Assessment of four strain energy decomposition methods for phase field fracture models using quasi-static and dynamic benchmark cases

Shuaifang Zhang, Wen Jiang, Michael R. Tonks
{"title":"Assessment of four strain energy decomposition methods for phase field fracture models using quasi-static and dynamic benchmark cases","authors":"Shuaifang Zhang,&nbsp;Wen Jiang,&nbsp;Michael R. Tonks","doi":"10.1186/s41313-021-00037-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Strain energy decomposition methods in phase field fracture models separate strain energy that contributes to fracture from that which does not. However, various decomposition methods have been proposed in the literature, and it can be difficult to determine an appropriate method for a given problem. The goal of this work is to facilitate the choice of strain decomposition method by assessing the performance of three existing methods (spectral decomposition of the stress or the strain and deviatoric decomposition of the strain) and one new method (deviatoric decomposition of the stress) with several benchmark problems. In each benchmark problem, we compare the performance of the four methods using both qualitative and quantitative metrics. In the first benchmark, we compare the predicted mechanical behavior of cracked material. We then use four quasi-static benchmark cases: a single edge notched tension test, a single edge notched shear test, a three-point bending test, and a L-shaped panel test. Finally, we use two dynamic benchmark cases: a dynamic tensile fracture test and a dynamic shear fracture test. All four methods perform well in tension, the two spectral methods perform better in compression and with mixed mode (though the stress spectral method performs the best), and all the methods show minor issues in at least one of the shear cases. In general, whether the strain or the stress is decomposed does not have a significant impact on the predicted behavior.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":693,"journal":{"name":"Materials Theory","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://materialstheory.springeropen.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s41313-021-00037-1","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Materials Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41313-021-00037-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Strain energy decomposition methods in phase field fracture models separate strain energy that contributes to fracture from that which does not. However, various decomposition methods have been proposed in the literature, and it can be difficult to determine an appropriate method for a given problem. The goal of this work is to facilitate the choice of strain decomposition method by assessing the performance of three existing methods (spectral decomposition of the stress or the strain and deviatoric decomposition of the strain) and one new method (deviatoric decomposition of the stress) with several benchmark problems. In each benchmark problem, we compare the performance of the four methods using both qualitative and quantitative metrics. In the first benchmark, we compare the predicted mechanical behavior of cracked material. We then use four quasi-static benchmark cases: a single edge notched tension test, a single edge notched shear test, a three-point bending test, and a L-shaped panel test. Finally, we use two dynamic benchmark cases: a dynamic tensile fracture test and a dynamic shear fracture test. All four methods perform well in tension, the two spectral methods perform better in compression and with mixed mode (though the stress spectral method performs the best), and all the methods show minor issues in at least one of the shear cases. In general, whether the strain or the stress is decomposed does not have a significant impact on the predicted behavior.

采用准静态和动态基准案例评价相场断裂模型的四种应变能分解方法
相场断裂模型中的应变能分解方法将导致断裂的应变能与不导致断裂的应变能分开。然而,文献中已经提出了各种各样的分解方法,对于给定的问题很难确定一种合适的方法。本工作的目的是通过评估现有的三种方法(应力或应变的谱分解和应变的偏差分解)和一种新的方法(应力的偏差分解)的性能,并结合几个基准问题,促进应变分解方法的选择。在每个基准问题中,我们使用定性和定量指标比较了四种方法的性能。在第一个基准测试中,我们比较了预测的开裂材料的力学行为。然后,我们使用了四个准静态基准案例:单边缘缺口拉伸测试,单边缘缺口剪切测试,三点弯曲测试和l形板测试。最后,我们使用了两个动态基准案例:动态拉伸断裂试验和动态剪切断裂试验。所有四种方法在拉伸情况下都表现良好,两种谱法在压缩和混合模式下表现更好(尽管应力谱法表现最好),并且所有方法在至少一种剪切情况下都表现出较小的问题。一般来说,是否分解应变或应力对预测行为没有显著影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of Materials Science: Materials Theory publishes all areas of theoretical materials science and related computational methods. The scope covers mechanical, physical and chemical problems in metals and alloys, ceramics, polymers, functional and biological materials at all scales and addresses the structure, synthesis and properties of materials. Proposing novel theoretical concepts, models, and/or mathematical and computational formalisms to advance state-of-the-art technology is critical for submission to the Journal of Materials Science: Materials Theory. The journal highly encourages contributions focusing on data-driven research, materials informatics, and the integration of theory and data analysis as new ways to predict, design, and conceptualize materials behavior.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信