Classical variational phase-field models cannot predict fracture nucleation
Authors:
Oscar Lopez-Pamies,
John E. Dolbow,
Gilles A. Francfort,
Christopher J. Larsen
Abstract:
Notwithstanding the evidence against them, classical variational phase-field models continue to be used and pursued in an attempt to describe fracture nucleation in elastic brittle materials. In this context, the main objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the existing evidence against such a class of models as descriptors of fracture nucleation. To that end, a review is f…
▽ More
Notwithstanding the evidence against them, classical variational phase-field models continue to be used and pursued in an attempt to describe fracture nucleation in elastic brittle materials. In this context, the main objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the existing evidence against such a class of models as descriptors of fracture nucleation. To that end, a review is first given of the plethora of experimental observations of fracture nucleation in nominally elastic brittle materials under quasi-static loading conditions, as well as of classical variational phase-field models, without and with energy splits. These models are then confronted with the experimental observations. The conclusion is that they cannot possibly describe fracture nucleation in general. This because classical variational phase-field models cannot account for material strength as an independent macroscopic material property. The last part of the paper includes a brief summary of a class of phase-field models that can describe fracture nucleation. It also provides a discussion of how pervasively material strength has been overlooked in the analysis of fracture at large, as well as an outlook into the modeling of fracture nucleation beyond the basic setting of elastic brittle materials.
△ Less
Submitted 30 August, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
A two-dimensional labile aether through homogenization
Authors:
Marc Briane,
Gilles A. Francfort
Abstract:
Homogenization in linear elliptic problems usually assumes coercivity of the accompanying Dirichlet form. In linear elasticity, coercivity is not ensured through mere (strong) ellipticity so that the usual estimates that render homogenization meaningful break down unless stronger assumptions, like very strong ellipticity, are put into place. Here, we demonstrate that a L^2-type homogenization pro…
▽ More
Homogenization in linear elliptic problems usually assumes coercivity of the accompanying Dirichlet form. In linear elasticity, coercivity is not ensured through mere (strong) ellipticity so that the usual estimates that render homogenization meaningful break down unless stronger assumptions, like very strong ellipticity, are put into place. Here, we demonstrate that a L^2-type homogenization process can still be performed, very strong ellipticity notwithstanding, for a specific two-phase two dimensional problem whose significance derives from prior work establishing that one can lose strong ellipticity in such a setting, provided that homogenization turns out to be meaningful.A striking consequence is that, in an elasto-dynamic setting, some two-phase homogenized laminate may support plane wave propagation in the direction of lamination on a bounded domain with Dirichlet boundary conditions, a possibility which does not exist for the associated two-phase microstructure at a fixed scale. Also, that material blocks longitudinal waves in the direction of lamination, thereby acting as a two-dimensional aether in the sense of e.g. Cauchy.
△ Less
Submitted 23 February, 2018; v1 submitted 30 January, 2018;
originally announced February 2018.
