International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

A variational approach to the phase field modeling of brittle and ductile

fracture
P. Rodriguez a,b,∗, J. Ulloa c,d, C. Samaniego e, E. Samaniego f,d
a
Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010151, Ecuador
b
Institut für Kontinuumsmechanik, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover 30167, Germany
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven B-3001, Belgium
d
Departamento de Recursos Hídricos y Ciencias Ambientales, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010151, Ecuador
e
Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC-CNS), Barcelona 08034, Spain
f
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010151, Ecuador

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The modeling of the post-critical behavior of materials is still a scientific challenge. This is especially true when
Phase fields dealing with materials that undergo complex behavior, in which several mechanisms are combined. This physical
Energetic complexity is reflected in the mathematics and the numerics of this kind of problems. In this work, we study the
Ductile
modeling of brittle and ductile fracture. We adopt regularized kinematics based on a phase field description
Fracture
of the fracture topology. In order to ensure mathematical soundness, we use a rigorous variational framework
Variational
Gradient for dissipative rate-independent materials. This framework allows to introduce several dissipative mechanisms
Damage in a straightforward and clear manner. For instance, gradients for both damage and plasticity are introduced.
Plasticity This implies the existence of two internal length scales that control the degree of ductility of the macroscopic
fracture mechanism. A finite element discretization allows to test the possibilities of the proposed model to
describe different fracture behaviors with several benchmark numerical experiments. In addition, the variational
framework naturally leads to a robust staggered algorithm. Despite the simplicity of the numerical solution,
different types of fracture processes can be described as particular cases: quasi-brittle, elasto-plastic brittle, and
ductile.

1. Introduction
The accurate description of crack initiation and propagation is a
topic of both great scientific interest and paramount importance in engi-
neering applications, which has challenging mathematical and numer-
ical implications. Tackling this problem from a continuum mechanics
point of view requires modeling the loss of material strength, and can be
approached by introducing strain-softening behavior in damage models.
This leads to strain localization, from where a crack nucleates and begins
to propagate. Thus, some form of representation of the high gradients of
the displacement field, which signal broken/unbroken material states,
is also required to describe post-failure material behavior after the onset
of strain localization. For this purpose, the correct description of crack
kinematics and topology is crucial. These descriptions can be divided
into two approaches: i) sharp crack discontinuities and ii) regularized
kinematics. Regularization based on phase fields merges damage me-
chanics with a diffuse crack approximation of the sharp crack topology,
which avoids the need to explicitly model discontinuities in the displace-
ment field and provides advantages from a numerical perspective.
As mentioned before, softening behavior triggers strain localization,
which results in ill-posed problems and mesh-dependent solutions, gen-
erating non-physical material responses in classical local models [1]. In
fact, strain localization has consistently been a challenging subject in
computational mechanics [2]. For this purpose, discontinuities in the
displacement field have been introduced to describe sharp crack kine-
matics. Well known examples of this strategy are the strong discontinu-
ity approach (SDA) and the extended finite element method (XFEM). Re-
garding the SDA, building upon [3], Oliver et al. [2] proposed a contin-
uum strong discontinuity approach to describe failure in geomaterials.
In turn, [4] is an instance of the extension from the infinitesimal-strain-
based formulation of Simo et al. [3] to finite strains. Furthermore, the
SDA was used to describe strain localization in granular materials from
a multi-scale perspective in [5].

∗
Corresponding author at: Universidad de Cuenca, Av. 12 de abril y Av. Loja s/n, Cuenca, Azuay 010151, Ecuador.
E-mail addresses: patricio.rodriguezc@ucuenca.ec (P. Rodriguez), jacintoisrael.ulloa@kuleuven.be (J. Ulloa), cristobal.samaniego@bsc.es (C. Samaniego),
esteban.samaniego@ucuenca.edu.ec (E. Samaniego).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.05.009
Received 5 December 2017; Received in revised form 5 April 2018; Accepted 2 May 2018
Available online 3 May 2018
0020-7403/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Rodriguez et al.
Starting with the work of Moës et al. [6], XFEM has been used to
model arbitrary crack paths without remeshing. For instance, Moës and
Belytschko [7] used XFEM to describe crack growth with a cohesive law.
Moreover, Samaniego and Belytschko [8] applied J2 plasticity to model
shear bands, representing discontinuities in the displacement field in a
way similar to Mode II fracture. For a comparison with an alternative
method simulating a sharp discontinuity, the reader is referred to [9].
Although sharp crack modeling has furnished noteworthy results,
the inability to naturally describe nucleation and the need of an ini-
tial crack are major limitations. In addition, the numerical treatment
of crack propagation requires some form of tracking of the crack path,
which can be very cumbersome for complex crack topologies. Tackling
these difficulties, phase field regularized models have shown to be a
competitive alternative [10], which can be implemented in a straight-
forward manner, and have proved to naturally describe complex ma-
terial responses. In these formulations, a continuous variable, namely,
the phase field variable, is used to describe a smooth transition between
the broken/unbroken interfaces. In the context of fracture, this variable
is represented by the scalar-valued damage quantity, whose gradient is
introduced in the formulation. Thus, a clear link can be established be-
tween phase field fracture and the concept of gradient damage [11].
We refer to [12] for a comparison between gradient-enhanced damage
models and the phase field approach to fracture.
Several studies that apply gradient-based phase field regularizations
for rate-independent systems can be related to the work of Francfort and
Marigo [13], where a variational formulation is introduced to overcome
the limitations of the Griffith model for brittle fracture, particularly, the
need for a priori constrains on the crack topology. This formulation re-
sults in an energy functional that is reminiscent of the potential of Mum-
ford and Shah [14] for image segmentation. Later, in an effort to avoid
the numerical difficulties imposed by the free discontinuity problem of
Francfort and Marigo [13], Bourdin et al. [15] proposed an energy func-
tional based on a phase field regularization, where a damage gradient
term was introduced (although it was not originally viewed as such).
This regularization has been shown to converge to the Griffith fracture
model through Γ convergence [16], and is inspired by the work of Am-
brosio and Tortorelli [17] for regularization of the Mumford and Shah
potential. The reader is referred to [18,19] for overviews on the regu-
larized formulation of brittle fracture.
Following this framework, Alessi et al. [20,21] developed an impor-
tant contribution by incorporating perfect plasticity into this formula-
tion, accounting for cohesive cracks. The resulting model couples gra-
dient damage to perfect plasticity. This work is further developed in
[22,23]. Furthermore, Ulloa et al. [24] added new features to the work
of Alessi et al. [20,21] by considering hardening effects and gradient
plasticity, resulting in a gradient damage and gradient plasticity coupled
model. However, the formulation was limited to the one-dimensional
case.
It is worth mentioning that the variational approach used in these
studies follows a rigorous energetic formulation, formalized by Mielke
[25]. As discussed in [26], the energetic formulation presents several
advantages with respect to classical formulations. For instance, the evo-
lution laws of the state variables are naturally derived using calculus of
variations and three physical principles: the stability condition, the en-
ergy balance and the irreversibility condition. Moreover, the definition
of a global energy functional leads to a robust numerical implementa-
tion that can be solved in a staggered scheme.
In relation to the aforementioned studies, other contributions to the
phase field modeling of fracture must be highlighted. In [10], and fur-
ther developed in [27], an alternative phase field formulation is pro-
posed based on thermodynamic arguments and the principle of virtual
power. Similar to what was done in [28] for fracture with unilateral
contact, an attractive feature was incorporated in this formulation: the
definition of a realistic anisotropic storage energy, obtained by defining
the bulk energy density as an additive decomposition of positive (due to
tension) and negative (due to compression) contributions. In this setting,
503
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517
damage is allowed to act on the positive component only, disallowing
fracture due to compression. This formulation was extended to the dy-
namic case in [29]. Moreover, ductile behavior has been accounted for
in several works. Ambati et al. [30] combines local J2 hardening plastic-
ity with gradient damage and considers anisotropic behavior. Further-
more, in [31,32], finite deformations were considered. Finally, Miehe
et al. [33], 34] extended these formulations to gradient plasticity com-
bined with gradient damage, where large strains were also considered.
A very interesting way of dealing with the modeling of fracture is
the one proposed in [35,36], which has a similar flavor to the phase
field approach. The main idea is to use the so-called screened-Poisson
equation to regularize the kinematics. This requires the introduction
of a field reminiscent of a non-local strain. As a consequence, a clear
relationship can be observed between the non-local and the gradient
approaches to fracture.
For the formulation proposed here, the work of Marigo et al. [19] is
especially relevant. In this reference, a general and rigorous framework
to deal with brittle fracture by means of gradient damage models is
explained. One important feature of this framework is that the models
considered are related to the work of Bourdin et al. [15]. Moreover, the
possibility of having a damage threshold is considered, which is which
is generally not present in most studies using phase fields to model frac-
ture. This option is adopted in [20,21,23] and included in a ductile frac-
ture model. The formulation is able to capture a variety of macroscopic
fracture behaviors. In [24], within the same framework, gradient plastic-
ity and hardening effects were also considered for the one-dimensional
case. There, the existence of an internal length scale for plasticity was
introduced, in the spirit of Miehe et al. [33]. In this work, we extend this
one-dimensional approach to a multidimensional setting. Moreover, to
ensure realistic material responses, anisotropic damaging behavior is
considered. The possibilities of the formulation are tested by means of
a rather simple two-dimensional implementation, which is, neverthe-
less, capable of describing complex crack topologies. To illustrate its
flexibility, the proposed methodology is tested with several benchmark
simulations for different types of fracture, ranging from brittle to duc-
tile.
The contributions of this study can be summarized as follows:
• The extension of [24] to multiple dimensions.
• A model that incorporates hardening, gradient damage, gradient
plasticity, as well as an energy decomposition to discriminate trac-
tion from compression states, combining features of several state-
of-the-art formulations. This allows for a general model capable of
capturing quasi-brittle, elasto-plastic brittle, and ductile fracture.
• A finite element discretization that allows to test the formulation for
different fracture behaviors in multiple dimensions.
2. Formulation
We adopt the energetic framework for the description of the behav-
ior of deformable solids in the rate-independent case [25]. In this work,
we assume evolutions undergoing small strains, with the exception of
certain localized regions. Our goal is a description of fracture that in-
cludes the possibility to capture elastic, brittle and ductile behavior.
Thus, three main material responses are included: elasticity, damage and
plasticity. As a consequence, ours is fundamentally a three-field formu-
lation, considering displacements u, the equivalent plastic strain p, and
the damage variable 𝛼 as primary variables. As mentioned above, within
an energetic framework for rate-independent problems [25], we build
upon the variational plastic-damage model of Alessi [20] to propose an
energy functional that includes conservative and dissipative effects. One
of the interesting characteristics of this approach is that, in the spirit of
generalized standard materials [37], one can write this functional as the
addition of an energetic and a dissipative term:
(𝒖, 𝑝, 𝛼) = (𝒖, 𝑝, 𝛼) + (𝑝, 𝛼). (1)
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

Table 1 Table 2
Global primary variables. Constitutive state variables.

Primary variable Field Type State variable Field Type

u Displacement field Vector Observable 𝝐 Total strain Second order tensor Observable
p Equivalent plastic strain Scalar Internal 𝝐p Plastic strain Second order tensor Internal
𝛼 Damage Scalar Internal p Equivalent plastic strain Scalar Internal
𝛼 Damage Scalar Internal
∇p Plastic gradient Vector Internal
∇𝛼 Damage gradient Vector Internal
In contrast to formulations that deal with incremental potentials,
this functional is assumed valid throughout the entire loading process.
To define (1), the form of the dissipated work (𝑝, 𝛼) is crucial [23]. ∂Ωσ
Specifically, it is defined as a state function given a specific choice of
constitutive functions. However, the formulation is still very flexible and
can include several constitutive effects, as shown in [24]. Moreover,
once irreversibility is imposed on the equivalent plastic strain and the
damage variable, the minimization of this potential with respect to u,
p, and 𝛼 separately entails the fulfilment of the momentum balance, the
yield criterion, and the damage criterion, respectively. The weak form ∂Ωu
of each of these equations is naturally obtained, which can, in turn, be t̄(t)
discretized by means of the finite element method. ū(t) Ω
The ingredients to build this energetic formulation are described in
the following sections.
Fig. 1. Diffuse ductile crack description: plastic strain localization (blue) and
2.1. Primary and state variables phase field crack representation (red). (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
Consider a solid Ω with Neumann boundary 𝜕Ω𝜎 and Dirichlet article.)
boundary 𝜕Ωu . Let u(x, t) be the value of the displacement of a point
x ∈ Ω at time t. We do not distinguish between the original and the de- coupled effects, from where brittle fracture can be recovered as a special
formed configuration of the body because the small strain hypothesis is case. Moreover, the plastic internal length allows for an explicit control
adopted in this work. As a consequence, the second order total strain of the plastic localization, which is related the degree of ductility in the
tensor is defined as follows: fracture process. Fig. 1 shows the crack description within the general
1( )
problem setting.
𝝐 = 𝝐(𝒖) = ∇ 𝒖 + ∇ 𝒖T ,
2
where we have dropped the explicit dependence of the involved fields 2.2. Constitutive functions
on x and t for the sake of notational simplicity.
Furthermore, we assume the additive decomposition of the total Following [20,24], some constitutive functions are defined. For our
strain: purposes, they should include softening behavior and coupled responses.
The initial elastic energy density, corresponding to a sound material
𝝐 = 𝝐e + 𝝐p , (2) state, reads
where 𝝐 e and 𝝐 p are the elastic and plastic strain tensors, respectively. ( ) 1 e 1 1 ( )2 ( )
Ψe0 𝝐 e = 𝝐 ∶ 𝝈 0 = 𝝐 e ∶ 𝐂0 ∶ 𝝐 e = 𝜆tr 𝝐 e + 𝜇 𝝐 e ∶ 𝝐 e , (4)
In the framework of J2 plasticity, we define the equivalent plastic strain 2 2 2
p by means of where 𝝈 0 is the undamaged Cauchy stress tensor. The symbols 𝜆 and 𝜇
√ are the Lamé parameters, and C0 is the undamaged elastic fourth order
2
𝑝̇ = ∥ 𝝐̇ p ∥ . (3) tensor, given, for an isotropic elastic material, by
3
𝐂0 = 𝜆𝟏 ⊗ 𝟏 + 2𝜇𝑰 ,
In this work, gradient plasticity is considered instead of classical lo-
cal plasticity. Thus, the plastic gradient ∇p is explicitly introduced in where 1 is the second order identity tensor and I is the fourth order
the formulation with its corresponding internal length scale 𝜂 p . symmetric identity tensor.
For the phase field description of the crack topology, the internal Following [10,27,28,30], differentiated damaging behavior is con-
scalar-valued damage variable 𝛼 is characterized by sidered by decomposing the elastic energy density into positive (due to
tension) and negative (due to compression) energies. Damage is allowed
𝛼 ∈ [0, 1] with 𝛼̇ ≥ 0, to act on the positive part of the elastic energy only, disallowing fail-
which signals the damaged/undamaged points in the solid. A value of ure due to compression. For this purpose, as done in [30], the elastic
𝛼 = 0 corresponds to an undamaged material state, while 𝛼 = 1 defines energy density is expressed in terms of the volumetric and deviatoric
a totally broken material state. In the formulation presented here, regu- components, and the positive and negative contributions are expressed
larization is attained by the use of the gradient of the damage variable as
∇𝛼, which allows for the formation of a diffuse crack whose width is + 1 − 1
Ψe0 (𝝐 e ) = 𝐾⟨tr (𝝐 e )⟩2+ + 𝜇(𝝐 edev ∶ 𝝐 edev ) and Ψe0 (𝝐 e ) = 𝐾⟨tr (𝝐 e )⟩2− ,
finite and depends on the damage internal length scale 𝜂 d . 2 2
The above-mentioned variables are fundamental in the multi-field (5)
model. As summarized in Table 1, the primary global variables for our 1( )
where the ramp function ⟨tr (𝝐 e )⟩± = tr (𝝐 e ) ± |tr (𝝐 e )| has been used,
model are u, 𝛼, and p. On the other hand, the constitutive state variables, 2
𝐾 = 𝜆 + 23 𝜇 is the bulk modulus and 𝝐 edev denotes the deviatoric part of
which define the material behavior of each point within the solid, are
the elastic strain tensor. Anisotropic material degradation can now be
𝝐, 𝝐 p , 𝛼, ∇𝛼, p, and ∇p (Table 2).
described by a stored energy density of the form
The considered variables result in a competition between plastic and
+ −
damage dissipation. This gives rise to a regularized ductile fracture with Ψe (𝝐 e , 𝛼) = 𝑓 (𝛼)Ψe0 (𝝐 e ) + Ψe0 (𝝐 e ),

504
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

Table 3
Constitutive functions.

Constitutive functions Properties

f(𝛼) Elastic energy degradation f′(𝛼) < 0 𝑓 (1) = 0

𝜎 p (𝛼) Plastic yield stress degradation 𝜎 p (𝛼) > 0 𝜎p′ (𝛼) < 0 𝜎p (1) = 0
w(𝛼) Local damage dissipation 𝑤(0) = 0 w′(𝛼) > 0 w(1) < ∞
H(𝛼) Hardening modulus degradation H(𝛼) > 0 H′(𝛼) < 0 𝐻(1) = 0
𝜂 p (𝛼) Plastic internal length scale degradation 𝜂 p (𝛼) ∈ [0, 1] 𝜂p′ (𝛼) ≤ 0 𝜂p (1) = 0

2.3. Variational approach

2.3.1. Energy functional

Adopting the theory of generalized standard materials [37,38], the
variational approach to fracture begins with the description of basic
energetic quantities. The free energy Ψ is defined locally as the compo-
sition of the elastic energy density Ψe and the plastic energy density Ψp ,
which is given by

1
Ψp (𝑝, 𝛼) = 𝐻 (𝛼)𝑝2 . (7)
2

Using Eqs. (4) and (7), the global stored energy

= Ψ𝑑Ω
∫Ω

is defined as
Fig. 2. General scheme for Experiment I and Experiment II.
( e e )
(𝝐 e (𝒖, 𝝐 p (𝑝)), 𝑝, 𝛼) = Ψ (𝝐 ) + Ψp (𝑝, 𝛼) 𝑑Ω
∫Ω
where f(𝛼) is a decreasing function of 𝛼, i.e., the so-called degradation
(1 e 1 )
function. Using the Heaviside step function , the Cauchy stress tensor = 𝝐 ∶ 𝝈(𝝐 e , 𝛼) + 𝐻(𝛼)𝑝2 𝑑Ω. (8)
can now be decomposed as follows: ∫Ω 2 2
( )
𝜕Ψe ( )
𝝈(𝝐 e , 𝛼) = = 𝐾 tr ( 𝝐 e
) tr ( 𝝐 e
) 𝟏 + 2 𝜇𝝐 e
𝑓 (𝛼) The dissipative nature of the internal variables is characterized
𝜕𝝐e dev
⏟⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏟⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏟ by the definition of the dissipation potential [23]. Considering rate-
𝝈+ independence, the dissipation potential is a first-order homogeneous
0
( ) convex function of the rates of internal variables, namely damage and
+ 𝐾 − tr (𝝐 e ) tr (𝝐 e )𝟏 . (6) plasticity, and can be expressed as an additive decomposition of plastic
⏟⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏟⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏟
𝝈0
− and damage dissipations

The dissipation due to local damage evolution is defined by a ( )

1
positive-valued function w(𝛼), which represents the dissipated energy Φp = 𝜎p (𝛼)𝑝̇ + 𝜕𝑡 𝜂 (𝛼)2 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝 and
2 p
of a volume element throughout the damaging process. As described in ( )
1
[19], this dissipation is set to increase to a critical value Φd = 𝑤′ (𝛼)𝛼̇ + 𝑝𝜎p′ (𝛼)𝛼̇ + 𝜕𝑡 𝜂d2 ∇𝛼 ⋅ ∇𝛼 ,
2
𝑤(1) = 𝑤0 < ∞.
where the terms corresponding to the plastic strain gradient and the
Coupled damage-plasticity responses are triggered by the definition
damage gradient have been considered, with their corresponding inter-
of the plastic yield stress as a function of damage, which reads nal length scales. The total dissipation potential is then given by
𝜎p (𝛼) with 𝜎p′ (𝛼) ≤ 0 ∀ 𝛼 ∈ [0, 1] and 𝜎p (1) = 0.
In addition, the plastic internal length scale 𝜂 p is allowed to depend Φ(𝑝, 𝛼, 𝑝̇ , 𝛼,
̇ ∇𝑝̇ , ∇𝛼)
̇ = Φp + Φd
( ) ( ) (9)
on the damage variable, which is given by 1 1
= 𝜎p (𝛼)𝑝̇ + 𝜕𝑡 𝜂p (𝛼)2 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝 + 𝑤′ (𝛼)𝛼̇ + 𝑝𝜎p′ (𝛼)𝛼̇ + 𝜕𝑡 𝜂d2 ∇𝛼 ⋅ ∇𝛼 .
2 2
𝜂p (𝛼) ∈ [0, 1] with 𝜂p (𝛼) ≤ 0 ∀ 𝛼 ∈ [0, 1).
Finally, coupled hardening effects are considered by defining the With Eq. (9), assuming smooth evolutions, the dissipated work 
hardening modulus H as a function of damage: follows:
𝐻 (𝛼) with 𝐻 ′ (𝛼) ≤ 0 ∀ 𝛼 ∈ [0, 1) and 𝐻(1) = 0.
( )
1
The use of gradient damage coupled to gradient plasticity results in (𝑝, 𝛼) = 𝜎p (𝛼)𝑝 + 𝜂p (𝛼)2 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝 𝑑Ω
∫Ω 2
a model where the localization of both damage and plastic strains can ( )
be explicitly controlled by means of the damage internal length scale 1
+ 𝑤(𝛼) + 𝜂d2 ∇𝛼 ⋅ ∇𝛼 𝑑Ω. (10)
𝜂 d and the plastic internal length scale 𝜂 p , which may depend on the ∫Ω 2
damage level. This adds flexibility to the formulation, allowing for the
description of a wide range of material responses. Table 3 summarizes In this work, no external forces are considered (although their inclu-
the constitutive functions considered for the model. sion would be straightforward), and displacements are imposed on 𝜕Ωu .

505
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

Fig. 3. Brittle crack evolution and deformed specimen for Experiment I. Close up of the square notch showing crack initiation.

Thus, the total energy functional is defined using Eqs. (10) and (8) as

(𝒖, 𝑝, 𝛼) = (𝒖, 𝑝, 𝛼) + (𝑝, 𝛼)

( )
1
= Ψe (𝝐 e (𝒖, 𝝐 p (𝑝)), 𝛼) + 𝐻(𝛼)𝑝2 𝑑Ω
∫Ω 2
( )
1
+ 𝜎 (𝛼)𝑝 + 𝜂p (𝛼) ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝 𝑑Ω
2
∫Ω p 2
( )
1 2
+ 𝑤(𝛼) + 𝜂d ∇𝛼 ⋅ ∇𝛼 𝑑Ω. (11)
∫Ω 2

2.3.2. Energetic formulation

The building blocks of the variational framework adopted for our
model are the following principles:

1. Stability condition,
2. Energy balance,
Fig. 4. Force-displacement curve for Experiment I and comparison with the 3. Irreversibility condition.
force-displacement curve obtained in [27].
The irreversibility condition is imposed on the damage variable to
disallow material regeneration. It is applied numerically by simply con-
sidering the damage value corresponding to the previous load step as the
minimum admissible level of damage for a given position in the body as
follows:
{
𝛼𝑛 (𝒙), if 𝛼𝑛 (𝒙) ≥ 𝛼𝑛−1 (𝒙)
𝛼𝑛 (𝒙) = (12)
𝛼𝑛−1 (𝒙), if 𝛼𝑛 (𝒙) < 𝛼𝑛−1 (𝒙),
where 𝛼 n (x) is the damage value for the nth time step in point x ∈ Ω.

Stability condition. By taking variations of the total energy functional

(11), and using the total strain decomposition of Eq. (2), the first order
stability condition yields

𝑑 |
(𝒖 + ℎ𝒖̃ , 𝑝 + ℎ𝑝̃, 𝛼 + ℎ𝛼)̃ ||
𝑑ℎ |ℎ=0
[
= 𝝈(𝝐 , 𝛼) ∶ 𝝐(𝒖̃ )
e
∫Ω
Fig. 5. Force-displacement curves for 3125, 12, 500 and 50, 000 elements in Ex- ( √ )
periment I. The parameter h denotes the characteristic size of the coarsest mesh. 3
+ − 𝝈(𝝐 e , 𝛼) ∶ 𝒏̂ + 𝜎p (𝛼) + 𝐻(𝛼)𝑝 𝑝̃ + 𝜂p (𝛼)2 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝̃
2

506
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

Fig. 6. Brittle crack evolution and deformed specimen in Experiment II.

• For 𝒖̃ = 𝟎 and 𝛼̃ = 0:
( √ )
( 3 )
− 𝝈(𝝐 e , 𝛼) ∶ 𝒏̂ + 𝜎p (𝛼) + 𝐻(𝛼)𝑝 𝑝̃ + 𝜂p (𝛼)2 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝̃ 𝑑Ω ≥ 0.
∫Ω 2
For J2 plasticity, this expression leads to
( √ )
( 3 )
‖𝒔(𝛼)‖ − 𝜎p (𝛼) − 𝐻(𝛼)𝑝 𝑝̃ − 𝜂p (𝛼)2 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝̃ 𝑑Ω ≤ 0, (14)
∫Ω 2

which is the weak form of the plasticity yield criterion, where ‖s(𝛼)‖
is the deviatoric part of the stress tensor, which is collinear to the
direction of the plastic flow. After integrating the last term by parts,
the local form of the plastic yield criterion can be expressed as
√
2
𝑓p (𝒖, 𝑝, 𝛼) = ‖𝒔(𝛼)‖ − (𝜎 (𝛼) + 𝐻(𝛼)𝑝 − 𝜂p (𝛼)2 ∇ ⋅ ∇𝑝) ≤ 0 in Ω,
3 p
(15)

which can be considered an extended version of the well-known von

Mises yield criterion.
Fig. 7. Close up of the crack path in Experiment II.
• For 𝒖̃ = 𝟎 and 𝑝̃ = 0:
[(
1 ′ 1
𝑓 (𝛼)𝝈 + ∶ (𝝐 − 𝝐 p ) + 𝐻 ′ (𝛼)𝑝2 + 𝜎p′ (𝛼)𝑝
( ) ∫Ω 2 0 2
1 ′ 1 ]
+ 𝑓 (𝛼)𝝈 +0 ∶ (𝝐 − 𝝐 p ) + 𝐻 ′ (𝛼)𝑝2 + 𝜎p′ (𝛼)𝑝 + 𝑤′ (𝛼) + 𝜂p (𝛼)𝜂p′ (𝛼)∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝 𝛼̃ )
2 2
] + 𝑤 (𝛼) + 𝜂p (𝛼)𝜂p (𝛼)∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝 𝛼̃ + 𝜂d2 ∇𝛼 ⋅ ∇𝛼̃ 𝑑Ω ≥ 0,
′ ′
(16)
+𝜂d2 ∇𝛼 ⋅ ∇𝛼̃ 𝑑Ω ≥ 0
obtaining the weak form of the damage criterion. Again, the last
where the decomposed stress tensor in Eq. (6) was used, and 𝒏̂ is a unit term is integrated by parts and the gradient-dependent damage yield
tensor in the direction of the plastic flow. From this expression, the fol- criterion is recovered in local form:
lowing results stem out.
1 1
𝑓d (𝒖, 𝑝, 𝛼) = − 𝑓 ′ (𝛼)𝝈 +
0
∶ (𝝐 − 𝝐 p ) − 𝜎p′ (𝛼)𝑝 − 𝐻 ′ (𝛼)𝑝2
• For 𝑝̃ = 𝛼̃ = 0: 2 2
− 𝑤′ (𝛼) − 𝜂p (𝛼)𝜂p′ (𝛼)∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝 + 𝜂d2 ∇ ⋅ ∇𝛼 ≤ 0 in Ω. (17)
𝝈(𝝐 e , 𝛼) ∶ 𝝐(𝒖̃ )𝑑Ω = 0, (13)
∫Ω
Energy balance. The energy balance represents the need for the total en-
which is the weak form of the equilibrium equation in the absence ergy to remain constant as the state variables evolve. Following a proce-
of external loads. dure analogous to the treatment of the stability condition, this condition

507
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

we briefly summarize the link between our adopted parameters and as-
sumptions and the ones used in other formulations. For a detailed com-
parative review of the existing phase field models coupled to plastic-
ity including parameters, constitutive assumptions and numerical ex-
amples, we refer the reader to the recent work of Alessi et al. [39].
The dissipation due to local damage is defined by two alternatives
[19]:
{
𝑤0 𝛼 model with an elastic stage
𝑤(𝛼) = (19)
𝑤0 𝛼 2 model without an elastic stage.

The model that owns an elastic stage has been consistently applied
by Alessi et al. [20–23], where studies of several material responses have
been conducted. On the other hand, the model without an elastic stage
has been used by Ambati et al. [30], 32] and Borden et al. [29], 31]. The
critical damage dissipation w0 represents the energy dissipated during
a complete damage process for a volume element, and is related to the
Fig. 8. Force-displacement curve in Experiment II and comparison with the
fracture toughness Gc used in other formulations by [19]
force-displacement curve obtained in [29].
1√ 𝑙𝑤 1√ 𝑤
𝐺𝑐 = 2𝑙𝑑 2𝑤0 𝑤(𝛽)𝑑𝛽 = 𝑐𝑤 √ 0 with 𝑐𝑤 = 4 0
.
∫0 2 ∫0 2𝑤(𝛽)

For the two models of (19), the fracture toughness can be expressed
as
{ √
4 2
𝑤 𝑙 model with an elastic stage
𝐺𝑐 = √3 0 d
2𝑤 0 𝑙 d model without an elastic stage,

where the internal length is denoted by ld and can be expressed in terms

of 𝜂 d as
𝜂
𝑙d = √ d .
𝑤0

In [39], the more general internal length l is used to compare the

different formulations in unified notation, which is related to 𝜂 d by
√
𝜂d = 𝑙 2𝑤0 .

From the previous expressions and from the energetic definitions

(10) and (11), note that 𝜂 d has the units of energy1/2 length, while the
commonly used ld and l have the units of length.
From the discussion above, it is natural to raise questions about the
physical meaning of the different parameters. Among these questions,
the relationship between Gc , w0 and ld is especially interesting. In our
formulation, w0 constitutes an energy per unit volume value, viewed as
Fig. 9. General scheme for Experiment III and Experiment IV. an energetic threshold for damage. Accepting that the fracture energy
Gc is also a material parameter (energy dissipated per unit fractured
leads to area), then ld can be uniquely determined. This characteristic length
[ (√ ) has been related to the aggregate size in quasi-brittle materials in [40].
3
− 𝝈(𝝐 e , 𝛼) ∶ 𝝐(𝒖̇ ) + 𝝈(𝝐 e , 𝛼) ∶ 𝒏̂ − 𝜎p (𝛼) − 𝐻(𝛼)𝑝 + 𝜂p (𝛼)2 ∇ ⋅ ∇𝑝 𝑝̇ However, it is interesting that one can consider the limit as ld goes to
∫Ω 2
( zero without falling into the spurious case of zero dissipation, generating
1 ′ 1 a sequence of elliptic functionals that approximate a free discontinuity
+ 𝑓 (𝛼)(𝝐 − 𝝐 p ) ∶ 𝝈 +0 − 𝐻 ′ (𝛼)𝑝2 − 𝜎p′ (𝛼)𝑝
−
2 2
) ] problem [41]. It is illustrative to think that, even in the case of the
− 𝑤 (𝛼) − 𝜂p (𝛼)𝜂p (𝛼)∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝 + 𝜂d2 ∇ ⋅ ∇𝛼 𝛼̇ 𝑑Ω = 0.
′ ′
(18) absence of localization limiters, introducing a smallness parameter in
the structure of the strain field, as done for example in [42], leads, in
The following cases are analyzed. the limit, to an energy functional that contains both a bulk term and a
• For 𝒖̇ = 𝟎 and 𝛼̇ = 0, and using Eq. (15), the plasticity consistency surface term. A rigorous presentation of this procedure using Gamma-
conditions are obtained: convergence can be found in [43].
For the elastic energy degradation, we define a function of damage
𝑓p (𝒖, 𝑝, 𝛼)𝑝̇ = 0. that has been widely used in previous studies:
• For 𝒖̇ = 𝟎 and 𝑝̇ = 0, and using Eq. (17), the damage consistency con-
𝑓 (𝛼) = (1 − 𝛼)2 , (20)
ditions are obtained:
𝑓d (𝒖, 𝑝, 𝛼)𝛼̇ = 0. which is allowed to act on the tensile component of the elastic energy
to account for anisotropic behavior. The main advantage of using a
2.4. Constitutive assumptions quadratic degradation function is that the damage criterion is a linear
partial differential equation, as will be clear in the following section.
This section is devoted to the selection of constitutive assumptions Advantages of using a cubic degradation function were reported by Bor-
for the constitutive functions of Table 3. Of course, most of the defini- den et al. [31]; however, we adopt the quadratic function to maintain
tions are not new and have been applied in the recent literature. Here, our claim of a simple implementation.

508
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

Fig. 10. Elasto-plastic brittle crack evolution, plastic strains and deformed specimen in Experiment III.

The initial plastic yield strength 𝜎p0 is allowed to vary as a function The initial hardening modulus H0 also adopts the same degradation
of damage, as done in [20–24,33]: law, which was done in [24,33]:

𝜎p (𝛼) = 𝜎p0 (1 − 𝛼)2 . 𝐻0 (1 − 𝛼)2 .

This function allows for coupling between plasticity and damage: the
plastic (damage) yield criterion depends of the level of damage (plastic-
ity). In [20–23], functions of different orders were allowed, resulting in
different material responses.
Finally, the initial plastic internal length scale 𝜂p0 is allowed to de-
crease with damage, reducing the plastic localization zone. This effect
is triggered by
𝜂p (𝛼) = 𝜂p0 (1 − 𝛼),

509
P. Rodriguez et al.
Fig. 11. Ductile crack evolution, plastic strains and deformed specimen in Experiment IV with 𝑤0 = 62.34 and 𝜂d = 2.501.
which results in a degradation similar to [33] for gradient plasticity.
The constitutive assumptions described here are defined as functions
of material constants. Essentially, their objective is to represent mate-
rial degradation as damage evolves, which has energetic consequences.
Therefore, the constitutive equations can be equivalently expressed in
terms of their corresponding energy contributions, as done in [39] for
several models.
510
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517
2.5. Alternate minimization
With the definition of the main ingredients of the variational ap-
proach, the numerical solution follows. For this purpose, a staggered
alternate minimization algorithm is applied, which naturally stems out
from the energetic principles. This procedure takes advantage of the fact
that although the global energy is non-convex, it is convex with respect
to u, p and 𝛼 individually [20]. Introducing the constitutive assumptions
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

Fig. 12. Ductile crack evolution, plastic strains and deformed specimen in Experiment IV with 𝑤0 = 72.73 and 𝜂d = 2.315.

of the previous section into Eq. (11), the global energy functional reads • Minimization with respect to the displacement field:

( ) 𝑑 | ( )
1 (𝒖 + ℎ𝒖̃ , 𝑝, 𝛼)|| = (1 − 𝛼)2 𝝈 + + 𝝈− ∶ 𝝐(𝒖̃ )𝑑Ω = 0. (22)
(𝒖, 𝑝, 𝛼) = (1 − 𝛼)2 (𝝐 − 𝝐 p ) ∶ 𝝈 + + ( 𝝐 − 𝝐 p
) ∶ 𝝈 −
𝑑Ω 𝑑ℎ |ℎ=0 ∫ 0 0
∫Ω 2 0 0 Ω
( )
1 ( • Minimization with respect to the equivalent plastic strain:
+ (1 − 𝛼)2 𝜎p0 𝑝 + 𝐻0 𝑝2 + 𝜂p2 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝 𝑑Ω + 𝑤 𝛼
∫Ω 2 0 ∫Ω 0
) [√
1 |
+ 𝜂d2 ∇𝛼 ⋅ ∇𝛼 𝑑Ω. (21) 𝑑 3( )
2 (𝒖, 𝑝 + ℎ𝑝̃, 𝛼)|| = (1 − 𝛼)2 𝝈 + + 𝝈− ∶ 𝒏̂ 𝑝̃
𝑑ℎ |ℎ=0 ∫Ω 2 0 0
]
( )
The alternate minimization follows. + (1 − 𝛼)2 (−𝜎p0 − 𝐻0 𝑝)𝑝̃ − 𝜂p2 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝̃ 𝑑Ω. (23)
0

511
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

Fig. 13. Ductile crack evolution, plastic strains and deformed specimen in Experiment IV with 𝑤0 = 79.35 and 𝜂d = 2.217.

The overall framework used in the alternate minimization relies on If small pseudo-time steps are considered, we assume that 𝒏̂ is con-
the existence of a total energy, which is representative of the ma- stant during the interval Δ𝑡 = 𝑡𝑛+1 − 𝑡𝑛 , which allows for the follow-
terial evolution. However, the numerical treatment of Eq. (23) re- ing expression:
quires a temporal incremental scheme. Consider the evolution of the
state of the solid in discrete pseudo-times [𝑡1 , 𝑡2 , … , 𝑡𝑛 , 𝑡𝑛+1 , … , 𝑇 ] for √
a process held in time [0, T]. We assume that all variables at time tn 3
Δ𝝐 p = Δ𝑝̂
𝒏𝑡𝑛+1 , (24)
are known, and consider the current time step as 𝑡𝑛+1 . The increment 2
of the plastic strain tensor can be expressed as
𝑡𝑛+1
√
p
Δ𝝐 =
3
𝑝̇ ̂
𝒏𝑑𝜏. where Δ𝑝 = 𝑝𝑡𝑛+1 − 𝑝𝑡𝑛 is the incremental equivalent plastic strain.
∫𝑡𝑛 2 Using Eqs. (23) and (24), and relying on ideas from the well-known
radial return mapping algorithm in local J2 plasticity, one can show

512
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

that 3.1. Numerical solution

[(√ ( √ ) ) ] 3.1.1. Finite element approximation

3 ‖ tr ‖ 3 ‖
(1 − 𝛼)2 ‖𝒔0 ‖ − Δ𝑝‖𝐂0 ∶ 𝒏̂ ‖
‖ − 𝜎p0 − 𝐻0 𝑝 𝑝̃ − 𝜂p2 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝̃ 𝑑Ω = 0, The displacement field is approximated inside a four-node quadrilat-
∫Ω 2 ‖ ‖ 2 0
eral element by
(25) [ x]
𝑢
𝒖ℎ =
which can be regarded as a weak form of the radial return mapping 𝑢y
⎡𝑢1 ⎤
x
given a non-plastic trial stress 𝒔tr , where Δ𝑝‖ ‖
‖𝐂0 ∶ 𝒏̂ ‖ is the plastic
0 ⎢ y⎥
corrector. In addition, due to the deviatoric characteristics of the ⎢𝑢1 ⎥
unit tensor 𝒏̂ , ⎢ x⎥
⎢𝑢2 ⎥
[ ]⎢ y ⎥
𝑁1 0 𝑁2 0 𝑁3 0 𝑁4 0 ⎢𝑢2 ⎥
𝐂0 ∶ 𝒏̂ = 2𝜇 𝒏̂ . = ⎢ ⎥
0 𝑁1 0 𝑁2 0 𝑁3 0 𝑁4 ⎢𝑢x3 ⎥
⎢ y⎥
Replacing this in Eq. (25), recalling that Δ𝑝 = 𝑝 − 𝑝𝑡𝑛 (the subscript ⎢𝑢3 ⎥
𝑡𝑛+1 at the current state is omitted) and using the fact that ‖𝒏̂ ‖ = 1 ⎢ x⎥
⎢𝑢4 ⎥
yields ⎢ y⎥
⎣𝑢4 ⎦
𝑣
[(√ ( ) ] = 𝐍el 𝒖el ,
)
3 ‖ tr ‖ √ √
(1 − 𝛼)2 ‖𝒔 ‖ − 6𝜇𝑝 + 6𝜇𝑝𝑡𝑛 − 𝜎p0 − 𝐻0 𝑝 𝑝̃ − 𝜂p2 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝̃ 𝑑Ω = 0. where the subscripts and superscripts inside the matrices indicate node
∫Ω 2 ‖ 0‖ 0
number and direction, respectively, and the subscript el denotes an el-
(26)
ement vector or matrix. 𝐍𝑣𝑒𝑙 is the element vector-field shape function
matrix, which contains the shape functions Ni for nodes i ∈ [1, 2, 3, 4].
• Minimization with respect to the damage field: Prior to the definition of the strain field approximation, it is worth
mentioning that while the plane strain condition is enforced over the
[ ( total strain field, plasticity is here modeled using the three-dimensional
𝑑 | (
̃ ||
(𝒖, 𝑝, 𝛼 + ℎ𝛼) = (1 − 𝛼) 𝝐 − 𝝐 p ) ∶ 𝝈 + + 𝐻 0 𝑝 2 + 2 𝜎p 0 𝑝 form of the J2 plasticity theory. Thus, a strain component in the direction
𝑑ℎ |ℎ=0 ∫Ω 0
) ] perpendicular to the load plane is included in the strain vector in order
+ 𝜂p0 ∇𝑝 ⋅ ∇𝑝 𝛼̃ − 𝑤0 𝛼̃ − 𝜂d2 ∇𝛼 ⋅ ∇𝛼̃ 𝑑Ω = 0. to account for the development of plastic and elastic strains in the z
direction. The total strain field in an element is given by the vector
(27)

⎡ 𝜖x ⎤
⎢ y⎥
Note that 𝑤(𝛼) = 𝑤0 𝛼 was used to build the functional of Eq. (21), 𝜖
𝝐 = ⎢ ⎥
ℎ
resulting in Eqs. (22), (26) and (27), and will also be used in the numer- ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢𝛾 xy ⎥
ical solution that follows for illustration purposes. However, the for- ⎣ ⎦
mulation using the other option is very similar and equally straight- ⎡ 𝑢1 ⎤
x
𝜕𝑁1 𝜕𝑁2 𝜕𝑁3 𝜕𝑁4 ⎢ y⎥
forward. In fact, different choices for the constitutive functions could ⎡ 0 0 0 0 ⎤ ⎢𝑢 1 ⎥
⎢ 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 ⎥ ⎢ 𝑢x ⎥
be easily adopted. If higher order terms and/or other nonlinear func- ⎢ 0 𝜕𝑁1 𝜕𝑁2 𝜕𝑁3 𝜕𝑁4 ⎥ y2
0 0 0 ⎢𝑢 ⎥
tions are considered, the resulting equations become nonlinear. How- = ⎢ 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 ⎥ ⎢ 2x ⎥
ever, the proposed implementation that is described in the following
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢𝑢y3 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 𝜕𝑁1 𝜕𝑁1 𝜕𝑁2 𝜕𝑁2 𝜕𝑁3 𝜕𝑁3 𝜕𝑁4 𝜕𝑁4 ⎥ ⎢𝑢3 ⎥
section could be used with no major complications by incorporating ⎣ 𝜕𝑦 ⎢ x⎥
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥 ⎦ ⎢𝑢y4 ⎥
Newton–Raphson-like procedures into the solution. ⎣𝑢 4 ⎦
= 𝐁v𝑒𝑙 𝒖𝑒𝑙 , (28)

where 𝛾 xy is the shear strain. The third row of 𝐁vel , consisting of zeros, is
required by the plane strain condition.
3. Numerical solution and implementation The scalar-valued equivalent plastic strain and damage fields are ap-
proximated in an element by
This section is devoted to the two-dimensional implementation,
which is carried out under plain strain conditions in a finite element ⎡𝑝 1 ⎤
code written in MATLAB. The purpose of this section is to present a [ ] ⎢𝑝 2 ⎥
𝑝ℎ = 𝑁1 𝑁2 𝑁3 𝑁4 ⎢ ⎥ = 𝐍s𝑒𝑙 𝐩𝑒𝑙 ,
straightforward implementation procedure, starting with the numerical ⎢𝑝 3 ⎥
solution of Eqs. (22), (26) and (27). For the sake of simplicity, four-node ⎢𝑝 ⎥
⎣ 4⎦
quadrilateral finite elements are used, although the use of higher order
⎡𝛼1 ⎤
elements would be equally straightforward.
[ ] ⎢𝛼2 ⎥
The overall procedure can be summarized as follows: Eqs. (22), 𝛼 ℎ = 𝑁1 𝑁2 𝑁3 𝑁4 ⎢ ⎥ = 𝐍s𝑒𝑙 𝜶 𝑒𝑙 , (29)
(26) and (27) are first written in discrete form by projection over finite ⎢𝛼3 ⎥
⎢𝛼 ⎥
elements. The alternate solution follows. First, the elastic equilibrium ⎣ 4⎦
equation assigns the trial elastic state to the entire domain. The plas-
where 𝐍𝑠𝑒𝑙 are the element scalar-field shape function matrices. Finally,
tic state is then computed using the updated displacements. Finally, the
the plastic and damage gradient approximations are expressed as
damage field is obtained using the updated displacements and plastic
strains. This process is repeated in an iterative procedure to approxi- ⎡ 𝜕𝑁1 𝜕𝑁2 𝜕𝑁3 𝜕𝑁4 ⎤ ⎡𝑝 ⎤
1
mate the three primary fields at a given pseudo-time. The discrete ver- ⎢ 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 ⎥ ⎢𝑝 ⎥
sions are then solved at the following pseudo-time, entering a temporal ∇𝑝ℎ = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 2 ⎥ = 𝐁s 𝐩 ,
𝑒𝑙 𝑒𝑙
⎢ 𝜕𝑁 𝜕𝑁2 𝜕𝑁3 𝜕𝑁4 ⎥ ⎢𝑝3 ⎥
incremental scheme. ⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢𝑝 ⎥
⎣ 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 ⎦ ⎣ 4 ⎦
513
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

⎡ 𝜕𝑁1 𝜕𝑁2 𝜕𝑁3 𝜕𝑁4 ⎤ ⎡𝛼 ⎤ Using the definitions in (28) and (36), and after rearranging, the
1
⎢ 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 ⎥ ⎢𝛼 ⎥ discrete version of Eq. (22) can be expressed globally as
∇𝛼 ℎ = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 2 ⎥ = 𝐁s 𝜶 .
𝑒𝑙 𝑒𝑙 (30)
⎢ 𝜕𝑁 𝜕𝑁2 𝜕𝑁3 𝜕𝑁4 ⎥ ⎢𝛼3 ⎥
⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢𝛼 ⎥ 𝐁v T 𝐃𝐁v 𝑑Ω𝐮 = 𝐁v T 𝐃𝑑Ω𝝐 p , (37)
⎣ 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 ⎦ ⎣ 4 ⎦ ∫Ω ∫Ω
from where the global displacement vector u can be readily obtained.
3.1.2. Discrete forms The global equivalent plastic strain vector p is directly obtained from
The discrete versions of the evolution equations consist of systems the discrete version of Eq. (26), which is expressed as
of linear equations, from where the solution to each primary variable [ ]
can be easily obtained. Before presenting the discrete forms, we must 𝐍s T (1 − 𝐍s 𝜶)2 (3𝜇 + 𝐻0 )𝐍s + 𝐁s T 𝜂p2 𝐁s 𝐩𝑑Ω
introduce the definitions that follow for the two-dimensional solution. ∫Ω 0

The elastic and plastic strain field vectors are expressed as ( √ )

= 𝐍T (1 − 𝐍s 𝜶)2 3∕2‖ ‖
‖𝒔0 ‖ + 3𝜇𝐍𝐩𝑡𝑛 − 𝜎p0 𝑑Ω. (38)
∫Ω
⎡ 𝜖e ⎤ ⎡ 𝜖p ⎤
x x

⎢ y ⎥ ⎢ y ⎥ The corresponding plastic strain field is updated in each Gauss point

⎢ 𝜖e ⎥ ⎢ 𝜖p ⎥ by means of Eq. (24).
𝝐 = ⎢ ⎥,
e
𝝐 = ⎢ ⎥.
p
(31)
⎢ 𝜖e ⎥ ⎢ 𝜖p ⎥
z z
Finally, the global damage field vector 𝜶 is obtained from the discrete
⎢ xy ⎥ ⎢ xy ⎥ version of Eq. (27), which is given by
⎣𝛾e ⎦ ⎣𝛾p ⎦
[ (( )T )
The volumetric strain is defined as 𝐍s T 𝐁 v 𝐮 − 𝝐 p 𝝈 + + 𝐻0 (𝐍s 𝐩)2 + 2𝜎p0 𝐍s 𝐩 + 𝐁s T 𝐩𝜂p0 𝐁s 𝐩 𝐍s
∫Ω ]
0
1( x y ) + 𝐁s T 𝜂d2 𝐁s 𝜶𝑑Ω
𝜖v = 𝜖 + 𝜖e + 𝜖ez , (32) (39)
3 e (( ) )
T
= 𝐍T 𝐁v 𝐮 − 𝝐 p 𝝈 + + 𝐻0 (𝐍s 𝐩)2 + 2𝜎𝑝0 𝐍s 𝐩 + 𝐁s T 𝐩𝜂p2 𝐁s 𝐩 − 𝑤0 𝑑Ω,
and the deviatoric part of the strain tensor is contained in the vector ∫Ω 0 0

⎡𝜖e𝑥 − 𝜖v ⎤ where 𝝈 + is expressed in vector form as

⎢𝜖 y − 𝜖 ⎥ 0
⎢ e v⎥
⎡1⎤
𝝐 edev = ⎢ 𝜖 z − 𝜖v ⎥ . (33)
⎢ 𝛾
e
𝑥𝑦 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
1
⎢ e ⎥ 𝝈+ = 𝐾(𝜖v )tr (𝝐 )⎢ ⎥ + 2𝜇𝝐 edev .
e
(40)
⎣ 2 ⎦ 0 ⎢1⎥
⎢0⎥
For plane strain, the elastic tensor C0 is reduced to the constitutive ⎣ ⎦
matrix D0 , which is given for isotropic behavior by
3.2. Implementation details
⎡𝜆 + 2 𝜇 𝜆 𝜆 0⎤
⎢ ⎥
𝜆 𝜆 + 2𝜇 𝜆 0⎥ The implementation of the proposed model is summarized in this
𝐃0 = ⎢ ,
⎢ 𝜆 𝜆 𝜆 + 2𝜇 0⎥ section. At this point, we must emphasize that our goal in this paper is
⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥
𝜇⎦ not computational efficiency, but to present a clear and straightforward
⎣
implementation (in the spirit of Alberty et al. [44]) of a rather complex
and the undamaged stress vector reads problem.
The overall architecture of the proposed implementation consists of
⎡𝜎0 ⎤
x
the following modules:
⎢ y⎥
⎢𝜎 ⎥ ( )
𝝈 0 = ⎢ 0 ⎥ = 𝐃0 𝝐 − 𝝐 p . (34) • Preprocessing: generating the two-dimensional mesh. Details on
⎢𝜎0 ⎥
z
mesh generation are outside the scope of this paper.
⎢ xy ⎥
⎣𝜏0 ⎦ • Data input: reading data files and defining material constants, con-
vergence factors and imposed displacements.
Note that the third row and third column of the constitutive matrix are • Initialization: initializing convergence vectors and storage matrices.
included due to the requirement of the plastic strains. For the anisotropic • One module for each primary variable: obtaining the global vectors
model, the constitutive matrix is expressed in terms of the bulk modulus [u, p, 𝜶] by means of three separate finite element problems.
and is decomposed as follows: • Main module: sequentially calling modules for each primary variable
into an iterative procedure for each load step.
⎡1 1 1 0⎤ • Postprocessing: displaying the primary fields in an illustrative fash-
[ ]⎢1 1 1 0⎥
⎥
𝐃 = 𝐾 (𝜖v )(1 − 𝐍 𝜶) + (−𝜖v ) ⎢
𝑠 2 ion.
⎢1 1 1 0⎥
⎢0 0 0 0⎥⎦
⎣ 3.2.1. Data input
⎡ 3
2
− 31 − 13 0⎤ Data files containing the information of the mesh are read in ascii
⎢− 1 2
− 13 0 ⎥⎥ format. The file containing the node coordinates has the format
+ 2𝜇(1 − 𝐍𝑠 𝜶)2 ⎢ 31 3 , (35)
⎢− − 31 2
0⎥ node-number x-coordinate y-coordinate.
⎢ 3 3
1⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 2
⎦ The file containing the localization matrix for four-node quadrilateral elements has
the format
where  is the Heaviside step function. Then, the damaged stress can element-number node-1 node-2 node-3 node-4.

be obtained from
⎡ 𝜎x ⎤ 3.2.2. Modules for primary variables
⎢ y⎥
𝜎 The nodal vectors corresponding to the global primary fields, u, p
𝝈 = ⎢ z ⎥ = 𝐃(𝝐 − 𝝐 p ). (36)
⎢𝜎 ⎥ and 𝜶, are obtained in separate modules: elast2D, plast2D, and dam2D,
⎢𝜏 xy ⎥ respectively. All of them share the same general structure. Given that
⎣ ⎦

514
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

Table 4
Parameters used in the numerical simulations.

Experiments I and II Experiment III Experiment IV

Behavior Brittle Elasto-plastic brittle Ductile

K [MPa] 121,030 71,659.46 71,659.46
𝜈 0.227 0.331 0.331
H0 [MPa] – 250 250
𝜎p0 [MPa] – 345 345
1
𝜂p0 [(MPa mm) 2 mm] – 42 4
w0 [MPa mm] 75.94 130.922 62.34
72.73
79.35
1
𝜂 d [(MPa mm) 2 mm] 0.052 0.374 2.501
2.315
2.217

Eqs. (37) and (39) are linear, the subroutines consist of standard finite are schematized in Fig. 2, and the parameters are shown in Table 4
element procedures. (37) and (39) have the general form: under Experiments I and II. This example was used in [27,29] to simulate
brittle fracture by means of their phase field formulations. It is worth
𝐊𝐱 = 𝐛,
highlighting that in our formulation, the quasi-brittle fracture captured
where x is a vector containing the nodal values of a primary variable. by these experiments is obtained as a special case of the general model,
Therefore, the solution consists on determining the local coefficient ma- when the plastic yield strength is nowhere reached in the solid. Thus, it
trix Kel and the local right hand side bel . Then, the global coefficient suffices to set a high value of 𝜎𝑝0 to recover brittle behavior.
matrix K and the global right hand side b are assembled, from where
the solution is obtained after the imposition of boundary conditions.
Experiment I. The tension case is considered first, with 𝑢x = 0 and 𝑢y ≥ 0
(see Fig. 2). Vertical displacements are imposed on the top boundary
3.2.3. Main module
from 0 to 6 × 3 mm, with increments of 1 × 4 mm, while the bottom
The numerical setting results in an incremental staggered algorithm,
boundary is fixed in both directions.
which is described in Algorithm 1. For ndesp incremental displacements
The crack propagation and the deformed specimen are shown in
Fig. 3. A single crack branch is initiated and propagates horizontally.
Algorithm 1 General routine. As expected in brittle fracture, the specimen experiences a catastrophic-
1: for 𝑛 = 1 to 𝑛desp do like failure mode, where the crack is initiated at the tip of the notch and
2: Data input and initialization propagates horizontally after a few load steps. The first two figures of
3: k=0 Fig. 3 show a close up of crack initiation, which precedes the rapid prop-
4: while agation of the third figure. This is reflected in the force-displacement
(||𝐮𝑘𝑡 − 𝐮𝑘𝑡 −1 ||2 > 𝑡𝑢 or ||𝐩𝑘𝑡 − 𝐩𝑘𝑡 −1 ||2 > 𝑡𝑝 or ||𝜶 𝑘𝑡 − curve shown in Fig. 4, where an abrupt drop in load-carrying capacity is
𝑛+1 𝑛+1 𝑛+1 𝑛+1 𝑛+1
𝜶 𝑘𝑡 −1 ||∞
> 𝑡𝑑 ) and 𝑘 ≤ 𝑘max do observed. The simulation was performed using 3401 bilinear quadrilat-
𝑛+1
5: k=k+1 eral elements. A comparison with the results of Miehe et al. [27], where
6: Obtain 𝐮𝑘𝑡 from module elast2D a uniform mesh of 20,000 linear triangles was used, is also presented in
𝑛+1
Fig. 4. Here, the effect of the damage threshold of our model results in
7: Obtain 𝐩𝑘𝑛 from module plast2D a linear elastic phase, whereas the curve obtained in [27] moves away
from the elastic response throughout the entire loading process. Simula-
8: Obtain 𝜶 𝑘𝑡 from module dam2D tions with different numbers of elements were also performed in order
𝑛+1
9: end while to show that the model does not presents any spurious tendency. This
10: end for is presented in Fig. 5, where maximum tensile stress shows very little
variation as the mesh size decreases.
imposed on 𝜕Ωu , [𝐮𝑡𝑛+1 , 𝐩𝑡𝑛+1 , 𝜶 𝑡𝑛+1 ] are found in an iterative procedure
using three independent tolerances tu , tp and td , for a maximum number Experiment II. We subject the same square specimen with a notch from
of iterations kmax . Experiment I to shear loading, with 𝑢x ≥ 0 and 𝑢y = 0 (Fig. 2). Incremen-
tal horizontal displacements are imposed on the top boundary, while
4. Numerical simulations the bottom boundary is fixed. Displacements are imposed from 0 to
12.7 × 3 mm, with increments of 1 × 5 mm. The lateral boundaries are
This section is devoted to numerical examples that show the capabil- fixed in the vertical direction. The parameters are shown in Table 4 un-
ities of the proposed formulation. We start by an example dealing with der Experiments I and II. For the simulation, a mesh of 3532 bilinear
brittle fracture to show the capability of our implementation to cope quadrilateral elements was used.
with such a phenomenon as a particular case, when no plastic effects The crack propagation and the deformed specimen shown in
are present. The following experiments tackle the description of speci- Fig. 6 are a direct result of the decomposition into positive (due to ten-
mens undergoing fracture with plastic strains, considering elasto-plastic sion) and negative (due to compression) energies in Eq. (5). A single
brittle fracture (as denoted by Ambati et al. [30]) and ductile fracture. crack branch is initiated and propagates through regions of intense pos-
Monotonic displacements are imposed in all the numerical experiments. itive volumetric stress. A closer look to the damaged zone is presented in
Fig. 7, where independence of the crack path and the orientation of the
4.1. Brittle fracture in a notched specimen mesh can be observed. Along with the force-displacement curve shown
in Fig. 8, these results resemble the results of Miehe et al. [27] and Bor-
A square specimen with a horizontal notch in the middle is adopted den et al. [29]. The former used 30,000 linear triangles, while the latter
for experiments involving both tension and shear loading. The problems applied cubic T-splines with 5587 cubic basis functions. A comparison

515
P. Rodriguez et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517

with the force-displacement curve obtained in [29] has also been in-
cluded in Fig. 8.

4.2. Asymmetrically notched specimen subject to tension

The main purpose of this example is to compare the possibilities of

our model to capture fracture with plastic strains, with [30] as a bench-
mark formulation. We are able to capture the main characteristics of
the failure process, the fracture path and the dissipated energy. First,
we consider an elasto-plastic brittle case with the purpose of revisiting
the results of the model proposed by Duda et al. [45]. Then, a ductile
fracture case is studied to analyze the potential of our model to cope
with ductile behavior.
An important characteristic of our approach is that we separately
handle the initial plastic internal length scale and the damage inter-
nal length scale. Thus, we are able to control the width of localization
Fig. 14. Force-displacement curves for Experiment IV with varying rations
bands, which is related to the degree of ductility of the crack. In that as- 𝜂d ∕ 𝜂p 0 .
pect, our formulation follows the spirit of Miehe et al. [34] in the sense
that damage regions propagate within plastified regions, in contrast to
formulations that use local plasticity, such as [23,30]. In addition, the
ability to obtain both elasto-plastic brittle and ductile fracture, depend-
ing on the choice of parameters, means that different failure modes can
be recovered. In this sense, a dominant Mode I fracture process char-
acterizes an elasto-plastic brittle response, while a dominant Mode II
fracture characterizes ductile behavior.
The experiments performed here are taken from [30]. The scheme
of the problem setting is illustrated in Fig. 9. Vertical displacements are
applied on the top boundary, while the bottom boundary remains fixed.
We used a mesh of 3222 bilinear quadrilateral elements, while Ambati
et al. [30] used a finer mesh of 10,800 bilinear quadrilateral elements.

Experiment III. Vertical displacements are imposed on the top boundary

from 0 to 4 mm, with increments of 0.01 mm. The parameter choices for
Experiment III shown in Table 4 result in elasto-plastic brittle fracture in
the asymmetrically notched specimen. As expected, the crack is initiated
at the notches, as shown in Fig. 10. In addition, the localization of plastic
strains presents the expected path, following a trajectory of about 45°.
However, the crack begins to propagate in a relatively horizontal path as
the plastic strains become more diffuse. This was previously reported by
Ambati et al. [30], where the authors also recover the elasto-plasto brit-
tle case of Duda et al. [45]. However, in our case, the crack propagates
within the plastified region due to the plastic internal length scale.
The crack propagation observed in Fig. 10 shows a dominant Mode
I fracture type, with a tensile opening rupture. Given the diffuse nature
of the plastic strains, this behavior is modulated by the concentration of
volumetric stresses rather than plastic strains. Nevertheless, at the latest
stages (imposed displacement of 3 mm), the two crack branches begin
to converge inside the plastified region.
Experiment IV. Vertical displacements are imposed on the top bound-
ary from 0 to 1.25 mm, with increments of 0.001 mm. The parameters
of Table 4 corresponding to Experiment IV result in ductile fracture of
the notched specimen. In contrast to Experiment III, the deformed spec-
imens in Figs. 11–13 show a dominant Mode II fracture type, which is
evidenced by an in-plane rupture. In this case, the localization of plas-
tic strains has a strong influence on the crack path. The crack propa-
gation, equivalent plastic strains and deformed specimens presented in
Figs. 11–13 show an increasing degree of ductility. Specifically, as the
ratio 𝜂d ∕𝜂p0 decreases, the competing terms in the energy functional fa-
vor a more ductile response. These results are clearly reflected in the
corresponding force-displacement curves in Fig. 14, where a greater ac-
cumulation of plastic strains can be observed for lower values of 𝜂 d . It
is important to note that in this experiment, 𝜂 d is allowed to decrease as
w0 increases. Recalling the definitions of Section 2.4, both parameters
are directly related to the phase field internal length ld , which has the
√
units of length, by 𝑙d = 𝜂d ∕ 𝑤0 . Therefore, the effect of varying both
Fig. 15. Force-displacement curves for 3125, 12, 500 and 50, 000 elements in
Experiment IV with 𝜂d ∕𝜂p0 = 0.625. The parameter h denotes the characteristic
size of the coarsest mesh.
parameters in this form is essentially equivalent to narrowing the dam-
age localization width. If the plastic internal length remains constant,
a stronger influence of the non-local plastic dissipation is attained as ld
decreases, which corresponds to higher ductility in the resulting evolu-
tions.
The performance of the model is further assessed by verifying mesh
convergence. Fig. 15 shows the force-displacement curves for meshes
with 3125, 12,500 and 50,000 elements. The simulations correspond to
𝜂d ∕𝜂p0 = 0.625. Given the ample range between the number of elements,
the converging curves suggest lack of pathological mesh-dependence.
Finally, the simulations are compared with the results obtained in
[30]. The authors there use a critical equivalent plastic strain to control
the amount of ductility in the fracture process. This approach clearly
contrasts with the proposed model, where the amount of ductility is
determined by the damage threshold parameter w0 and the internal
length scales. Nevertheless, a clear correspondence between the figures
reported by Ambati et al. [30] and the localization processes shown in
Figs. 11–13 can be observed. Moreover, the load-displacement curves
of Fig. 16 show a significant agreement between both models, where
similar dissipative evolutions can be observed. The curve of [30] corre-
p
sponds to a simulation with a critical equivalent plastic strain 𝜖eq,crit =
10%, where a maximum equivalent plastic strain of ≈ 0.22 is reported
by the authors, using 10,800 elements. We compare these results to our
simulation corresponding to 𝜂d ∕𝜂p0 = 0.625, where a maximum equiva-
lent plastic strain of 0.225 was obtained using 12,500 elements.

516
P. Rodriguez et al.
Fig. 16. Comparison of experiment IV with the results obtained in [30].
5. Concluding remarks and future research
We have proposed an extension to multiple dimensions of the one-
dimensional formulation of Ulloa et al. [24], which was based on [20],
by incorporating several mechanisms in a rather general model. In addi-
tion, we have presented a straightforward two-dimensional implemen-
tation. One of the main features of the proposed formulation is its vari-
ational character. This allows for an elegant approach, which is, at the
same time, a powerful tool to describe the behavior of solids undergo-
ing ductile fracture. Moreover, the generality of the approach allows for
the modeling of quasi-brittle fracture as a particular case. This was evi-
denced by the numerical experiments, where benchmark examples from
different formulations were recovered by an explicit control of parame-
ters.
The implementations presented in this work were performed in a
serial code in MATLAB. Although the meshes used for the numerical ex-
amples are rather coarse, high run times were experienced. This calls for
a more efficient implementation. To cope with this challenge, a Fortran-
based parallel version of the formulation is currently being implemented
and will be the subject of a forthcoming article.
Acknowledgment
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of CYTED (Ibero-
American Program to Promote Science and Technology) through the
CADING network (Ibero-American Network for High Performance Com-
puting in Engineering). This work is part of the research programme
COMPUTACIÓN DE ALTO DESEMPEÑO EN INGENIERÍA with project
number 516RT0512.
References
[1] De Borst R, Mühlhaus H-B. Gradient-dependent plasticity: formulation and algorith-
mic aspects. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1992;35:521–39.
[2] Oliver J, Huespe A, Samaniego E, Chaves E. Continuum approach to the numeri-
cal simulation of material failure in concrete. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
2004;28(7–8):609–32.
[3] Simo JC, Oliver J, Armero F. An analysis of strong discontinuities induced by strain–
softening in rate-independent inelastic solids. Comput Mech 1993;12(5):277–96.
[4] Oliver J, Huespe A, Pulido M, Samaniego E. On the strong discontinuity approach
in finite deformation settings. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2003;56(7):1051–82.
[5] Chen Q, Andrade JE, Samaniego E. Aes for multiscale localization modeling in gran-
ular media. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2011;200(33):2473–82.
[6] Moës N, Dolbow J, Belytschko T. A finite element method for crack growth without
remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1999;46(1):131–50.
[7] Moës N, Belytschko T. Extended finite element method for cohesive crack growth.
Eng Fract Mech 2002;69(7):813–33.
[8] Samaniego E, Belytschko T. Continuum–discontinuum modelling of shear bands. Int
J Numer Methods Eng 2005;62(13):1857–72.
517
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 502–517
[9] Nguyen MN, Bui TQ, Nguyen NT, Truong TT, Van Lich L. Simulation of dynamic and
static thermoelastic fracture problems by extended nodal gradient finite elements.
Int J Mech Sci 2017;134:370–86.
[10] Miehe C, Welschinger F, Hofacker M. Thermodynamically consistent phase-field
models of fracture: variational principles and multi-field fe implementations. Int
J Numer Methods Eng 2010;83(10):1273–311.
[11] Challamel N. A variationally based nonlocal damage model to predict diffuse micro-
cracking evolution. Int J Mech Sci 2010;52(12):1783–800.
[12] de Borst R, Verhoosel CV. Gradient damage vs phase-field approaches for fracture:
similarities and differences. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2016;312:78–94.
[13] Francfort GA, Marigo J-J. Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization prob-
lem. J Mech Phys Solids 1998;46(8):1319–42.
[14] Mumford D, Shah J. Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth functions and
associated variational problems. Commun Pure Appl Math 1989;42(5):577–685.
[15] Bourdin B, Francfort GA, Marigo J-J. Numerical experiments in revisited brittle frac-
ture. J Mech Phys Solids 2000;48(4):797–826.
[16] Dal Maso G, Toader R. A model for the quasi-static growth of brittle fractures: exis-
tence and approximation results. Arch Ration Mech Anal 2002;162(2):101–35.
[17] Ambrosio L, Tortorelli VM. Approximation of functional depending on jumps by el-
liptic functional via 𝛾-convergence. Commun Pure Appl Math 1990;43(8):999–1036.
[18] Bourdin B, Francfort GA, Marigo J-J. The variational approach to fracture. J Elast
2008;91(1–3):5–148.
[19] Marigo J-J, Maurini C, Pham K. An overview of the modelling of fracture by gradient
damage models. Meccanica 2016;51(12):3107–28.
[20] Alessi R. Variational approach to fracture mechanics with plasticity. Université
Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6; 2013.
[21] Alessi R, Marigo J-J, Vidoli S. Gradient damage models coupled with plasticity and
nucleation of cohesive cracks. Arch Ration Mech Anal 2014;214(2):575–615.
[22] Alessi R, Marigo J-J, Vidoli S. Gradient damage models coupled with plasticity: vari-
ational formulation and main properties. Mech Mater 2015;80:351–67.
[23] Alessi R, Marigo J-J, Maurini C, Vidoli S. Coupling damage and plasticity for a phase–
field regularisation of brittle, cohesive and ductile fracture: one-dimensional exam-
ples. Int J Mech Sci 2017.
[24] Ulloa J, Rodríguez P, Samaniego E. On the modeling of dissipative mechanisms in a
ductile softening bar. J Mech Mater Struct 2016;11(4):463–90.
[25] Mielke A. A mathematical framework for generalized standard materials in the
rate-independent case. Multifield Probl Solid Fluid Mech 2006;28:399.
[26] Alessi R. Energetic formulation for rate-independent processes: remarks on discon-
tinuous evolutions with a simple example. Acta Mech 2016;227(10):2805–29.
[27] Miehe C, Hofacker M, Welschinger F. A phase field model for rate-independent crack
propagation: robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 2010;199(45):2765–78.
[28] Amor H, Marigo J-J, Maurini C. Regularized formulation of the variational brit-
tle fracture with unilateral contact: numerical experiments. J Mech Phys Solids
2009;57(8):1209–29.
[29] Borden MJ, Verhoosel CV, Scott MA, Hughes TJ, Landis CM. A phase-field descrip-
tion of dynamic brittle fracture. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2012;217:77–95.
[30] Ambati M, Gerasimov T, De Lorenzis L. Phase-field modeling of ductile fracture.
Comput Mech 2015;55(5):1017–40.
[31] Borden MJ, Hughes TJ, Landis CM, Anvari A, Lee IJ. A phase-field formulation
for fracture in ductile materials: finite deformation balance law derivation, plas-
tic degradation, and stress triaxiality effects. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
2016;312:130–66.
[32] Ambati M, Kruse R, De Lorenzis L. A phase-field model for ductile fracture at finite
strains and its experimental verification. Comput Mech 2016;57(1):149–67.
[33] Miehe C, Teichtmeister S, Aldakheel F. Phase-field modelling of ductile fracture: a
variational gradient-extended plasticity-damage theory and its micromorphic regu-
larization. Phil Trans R Soc A 2016;374(2066):20150170.
[34] Miehe C, Aldakheel F, Teichtmeister S. Phase-field modeling of ductile fracture at
finite strains: a robust variational-based numerical implementation of a gradient-ex-
tended theory by micromorphic regularization. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2017.
[35] Areias P, Msekh M, Rabczuk T. Damage and fracture algorithm using the screened
poisson equation and local remeshing. Eng Fract Mech 2016;158:116–43.
[36] Areias P, Rabczuk Td, de Sá JC. A novel two-stage discrete crack method based
on the screened poisson equation and local mesh refinement. Comput Mech
2016;58(6):1003–18.
[37] Halphen B, Nguyen Q. Generalized standard materials. JMéc 1975;14(1):39–63.
[38] Nguyen Q-S. Standard dissipative systems and stability analysis. In: Continuum ther-
momechanics. Springer; 2000. p. 343–54.
[39] Alessi R, Ambati M, Gerasimov T, Vidoli S, De Lorenzis L. Comparison of phase-field
models of fracture coupled with plasticity. In: Advances in computational plasticity.
Springer; 2018. p. 1–21.
[40] Bažant ZP, Pijaudier-Cabot G. Measurement of characteristic length of nonlocal con-
tinuum. J Eng Mech 1989;115(4):755–67.
[41] Alicandro R. Approximation of free-discontinuity problems; 1999.
[42] Truskinovsky L. Fracture as a phase transition. In: Contemporary research in the
mechanics and mathematics of materials; 1996. p. 322–32.
[43] Braides A, Dal Maso G, Garroni A. Variational formulation of softening phenom-
ena in fracture mechanics: the one-dimensional case. Arch Ration Mech Anal
1999;146(1):23–58.
[44] Alberty J, Carstensen C, Funken SA. Remarks around 50 lines of matlab: short finite
element implementation. Numer Algorithms 1999;20(2–3):117–37.
[45] Duda FP, Ciarbonetti A, Sánchez PJ, Huespe AE. A phase-field/gradient damage
model for brittle fracture in elastic–plastic solids. Int J Plast 2015;65:269–96.