journal article·2026-08Open access

One-dimensional dynamic fragmentation with the cohesive Lipschitz (CLIP) approach

Sachin Srinivasa, Benoît Lé, Nicolas Chevaugeon, Nicolas Moës

International Journal of Fracture· Volume 250· Issue 3

Abstract

Abstract Dynamic fragmentation of brittle materials involves complex crack nucleation, propagation, and interaction under high-rate loading. Traditional cohesive zone models (CZM) accurately capture discrete cracks, but suffer from mesh dependency and constrained crack paths, whereas continuous damage models offer mesh independence at the expense of sharp-crack representation. This paper presents the Cohesive Lipschitz (CLIP) model, which unifies interface-based cohesive damage with a Lipschitz-projected bulk damage field to enforce spatial regularization. Analytical equivalence with a linear CZM yields closed-form degradation and dissipation functions, and a regularization parameter governs energy redistribution between cohesive interfaces and diffuse zones. Quasi-static validation confirms exact reproduction of CZM behavior under tensile loading. An explicit dynamic finite-element implementation simulates one-dimensional fragmentation of alumina across a wide range of strain rates. The CLIP model successfully predicts the transition from sparse to fine fragmentation, producing fragment statistics in agreement with established theoretical and numerical studies, thereby demonstrating robust fracture predictions with computational efficiency and a clear physical interpretation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Rock Mechanics and Modeling · Numerical methods in engineering

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (40)

Show source-provided references
1. Barenblatt GI (1962) The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture 7:55–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2156(08)70121-210.1016/S0065-2156(08)70121-2 ↗
2. Bažant ZP (1976) Instability, ductility, and size effect in strain-softening concrete. J Eng Mech Div 102(2):331–344. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMCEA3.000211110.1061/JMCEA3.0002111 ↗
3. Bleyer J, Roux-Langlois C, Molinari J-F (2017) Dynamic crack propagation with a variational phase-field model: limiting speed, crack branching and velocity-toughening mechanisms. Int J Fract 204:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-016-0163-110.1007/s10704-016-0163-1 ↗
4. Borden M, Verhoosel C, Scott M, Hughes T, Landis C (2012) A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineerings 217–220:77–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2012.01.00810.1016/j.cma.2012.01.008 ↗
5. Chevaugeon N, Moës N (2022) Lipschitz regularization for fracture: The lip-field approach. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 402:115644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2022.11564410.1016/j.cma.2022.115644 ↗
6. Camacho GT, Ortiz M (1996) Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials. Int J Solids Struct 33(20):2899–2938. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(95)00255-310.1016/0020-7683(95)00255-3 ↗
7. Drugan WJ (2001) Dynamic fragmentation of brittle materials: analytical mechanics-based models. J Mech Phys Solids 49(6):1181–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5096(01)00002-310.1016/S0022-5096(01)00002-3 ↗
8. Dugdale DS (1960) Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. J Mech Phys Solids 8(2):100–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(60)90013-210.1016/0022-5096(60)90013-2 ↗
9. Elices M, Guinea G, Sánchez FJ, Planas J (2002) The cohesive zone model: Advantages, limitations and challenges. Eng Fract Mech 69:137–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00083-210.1016/S0013-7944(01)00083-2 ↗
10. Fischer M (2019) Gradient damage models applied to dynamic fragmentation of brittle materials. Int J Fract 220:143–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-019-00356-y10.1007/s10704-019-00356-y ↗
11. Francfort GA, Marigo J-J (1998) Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. J Mech Phys Solids 46(8):1319–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5096(98)00034-910.1016/S0022-5096(98)00034-9 ↗
12. Fineberg J, Marder M (1999) Instability in dynamic fracture. Phys Rep 313(1):1–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00085-410.1016/S0370-1573(98)00085-4 ↗
13. Freund LB (1990) Dynamic Fracture Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge . https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051154676110.1017/CBO9780511546761 ↗
14. Glenn LA, Chudnovsky A (1986) Strain-energy effects on dynamic fragmentation. J Appl Phys 59(4):1379–1380. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.336532 (https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-pdf/59/4/1379/18414947/1379_1_online.pdf)10.1063/1.336532 ↗
15. Geelen R, Liu Y, Hu T, Tupek M, Dolbow J (2019) A phase-field formulation for dynamic cohesive fracture. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 348 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.01.02610.1016/j.cma.2019.01.026 ↗
16. Gómez AP, Moës N, Stolz C (2015) Comparison between thick level set (tls) and cohesive zone models. Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences 2:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40323-015-0041-910.1186/s40323-015-0041-9 ↗
17. Grady DE (1982) Local inertial effects in dynamic fragmentation. J Appl Phys 53(1):322–325. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.329934 (https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-pdf/53/1/322/18394824/322_1_online.pdf)10.1063/1.329934 ↗
18. Grady D (2007) Fragmentation of Rings and Shells: The Legacy of N.F. Mott. Shock Wave and High Pressure Phenomena. Springer, Berlin. https://books.google.fr/books?id=RoEyk4Dwd_kC
19. Hillerborg A, Modéer M, Petersson P-E (1976) Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr Res 6(6):773–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-710.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-7 ↗
20. Karma A, Kessler DA, Levine H (2001) Phase-field model of mode iii dynamic fracture. Phys Rev Lett 87:045501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.04550110.1103/PhysRevLett.87.045501 ↗
21. Lé B, Moës N, Legrain G (2018) Coupling damage and cohesive zone models with the thick level set approach to fracture. Eng Fract Mech 193:214–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.12.03610.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.12.036 ↗
22. Moes N, Belytschko T (2002) Belytschko, t.: Extended finite element method for cohesive crack growth. eng. fract. mech. 69(7), 813–833. Eng Fract Mech 69:813–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00128-X10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00128-X ↗
23. Moës N, Chevaugeon N (2021) Lipschitz regularization for softening material models: the Lip-field approach. Comptes Rendus Mécanique 349(2):415–434. https://doi.org/10.5802/crmeca.9110.5802/crmeca.91 ↗
24. Miller O, Freund L, Needleman A (1999) Modeling and simulation of dynamic fragmentation in brittle materials. Int J Fract 96:101–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101866631744810.1023/A:1018666317448 ↗
25. Molinari J-F, Gazonas G, Raghupathy R, Rusinek A, Zhou F (2007) The cohesive element approach to dynamic fragmentation: The question of energy convergence. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 69 https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.177710.1002/nme.1777 ↗
26. Moës N, Lé B, Chevaugeon N, Remacle J-F (2025) Phase-field and lip-field approaches for fracture with extreme mesh deformation (X-Mesh): a one-dimensional study. Comptes Rendus Mécanique 353:1027–1051. https://doi.org/10.5802/crmeca.31810.5802/crmeca.318 ↗
27. Moës N, Lé B, Stershic A (2022) Fragmentation analysis of a bar with the lip-field approach. Mech Mater 172:104365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2022.10436510.1016/j.mechmat.2022.104365 ↗
28. Mandal T, Nguyen VP, Wu J-Y (2020) Evaluation of variational phase-field models for dynamic brittle fracture. Eng Fract Mech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.10716910.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.107169 ↗
29. Miehe C, Welschinger F, Hofacker M (2010) Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: Variational principles and multi-field fe implementations. Int J Numer Meth Eng 83(10):1273–1311. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.286110.1002/nme.2861 ↗
30. Ortiz M, Pandolfi A (1999) Finite-deformation irreversible cohesive element for three-dimensional crack-propagation analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering - INT J NUMER METHOD ENG 44:1267–1282. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19990330)44:93.3.CO;2-Z10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19990330)44:93.3.CO;2-Z ↗
31. Planas J, Elices M, Guinea GV, Gómez FJ, Cendón DA, Arbilla I (2003) Generalizations and specializations of cohesive crack models. Eng Fract Mech 70(14):1759–1776. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00123-1. (Cohesive Models)10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00123-1 ↗
32. Park K, Paulino GH (2013) Cohesive zone models: A critical review of traction-separation relationships across fracture surfaces. Appl Mech Rev 64(6):060802. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023110 (https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/appliedmechanicsreviews/article-pdf/64/6/060802/6073587/amr_64_6_060802.pdf)10.1115/1.4023110 ↗
33. Ravi-Chandar K (2004) Dynamic Fracture. Elsevier, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044352-2.X5000-510.1016/B978-0-08-044352-2.X5000-5 ↗
34. Radovitzky R, Seagraves A, Tupek M, Noels L (2011) A scalable 3d fracture and fragmentation algorithm based on a hybrid, discontinuous galerkin, cohesive element method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200(1):326–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.08.01410.1016/j.cma.2010.08.014 ↗
35. Song J-H, Belytschko T (2009) Cracking node method for dynamic fracture with finite elements. Int J Numer Meth Eng 77(3):360–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.241510.1002/nme.2415 ↗
36. Stershic AJ, Dolbow JE, Moës N (2017) The thick level-set model for dynamic fragmentation. Eng Fract Mech 172:39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2016.12.01210.1016/j.engfracmech.2016.12.012 ↗
37. Vocialta M, Molinari J-F (2015) Influence of internal impacts between fragments in dynamic brittle tensile fragmentation. Int J Solids Struct 58:247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.01.00810.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.01.008 ↗
38. Volokh KY (2004) Comparison between cohesive zone models. Commun Numer Methods Eng 20(11):845–856. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.71710.1002/cnm.717 ↗
39. Wu J-Y (2017) A unified phase-field theory for the mechanics of damage and quasi-brittle failure. J Mech Phys Solids 103:72–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2017.03.01510.1016/j.jmps.2017.03.015 ↗
40. Zhou F, Molinari J-F, Ramesh KT (2006) Effects of material properties on the fragmentation of brittle materials. International Journal of Fracture 139 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-006-7135-910.1007/s10704-006-7135-9 ↗