TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative review of peridynamics and phase-field models for engineering fracture mechanics

AU - Diehl, Patrick

AU - Lipton, Robert

AU - Wick, Thomas

AU - Tyagi, Mayank

N1 - Funding Information: This work was partly funded by DTIC Contract FA8075-14-D-0002/0007 and the Center of Computation & Technology at Louisiana State University. Authors also thank Dr. Stewart Silling for his comments on the manuscript prior to the submission and the participants of the Workshop on Experimental and Computational Fracture Mechanics and of the Banff International Research Station: Hydraulic Fracturing: Modeling, Simulation, and Experiment for the discussion on peridynamics and phase-field models which provided several ideas for the challenging applications. In addition, we thank Haim Waismann, John Dolbow, Florin Bobaru, Steve Sun, Jinhyun Choo, and Masoud Behzadinasab for their remarks on the preprint. This material is partially based upon work supported by the U. S. Army Research Laboratory and the U. S. Army Research Office under Contract/Grant Number W911NF1610456. TW was partially funded by the the German Research Foundation, Priority Program 1748 (DFG SPP 1748) under the grant number WI4367/2-1 (project number 392587580).

PY - 2022/6

Y1 - 2022/6

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Peridynamics

KW - Phase-field

KW - Validation studies

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124896463&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00466-022-02147-0

DO - 10.1007/s00466-022-02147-0

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85124896463

VL - 69

SP - 1259

EP - 1293

JO - Computational mechanics

JF - Computational mechanics

SN - 0178-7675

IS - 6

ER -