A comparative review of peridynamics and phase-field models for engineering fracture mechanics

被引:99
作者
Diehl, Patrick [1 ]
Lipton, Robert [2 ]
Wick, Thomas [3 ,4 ]
Tyagi, Mayank [5 ]
机构
[1] Louisiana State Univ, Ctr Computat & Technol, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA
[2] Louisiana State Univ, Dept Math, Ctr Computat & Technol, Baton Rouge, LA 70808 USA
[3] Leibniz Univ Hannover, Inst Angew Math, Welfengarten 1, D-30167 Hannover, Germany
[4] Univ Paris Saclay, LMT Lab Mec & Technol, ENS Paris Saclay, F-91190 Gif Sur Yvette, France
[5] Louisiana State Univ, Craft & Hawkins Dept Petr Engn, Ctr Computat & Technol, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA
关键词
Peridynamics; Phase-field; Validation studies; FINITE-ELEMENT APPROXIMATION; DYNAMIC CRACK-PROPAGATION; STATE-BASED PERIDYNAMICS; GENERAL DEGRADATION FUNCTION; BOND-BASED PERIDYNAMICS; GRADIENT DAMAGE MODELS; BRITTLE-FRACTURE; POROUS-MEDIA; ABAQUS IMPLEMENTATION; MOLECULAR-DYNAMICS;
D O I
10.1007/s00466-022-02147-0
中图分类号
O1 [数学];
学科分类号
0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
Computational modeling of the initiation and propagation of complex fracture is central to the discipline of engineering fracture mechanics. This review focuses on two promising approaches: phase-field (PF) and peridynamic (PD) models applied to this class of problems. The basic concepts consisting of constitutive models, failure criteria, discretization schemes, and numerical analysis are briefly summarized for both models. Validation against experimental data is essential for all computational methods to demonstrate predictive accuracy. To that end, the Sandia Fracture Challenge and similar experimental data sets where both models could be benchmarked against are showcased. Emphasis is made to converge on common metrics for the evaluation of these two fracture modeling approaches. Both PD and PF models are assessed in terms of their computational effort and predictive capabilities, with their relative advantages and challenges are summarized.
引用
收藏
页码:1259 / 1293
页数:35
相关论文
共 526 条
[81]   Damage and fatigue described by a fractional derivative model [J].
Caputo, Michele ;
Fabrizio, Mauro .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS, 2015, 293 :400-408
[82]   A framework to model the fatigue behavior of brittle materials based on a variational phase-field approach [J].
Carrara, P. ;
Ambati, M. ;
Alessi, R. ;
De Lorenzis, L. .
COMPUTER METHODS IN APPLIED MECHANICS AND ENGINEERING, 2020, 361
[83]   NUMERICAL STABILITY OF DYNAMIC RELAXATION ANALYSIS OF NONLINEAR STRUCTURES [J].
CASSELL, AC ;
HOBBS, RE .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING, 1976, 10 (06) :1407-1410
[84]   A Comparative Review of XFEM, Mixed FEM and Phase-Field Models for Quasi-brittle Cracking [J].
Cervera, M. ;
Barbat, G. B. ;
Chiumenti, M. ;
Wu, J. -Y. .
ARCHIVES OF COMPUTATIONAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING, 2022, 29 (02) :1009-1083
[85]   A phase-field approach to model multi-axial and microstructure dependent fracture in nuclear grade graphite [J].
Chakraborty, Pritam ;
Sabharwall, Piyush ;
Carroll, Mark C. .
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS, 2016, 475 :200-208
[86]   When and how do cracks propagate? [J].
Chambolle, A. ;
Francfort, G. A. ;
Marigo, J. -J. .
JOURNAL OF THE MECHANICS AND PHYSICS OF SOLIDS, 2009, 57 (09) :1614-1622
[87]   Crack initiation in brittle materials [J].
Chambolle, Antonin ;
Giacomini, Alessandro ;
Ponsiglione, Marcello .
ARCHIVE FOR RATIONAL MECHANICS AND ANALYSIS, 2008, 188 (02) :309-349
[88]   A boundary element method for two dimensional linear elastic fracture analysis [J].
Chang, CC ;
Mear, ME .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRACTURE, 1996, 74 (03) :219-251
[89]   Phase-field modelling of cohesive fracture [J].
Chen, Lin ;
de Borst, Rene .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICS A-SOLIDS, 2021, 90
[90]   Peridynamics-Based Fracture Animation for Elastoplastic Solids [J].
Chen, Wei ;
Zhu, Fei ;
Zhao, Jing ;
Li, Sheng ;
Wang, Guoping .
COMPUTER GRAPHICS FORUM, 2018, 37 (01) :112-124