TY - JOUR
T1 - Phase field and gradient enhanced damage models for quasi-brittle failure
T2 - a numerical comparative study
AU - Mandal, Tushar K.
AU - Nguyen, Vinh Phu
AU - Heidarpour, Amin
PY - 2019/2/15
Y1 - 2019/2/15
N2 - This paper presents a comparative study of the gradient-enhanced damage models (GED) of Peerlings et al. (1996), Vandoren and Simone (2018) and the phase field damage/fracture model (PFM) of Wu (2017), Wu and Nguyen (2018) within the context of the computational modeling of the fracture of quasi-brittle materials (concrete, ceramic, rock, ice, etc.). Being continuous damage/fracture models, these two models enjoy the simplicity of modeling the fracture process on a fixed finite element mesh. The similarities and differences of the two models are discussed by examining governing equations and conducting numerical simulations of some mode I and mixed-mode fracture benchmark tests. The most worthy findings are: (i) both classes of models can handle the initiation and propagation of cohesive cracks, (ii) they are totally different–PFM behaves like a cohesive zone model (a sub-class of fracture mechanics) when the length scale is sufficiently small and the response is insensitive to this length scale whereas GED is a non-local damage model (a sub-class of continuum damage mechanics) of which response obviously depends on the length scale.
AB - This paper presents a comparative study of the gradient-enhanced damage models (GED) of Peerlings et al. (1996), Vandoren and Simone (2018) and the phase field damage/fracture model (PFM) of Wu (2017), Wu and Nguyen (2018) within the context of the computational modeling of the fracture of quasi-brittle materials (concrete, ceramic, rock, ice, etc.). Being continuous damage/fracture models, these two models enjoy the simplicity of modeling the fracture process on a fixed finite element mesh. The similarities and differences of the two models are discussed by examining governing equations and conducting numerical simulations of some mode I and mixed-mode fracture benchmark tests. The most worthy findings are: (i) both classes of models can handle the initiation and propagation of cohesive cracks, (ii) they are totally different–PFM behaves like a cohesive zone model (a sub-class of fracture mechanics) when the length scale is sufficiently small and the response is insensitive to this length scale whereas GED is a non-local damage model (a sub-class of continuum damage mechanics) of which response obviously depends on the length scale.
KW - Concrete
KW - Gradient enhanced damage model
KW - Phase-field theory
KW - Quasi-brittle fracture
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058693561&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.12.013
DO - 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.12.013
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85058693561
SN - 0013-7944
VL - 207
SP - 48
EP - 67
JO - Engineering Fracture Mechanics
JF - Engineering Fracture Mechanics
ER -