Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1259-1293 |
| Number of pages | 35 |
| Journal | Computational mechanics |
| Volume | 69 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 18 Feb 2022 |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2022 |
Abstract
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.
Keywords
- Peridynamics, Phase-field, Validation studies
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Engineering(all)
- Computational Mechanics
- Engineering(all)
- Ocean Engineering
- Engineering(all)
- Mechanical Engineering
- Computer Science(all)
- Computational Theory and Mathematics
- Mathematics(all)
- Computational Mathematics
- Mathematics(all)
- Applied Mathematics
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Computational mechanics, Vol. 69, No. 6, 06.2022, p. 1259-1293.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Research › peer review
}
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 -