of a phase-field model for fracture. Int J Fract 205:83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-017-0185-310.1007/s10704-017-0185-3 ↗
30. Plaisted T, Amirkhizi A, Nemat-Nasser S (2006) Compression-induced axial crack propagation in DCDC polymer samples: experiments and modeling. Int J Fract 141:447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-006-9006-910.1007/s10704-006-9006-9 ↗
31. Roberto Alessi SV (2014) Gradient damage models coupled with plasticity and nucleation of cohesive cracks. Jean-Jacques Marigo Arch Ration Mech Anal 214(2):57510.1007/s00205-014-0763-8 ↗
32. Sammis CG (1986) The failure of brittle porous solids under compressive stress states. Acta Metall Mater 34:51110.1016/0001-6160(86)90087-8 ↗
33. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig E, Longair M, Pietzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S, Schmid B, Tinevez JY, White D, Hartenstein V, Eliceiri K, Tomancak P, Cardona A (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods 72:67610.1038/nmeth.2019 ↗
34. Tanné E, Li T, Bourdin B, Marigo J, Maurini C (2018) Crack nucleation in variational phase-field models of brittle fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 10:8010.1016/j.jmps.2017.09.006 ↗
35. Turon A, Dávila C, Camanho P, Costa J (2007) TAn engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech 74:1665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.08.02510.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.08.025 ↗
36. Turon A, Dávila C, Camanho P, Costa J (2007) An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech 74:166510.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.08.025 ↗
37. Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW (1993) The influence of plasticity on mixed mode interface toughness. J Mech Phys Solids. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(93)90057-M10.1016/0022-5096(93)90057-M ↗
38. Ulloa J, Wambacq J, Alessi R, Samaniego E, Degrande E, François G (2022) A micromechanics-based variational phase-field model for fracture in geomaterials with brittle-tensile and compressive-ductile behavior. J Mech Phys Solids 159:10468410.1016/j.jmps.2021.104684 ↗
39. Wang Q, Ni M, Wu L, Huang R (2018) Scrutinized and revised stress intensity factor formulas for double cleavage drilled compression specimens. Theo Appl Fract Mech 96:80310.1016/j.tafmec.2017.11.008 ↗
40. Wiederhorn S, Johnson H, Diness A, Heuer A (1974) Fracture of glass in vaccum. J Am Ceram Soc 57:33610.1111/j.1151-2916.1974.tb10917.x ↗
41. Yang D, Bornert M, Chanchole S, Gharbi H, Valli P, Gatmiri B (2012) Dependence of elastic properties of argillaceous rocks on moisture content investigated with optical full-field strain measurement techniques. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 53:4510.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.04.004 ↗