applied
sciences
Article
Quasi-Static and Dynamic Crack Propagation by Phase
Field Modeling: Comparison with Previous Results and
Experimental Validation
Yosra Kriaa 1, *, Yassine Hersi 1 , Amine Ammar 2
Citation: Kriaa, Y.; Hersi, Y.; Ammar,
A.; Zouari, B. Quasi-Static and
Dynamic Crack Propagation by Phase
Field Modeling: Comparison with
Previous Results and Experimental
Validation. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
app14104000
Academic Editor: José António
Correia
Received: 21 February 2024
Revised: 23 April 2024
Accepted: 24 April 2024
Published: 8 May 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14104000
and Bassem Zouari 1
1 LA2MP Laboratory, National Engineering School of Sfax, University of Sfax, Sfax 3029, Tunisia;
yassine.hersi@enis.tn (Y.H.); bassem.zouari@enis.tn (B.Z.)
2 LAMPA Laboratory, Arts et Metiers Institute of Technology, HESAM University, F-49035 Angers, France;
amine.ammar@ensam.eu
* Correspondence: yosra.2k@gmail.com
Abstract: In this paper, experimental tensile tests for pre-cracked high Carbon steel ‘C90’ specimens
were performed for quasi-static and dynamic loading. High loading velocity affects the crack patterns
by preventing deflection. On the other hand, an efficient numerical tool based on the phase field
model was developed and validated to predict brittle fracture trajectories. A staggered numerical
scheme was adopted to solve the displacement and damage fields separately. Implementation
efficiency in initiating and propagating cracks, even from an undamaged microstructure, was proved.
The effect of the critical fracture energy density Gc on the crack path was tested; with smaller Gc , the
crack patterns become more complex. In addition, the impact of loading velocities was examined,
and earlier and faster crack formation and greater crack branching is observed with higher impact
velocity. In this study, bidimensional plane stress cases were treated. The phase field model with
hybrid formulation was able to predict crack pattern and especially crack arrest and branching found
in the literature. The developed model accurately determined the transition zone of the crack path
topology that has been observed experimentally.
Keywords: experimental tensile test; quasi-static and dynamic loading; phase field model; brittle
fracture; staggered scheme; hybrid formulation
1. Introduction
Crack propagation in solids, whether brittle or ductile, can have devastating financial
effects and put people’s lives in peril. Consequently, both scientists and engineers are
interested in looking for predictive description tools regarding this phenomenon. Grif-
fith [1] proposed one of the first successful descriptions which, although functioning, is too
cumbersome to measure and implement in engineering cases. Dynamic crack initiation
and propagation cannot be predicted using this theory; however, this remains an active
topic of research due to its complexity.
Practical engineering cases, with the exception of a few theoretical cases, are gener-
ally too complicated to be solved using analytical expressions. Consequently, numerical
approaches are extremely important in fracture analysis. Both discrete and continuous
methods can be used to model cracks. Although molecular dynamics [2,3] provides a pow-
erful overview of the physics of fracture initiation, the length and time scales are very small
for application in practical cases. Discrete element simulations [4] overcome the problem
of scale. However, despite the advantages of discrete techniques, continuous description
is the most frequently utilized approach. Using various enrichments, the finite elements
approach was proven capable of modeling dynamic fracture propagation. The cohesive
zone method [5–7] is focused on the separation of predetermined surfaces, supposing a
finite treatment zone at the fracture’s front. A finite displacement step is introduced at the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 2 of 18

crack front in ‘the strong discontinuity approach’ [8]. The eXtended Finite Element Method
(XFEM) [9] has been successfully used to study dynamic fracture propagation in elastic
brittle [10] and ductile [11] materials. Gomez et al. [12] used the boundary element method
(BEM) to predict crack propagation for fatigue fracture in mixed modes (I + II). Fractures
are treated as discrete discontinuities in the methods mentioned above. Consequently,
treating crack initiation or branching is complicated and frequently requires special criteria.
Another approach is provided by non-local damage models [13–16]. The thick level
set approach calculates the fracture trajectory on the basis of the damage progression at the
crack point, and the discontinuities are explicitly taken into account. However, discontinu-
ities are not directly employed in other models, such as the phase field method. Rather, the
crack effect is defined by a smooth transition. The completely damaged regions, as well as
the undamaged material, are linked by a unique damage variable. The non-local damage
models applied to Griffith’s theory are based on the variational formulation developed by
Francfort and Marigo [17,18] and implemented by Bourdin et al. [19]. Complex fracture
processes in two- and three-dimensional [20] solids, such as crack initiation, propagation,
and branching, can be processed automatically without any additional ad hoc strategies.
The monolithic scheme [21–26] and the staggered scheme [19,27–30] are the two most
important numerical methods adopted to simulate the mechanical problem and determine
the fracture pattern. When the fracture propagates closely to an initial crack, monolithic
algorithms eventually converge. However, these algorithms struggle to converge in the
case of unstable crack initiation and propagation. The non-convexity of global energy
and the jumps in the solution are the causes of this problem [31]. To avoid this, a variety
of modifications [24,31,32] have been proposed. The staggered scheme is derived from
the alternate minimization algorithm developed by Bourdin et al. [19]. Two well-posed
convex problems are solved separately. Even in unstable cases, this iterative method was
shown to be very robust [29]. Therefore, staggered implementation was considered as
the right approach to use in this paper. The only drawback of this technique is that it
necessitates a relatively small time step [30]; thus, a high computational time is needed.
To overcome this issue, several research works were adopted, such as detecting unstable
propagation and reducing the external load variation [22,23,30,33–35], deactivating damage
variables until an equivalent stress reaches a critical value σc [36], optimizing the assembly
matrices [37], etc.
Decomposing the stored elastic energy into two parts, one associated with a compres-
sive strain and the other with a tensile one, is a common approach in solving the problem of
crack propagation. The decomposition of the elastic energy density in volumetric-deviatoric
parts [28] and the spectral decomposition of the strain tensor [21] are two examples of
decomposition methods that have been investigated. Hybrid formulation [38–40] is another
technique applied to deal with asymmetric tensile and compressive behavior. Although it
is variationally inconsistent, the resulting model is substantially more efficient computa-
tionally than the spectral decomposition models [41].
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, experimental tensile
tests on pre-cracked plates with a center hole were performed for different distances
between the pre-crack and the hole axis to show their influence on the crack patterns for
quasi-static and dynamic loading. Section 3 details the governing equations of the phase
field model for brittle fracture based on the variational approach. Section 4 introduces four
sets of illustrative numerical examples to prove the capability of the suggested model in
depicting the quasi-static and dynamic fracture propagation. Then, the effectiveness of the
hybrid formulation in predicting the crack patterns achieved experimentally is proven. The
most relevant conclusions are drawn in Section 5 before suggesting some future potential
perspectives.

2. Quasi-Static and Dynamic Tensile Experiments

The available experimental results to confirm the crack trajectory predicted by the
phase field formulations are actually scarce in the literature. In this section, we experimen-
 2. Quasi-Static and Dynamic Tensile Experiments
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 The available experimental results to confirm the crack trajectory predicted by 3the of 18
phase field formulations are actually scarce in the literature. In this section, we experi-
mentally investigated the crack path for a notched plate under quasi-static and dynamic
tension. In the experimental
tally investigated tests,
the crack path forwe used a brittle
a notched material,
plate under i.e., non-alloy
quasi-static steel with
and dynamic a
tension.
high Carbon
In the percentage
experimental C90
tests, weinused
the aas-quenched statei.e.,
brittle material, [37].
non-alloy steel with a high Carbon
percentage C90 in the as-quenched state [37].
2.1. Specimen Description
2.1. Specimen Description
Since there are no norms for testing brittle fracture propagation, we selected a simple
Since there
and particular are no norms
specimen geometryfor testing brittle
conceived tofracture propagation,
obtain various crack we selected aduring
trajectories simple
and
the particular specimen
experiments. The simplegeometry
geometry conceived
is set astoa obtain various
rectangular crack
plate trajectories
with a central during
hole and the
an initial pre-crack. Different distances between the pre-crack and the central hole axis,an
experiments. The simple geometry is set as a rectangular plate with a central hole and
initialaspre-crack.
noted Different distances
h, were considered (Figure between the pre-crack
1). To avoid slipping and thecontact
in the central regions
hole axis,ofnoted
the
as h, were considered (Figure 1). To avoid slipping
specimen jaw during the tensile tests, holes were machined. in the contact regions of the specimen
jaw during the tensile tests, holes were machined.

Figure
Figure1.1.Geometry
Geometryofofthe
thepre-cracked
pre-crackedspecimen.
specimen.

2.2.Experimental
2.2. ExperimentalDesign
Design
In these tests ananaxial
In these tests axialdisplacement
displacementisisapplied,
applied,with
witha atensile
tensilemachine
machinefor forquasi-static
quasi-static
casesand
cases andfast
fastjack
jack for
for dynamic
dynamiconesones(INSTRON
(INSTRONVHS VHS 65/20),
65/20),with
with a maximum
a maximum displacement
displace-
velocity of 20 m/s for the cross bar. During tensile tests, some specimens
ment velocity of 20 m/s for the cross bar. During tensile tests, some specimens were were painted with
a black and white speckle pattern to allow for a better visualization of
painted with a black and white speckle pattern to allow for a better visualization of crack crack propagation.
A high-speed
propagation. A Manta camera
high-speed G-1236
Manta fromG-1236
camera Allied from
Vision Company-Germany
Allied Vision Company-Germany(12.4 million
pixels, full resolution: 4112 × 3008, lens Mount: C) was used to film
(12.4 million pixels, full resolution: 4112 × 3008, lens Mount: C) was used to film the tests. Vimba X 6.1
the tests.
software was used for data acquisition and image processing. The tests
Vimba X 6.1 software was used for data acquisition and image processing. The tests con- consist of applying
anof
sist imposed
applying displacement load to the top
an imposed displacement loadface
to of
thethe
topspecimen.
face of the The crack trajectories
specimen. The crack
observed for the test specimens were obtained after three repeatable tests for each case.
trajectories observed for the test specimens were obtained after three repeatable tests for
each
2.3. case.
Experimental Results and Analysis
In the quasi-static
2.3. Experimental tensile
Results and tests, the controlled displacement load was imposed at a
Analysis
velocity of 0.01 mm/min. Figure 2 shows the experimental crack trajectories. For h = 5
In6 mm,
the quasi-static
andREVIEW tensile
the crack starts to tests, the controlled
propagate displacement
from the pre-crack load
to the was
hole, imposed
then at a
a new crack
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER 4 of 18
velocity of 0.01 mm/min. Figure 2 shows the experimental crack trajectories. For
was initiated and propagated from the hole to the right edge, and for h = 9 mm the crack h = 5 and
6 propagated
mm, the crack starts to propagate
horizontally from the to
from the pre-crack pre-crack
the righttoedge.
the hole, then a new crack was
initiated and propagated from the hole to the right edge, and for h = 9 mm the crack
propagated horizontally from the pre-crack to the right edge.
In the dynamic tests, the loading velocity is 1 m/s as shown in Figure 3, and for h = 5
and 9 mm the crack trajectories are the same as those achieved in the quasi-static case.
However, for h = 6 mm, the crack propagated horizontally without passing through the
hole.
In this test, we can see the effect of loading velocity on the crack trajectory. In fact,
the inertial effect can change the crack path. The crack has no time to deviate to the hole
and propagate directly toward the opposite edge.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2.Figure 2. Experimental
Experimental crack
crack paths paths for quasi-static
for quasi-static tensile
tensile test with test with
a loading a loading
velocity of 0.01 velocity
mm/minof 0.01
mm/min for: (a) h = 5 mm; (b) h =
for: (a) h = 5 mm; (b) h = 6 mm; (c) h = 9 mm.6 mm; (c) h = 9 mm.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 4 of 18

In the dynamic tests, the loading velocity is 1 m/s as shown in Figure 3, and for
(a) (b) (c)
h = 5 and 9 mm the crack trajectories are the same as those achieved in the quasi-static
Figure 2.
case. However, forExperimental
h = 6 mm, the crack
crackpaths for quasi-static
propagated tensile
horizontally test with
without a loading
passing velocity of
through
the hole.mm/min for: (a) h = 5 mm; (b) h = 6 mm; (c) h = 9 mm.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3.Figure 3. Experimental
Experimental crack pathscrack
for paths for dynamic
dynamic tensile testtensile
with atest with avelocity
loading loadingofvelocity of 1 m/s for
1 m/s for:
h = 5(b)
(a) h = 5 mm; mm;h =(b) h = 6(c)
6 mm; mm;h = (c) h = 9 mm.
9 mm.

In this test, we
3. Brittle can see Phase
Fracture the effect of loading
Field Modelvelocity on the crack trajectory. In fact, the
inertial effect can change the crack path. The crack has no time to deviate to the hole and
Let us consider an arbitrary solid Ω, with ∂Ω the external boundary and Γ the
propagate directly toward the opposite edge.
ternal discontinuity boundary, which represents an initial fracture. The displacem
3. Brittlefield in thePhase
Fracture solidField
is designated
Model by u. A body force acting on the solid b and a surface fo
Letfus onconsider
the boundary ∂ΩF are
an arbitrary considered.
solid Ω, with ∂Ω the external boundary and Γ the internal
According to Griffith’s
discontinuity boundary, which represents theory, Bourdin
an initial et al.The
fracture. [34] proposed afield
displacement variational
in the appro
for fracturebyproblems.
solid is designated u. A bodyThis
forceindicates
acting onthat the critical
the solid b and a fracture energy
surface force f ondensity
the Gc,
boundary known as considered.
∂ΩF are the critical energy release rate, is equivalent to the energy needed to genera
fracturetosurface
According pertheory,
Griffith’s unit area. The et
Bourdin total potential
al. [34] energy
proposed Etot(u, Γ) isapproach
a variational formulatedfor as follo
fracture problems. This indicates that the critical fracture energy density Gc , also known as
Etotis
the critical energy release rate, (uequivalent 
, Γ) = ψ 0 (to
ε )the
d Ωenergy
+ Gc dS  
− b.utodgenerate
needed 
Ω − f .au fracture
dS
surface per unit area. The total potential energy Etot (u, Γ) is formulated as follows:
Ω Γ Ω ∂Ω

where, ε = ε ( u) isZ the linear strain

Z tensorZ and dS is the
Z surface element.
Etot (u, Γ) = ψ0 (ε) dΩ + Gc dS − b.u dΩ − f.u dS (1)
The elastic energy density ψ0(ε) in the isotropic linear elasticity is provided by:
Ω Γ Ω ∂Ω
1 2
ψ0 =dS isλtr
where, ε = ε(u) is the linear strain tensor and tr( ε 2 )
( ε )+ μelement.
the surface
2 linear elasticity is provided by:
The elastic energy density ψ0 (ε) in the isotropic
where µ and λ are Lamé constants.1
Furthermore, accordingψ0 = to λtr2 (ε) + µtr (ε2 ) (2)
2 the variational approach [34], the crack initiates, pro
gates and branches when the minimum potential is reached and the irreversible con
where µtion
and is
λ are Lamé constants.
fulfilled. The irreversible condition means that a material cannot regain its in
Furthermore, according to the variational approach [34], the crack initiates, propagates
state after a crack formation.
and branches when the minimum potential is reached and the irreversible condition is
fulfilled. The irreversible condition means that a material cannot regain its initial state after
3.1. Diffusive Crack Energy Approximation Using Phase Filed Method
a crack formation.

3.1. Diffusive Crack Energy Approximation Using Phase Filed Method

The brittle fracture variational approach was applied with success by Miehe et al. [21,27],
Bourdin et al. [34] and Borden et al. [42]. To represent the fracture surface Γ (Figure 4a),
a phase field α(x, t) ∈ [0,1] is defined (see also Figure 4b). α(x, t) represents a diffusive
 3.1. Diffusive Crack Energy Approximation Using Phase Filed Method
The brittle fracture variational approach was applied with success by Miehe et al.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 [21,27], Bourdin et al. [34] and Borden et al. [44]. To represent the fracture 5surfaceof 18 Γ
(Figure 4a), a phase field α(x, t) ∈ [0,1] is defined (see also Figure 4b). α(x, t) represents a
diffusive crack topology. α = 1 indicates the cracked zone and α = 0 indicates the
crack topology.
uncracked = 1 indicates
zone.α Therefore, thethe cracked
solid crackzone and density
surface α = 0 indicates the uncracked
γ is defined by Miehezone.
et al. [27]
Therefore, the solid crack surface density γ is defined by Miehe et al. [27] as:
as:
α2 α 2 2 2
γ(α, ∇
γ (αα),= ) =+ η |∇
∇α4η + ηα|∇α (3) (3)
4η
where ηη is
where isthe
thelength
lengthscale
scaleparameter
parameterthat regulates
that the the
regulates width of the
width of transition region
the transition of
region of
the phase field (Figure 4b). The crack region width increases with the scale parameter
the phase field (Figure 4b). The crack region width increases with the scale parameter η η
(see Figure 4b). The fracture energy is calculated using Equation (3):
(see Figure 4b). The fracture energy is calculated using Equation (3):
α 2 2
 
2
Z Z
α η |∇α|2 dΩ
 
Gc dS = Gc + (4)
Γ Gc dSΩ= G4ηc  + η ∇α  d Ω (4)
Γ Ω
 4η 

(a) (b)
Figure 4.
4. Body
Bodywith:
with:(a)
(a)sharp
sharpfracture;
fracture;
(b)(b) diffuse
diffuse fracture.
fracture.

3.2. Governing
3.2. Governing Equations
Equations
According to Francfort and Marigo [17], the fracture surface energy is obtained from
According to Francfort and Marigo [17], the fracture surface energy is obtained from
the elastic energy, which determines the damage variable evolution. The elastic energy
the elastic energy, which determines the damage variable evolution. The elastic energy is
is decomposed into tensile and compressive components to ensure that only the tensile
decomposed into density
component of such tensile isand compressive
governing components
the phase field variabletoevolution.
ensure that
This only the tensile
assumption
component of such
cannot predict density
the crack is governing
initiation in the the
casephase field variable
of uniaxial specimen evolution. Thisas
compression assump-
a
tion
concrete compression test. It also discards the influence of the crack roughness [12] on the as a
cannot predict the crack initiation in the case of uniaxial specimen compression
concrete compression
propagation phenomena. test. It also
Here, thediscards the influence
decomposition methodof the crack
described byroughness [12]
Miehe et al. [27]on the
propagation
was adopted andphenomena. Here, theofdecomposition
the decomposition the strain tensormethod described by Miehe et al. [27]
is as follows:
was adopted and the decomposition of the strain tensor is as follows:
d

ε− = ∑ ⟨εd a ⟩− na ⊗ na



ε − d=
a =1

ε a na ⊗ na
 ∑ ⟨aε=1a ⟩ na−⊗ na
(5)
ε+ =



+
a =1 d
(5)
ε =

 + tensile
where ε− and ε+ are the compressive and
ε a + na ⊗ na
a =1 strain tensors, respectively. The operators
⟨.⟩+ and ⟨.⟩− are the positive and the negative parts, respectively. εa is the principal strain
and na ɛis− its
where and ɛ+ are the
direction compressive and tensile strain tensors, respectively. The operators
vector.
.+ and .the
Using
−
spectral
are the decomposition of the
positive and the strain tensor,
negative the elastic energy
parts, respectively. εa isdensity is
the principal
illustrated by the following equation:
strain and na is its direction vector.
Using the spectral decomposition 2 strain tensor,
ψ0+ = 21 λ⟨trof the the elastic energy density is

(ε)⟩ 2
+ + µ tr ( ε+ )
illustrated by the following equation: (6)
 − 1 2 2
ψ0 = 2 λ⟨tr (ε)⟩− + µ tr (ε− )
 + 1 2
ψ 0 due
To model the stiffness reduction
= λ tr (ε ) + + μ tr (ε +2 )
2 to damage phase propagation, the following
equation was used [42]:  (6)
ψ − = 1 λ tr (ε ) 2 + μ tr (ε 2 )
 0 2 − −

ψ0 (ε) = ((1 − α)2 + k)ψ0+ (ε) + ψ0− (ε) (7)

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 6 of 18

where k is a numerical parameter that prevents numerical singularities if the phase field
variable α tends towards 1. Furthermore, this parameter has to be positive and very small
compared to 1.
In dynamic fracture propagation, the kinetic energy of the body is added to the energy
balance. The kinetic energy of a solid is given by the following equation:

1
Z
. . .
Ecin (u) = ρu.udΩ (8)
2
Ω

.
where u = ∂u
∂t is the velocity vector and ρ is the mass density of the material.
The total Lagrange energy functional is given by the following equation:
R . . h 2 i
L = − 12 ρu.udΩ − [((1 − α)2 + k )ψ0+ (ε) + ψ0− (ε)]dΩ − Ω Gc 4η + η |∇α|2 dΩ
R R α

R Ω R Ω (9)
+ b.u dΩ + f.u dS
Ω ∂Ω

The functional L’s variation may be calculated, and its first variation must be 0, which
leads us to the governing Equation (10) given by Ambati et al. [38]:
 ∂σ ..

 ∂x + b = ρu

4η
−4η 2 ∆α + α = Gc (1 − α ) H
(10)

∀x : ψ0+ < ψ0− ⇒ α = 0



.. 2
where u = ∂∂t2u is the acceleration vector, σ the stress tensor and I is the unit tensor Rd × d .
The law of damaged material behavior given by the thermodynamic of continuums
using Equations (6) and (7) is:
h  i
2
σ = ∂Ψ 0
= λ ( 1 − α ) + k ⟨ tr ( ε )⟩ + ⟨ tr ( ε )⟩ − I
∂ε    + (11)
2
+2µ [ε − ] + (1 − α) + k [ε + ]

To reduce the computational time, we adopted the hybrid formulation of stress tensor
proposed by Ambati et al. [38] and given by the following equation:

σ = [(1 − α)2 + k][λtr(ε)I+2µ ε] (12)

During compression or unloading, the irreversibility condition is required to ensure

a monotonically increasing phase field variable. Consequently, a strain-history field H(x,
t) [20,27], defined as shown below, was introduced:

H (x, t) = maxτ ∈[0,t] ψ0+ (ε(x, τ )) (13)

To solve this problem, the finite element method in the case of plane problems was
used. The adopted elements are a three-node triangular model with a linear interpolation.
This program was implemented in the Matlab 2015 software, using the Flowcharts of
Figures 5 and 6 detailed in Appendices A and B.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 7 of 18

Figure
Figure5.
5. Flowchart of the
Flowchart of thestaggered
staggeredscheme
scheme with
with hybrid
hybrid formulation
formulation for dynamic
for dynamic fractures.
fractures.
Figure 5. Flowchart of the staggered scheme with hybrid formulation for dynamic fractures.

Figure 6. Flowchart for the phase field solution for a given increment using a staggered scheme at
Figure 6. Flowchart for the phase field solution for a given increment using a staggered scheme at
each integration
Figure point.
6. Flowchart for the phase field solution for a given increment using a staggered scheme at
each integration point.
each integration point.
4. Numerical Examples
4. Numerical Examples
This section deals with quasi-static and dynamic computational examples to prove the
4. Numerical Examples
This section
proposed model’sdeals
abilitywith quasi-static
to reproduce and dynamic
the experimental computational
crack paths. examples to prove
This section
the proposed dealsability
model’s with toquasi-static
reproduceandthe dynamic computational
experimental examples to prove
crack paths.
4.1. Crack Growth under Quasi-Static Loading
the proposed model’s ability to reproduce the experimental crack paths.
4.1.1.
4.1. Quasi-Static
Crack Tensile
Growth under Test of Notched
Quasi-Static Specimens
Loading
4.1. Crack Growth under Quasi-Static Loading
This example was considered to demonstrate the capability of the staggered scheme
4.1.1. Quasi-Static Tensile Test of Notched Specimens
4.1.1. the
with hybrid formulation
Quasi-Static to predict
Tensile Test the experimental
of Notched Specimens crack trajectory obtained in the
This example was considered to demonstrate the capability of the staggered scheme
with This example
the hybrid was considered
formulation to demonstrate
to predict the capability
the experimental of the staggered
crack trajectory obtainedscheme
in the
with the hybrid formulation to predict the experimental crack trajectory
previous section for different ‘h’ values between the pre-crack and the hole obtained
underinqua-
the
previous section for different ‘h’ values between the pre-crack and the hole under qua-
 si-static
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW loading. The boundary conditions are a fixed edge and an imposed axial dis-
8 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 placement on the opposite edge (Figure 7). The domain was meshed with triangular 8 of 18 el-
ements with a characteristic size s = 0.1 mm. The material properties are E = 210 GPa, Gc =
0.03 kN/mm, and ν = 0.3. The length scale parameter was chosen as η = 2 × s = 0.2 mm.
si-static
previous loading. The
sectionpaths
for boundary
different conditions
‘h’ the
values between are
theapre-crack
fixed edge and an imposed
andillustrated
the hole under axial dis-
quasi-
The crack given by numerical simulations are in Figure 8. The
placement on The
static loading. the boundary
opposite conditions
edge (Figureare a 7). The
fixed edgedomain
and an was
imposedmeshed with triangular el-
axial displacement
obtained crack paths are in agreement with those found experimentally (see Figure 2). In
ements with a characteristic
on the opposite edge (Figure 7).size
Thes =domain
0.1 mm. wasThe material
meshed withproperties are E = 210
triangular elements withGPa,
a Gc =
fact, in the case ofsh==0.15 and 6The
mm, the cracks changed direction and pass through the hole
0.03 kN/mm, and ν = 0.3. The length scale parameter was chosen ascη = 2 × s = 0.2 mm.
characteristic size mm. material properties are E = 210 GPa, G = 0.03 kN/mm,
and, in
and The the case
ν = 0.3. of
Thepathsh = 9 mm,
lengthgiven the cracks
scale parameter propagated
was chosen directly
as η = 2 × sareto
= 0.2the opposite
mm. edge.
crack by the numerical simulations illustrated in Figure 8. The
obtained crack paths are in agreement with those found experimentally (see Figure 2). In
fact, in the case of h = 5 and 6 mm, the cracks changed direction and pass through the hole
and, in the case of h = 9 mm, the cracks propagated directly to the opposite edge.

Figure 7. Geometry of the specimen and adopted boundary conditions: tensile test.
Figure 7. Geometry of the specimen and adopted boundary conditions: tensile test.
The crack paths given by the numerical simulations are illustrated in Figure 8. The
obtained crack paths are in agreement with those found experimentally (see Figure 2). In
fact, in the case of h = 5 and 6 mm, the cracks changed direction and pass through the hole
Figure
and, in7.the
Geometry
case of hof=the specimen
9 mm, and adopted
the cracks boundary
propagated directlyconditions: tensileedge.
to the opposite test.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8. Numerical crack trajectories for quasi-static tensile tests for: (a) h = 5 mm; (b) h = 6 mm; (c)
h = 9 mm.
(a) (b) (c)
4.1.2. Compression Test of a Regularly Dispersed Pores Microstructure
Figure
Figure8.8.Numerical crack trajectories
Numerical crack trajectoriesfor
forquasi-static
quasi-static tensile
tensile tests
tests for:for:
(a) h(a)
=h = 5 mm;
5 mm; (b) h(b)
= 6hmm;
= 6 mm; (c)
In this example, a microstructure built of plaster with holes spaced at regular inter-
h(c)
= 9h mm.
= 9 mm.
vals was considered. Nguyen et al. and Sammis and Ashby [43,44] have investigated this
4.1.2. Compression
example numerically Testand
of a Regularly Dispersed Pores Microstructure
4.1.2. Compression Test ofexperimentally. Figure
a Regularly Dispersed 9 shows
Pores the compression test geometry
Microstructure
of a plate with
In this 23 holes
example, of diameter built
a microstructure d = 0.2 mm. The
of plaster specimen’s
with dimensions
holes spaced are 2 mm and
at regular intervals
was In this example,
considered. Nguyena microstructure
et al. and built and
Sammis of plaster
Ashby with holes
[43,44] have spaced at regular
investigated this inter-
3 mm.
vals was considered.
example numerically Nguyen
and et al. andFigure
experimentally. Sammis and the
9 shows Ashby [43,44] have investigated this
The material properties were adopted from [43]: E =compression
12 GPa, ν =test
0.3 geometry
and Gc = of 1.4 × 10−6
example numerically
a plate with 23 holes ofand experimentally.
diameter d = 0.2 mm.Figure 9 shows dimensions
The specimen’s the compression
are 2 mmtest geometry
and
kN/mm. Monotonic increments of compressive displacement Δu = 1.5 × 10 mm were −4
of3 amm.
plate with 23 holes of diameter d = 0.2 mm. The specimen’s dimensions are 2 mm and
prescribed. The length scale parameter was chosen as η = 0.03 mm.
3 mm.The material properties were adopted from [43]: E = 12 GPa, ν = 0.3 and Gc = 1.4 ×
10−6Experimentally,
kN/mm.
The
Sammis
Monotonic
material
and Ashby
increments
properties
[44] founddisplacement
of compressive
were adopted
that the cracks=initiate
from [43]: E = 12 GPa,∆u 1.5 ×
ν = 0.3
and
10
and
−4 mmpropagate
Gc = 1.4 × 10−6
vertically from the holes. Nguyen et al. [43] obtained, in
were prescribed. The length scale parameter was chosen as η = 0.03 mm. addition to the vertical cracks
kN/mm. Monotonic increments of compressive displacement Δu = 1.5 × 10−4 mm were
observed in the tests, an initiation of cracks from the left and right sides of the holes,
prescribed. The length scale parameter was chosen as η = 0.03 mm.
which is unphysical, due to high compression stress in these regions. Figure 10 shows the
Experimentally, Sammis and Ashby [44] found that the cracks initiate and propagate
vertically from the holes. Nguyen et al. [43] obtained, in addition to the vertical cracks
observed in the tests, an initiation of cracks from the left and right sides of the holes,
which is unphysical, due to high compression stress in these regions. Figure 10 shows the
 Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 9 of 18

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Experimentally, Sammis and Ashby [44] found that the cracks initiate and propagate 9 of 18
vertically from the holes. Nguyen et al. [43] obtained, in addition to the vertical cracks
observed in the tests, an initiation of cracks from the left and right sides of the holes, which
crack path simulation
is unphysical, due to highgiven by our models.
compression This regions.
stress in these demonstrates theshows
Figure 10 ability
theof the devel-
crack
crack
oped path
model simulation
to initiate given
cracks by our
from a models. This
microstructure demonstrates
that is not the ability
damaged, with
path simulation given by our models. This demonstrates the ability of the developed model of the
a devel-
correctly
oped model
predicted
to initiate to initiate
crack
cracks from acracks
trajectory from
after a microstructure
nucleation.
microstructure that iswith
that is not damaged, not adamaged, with a correctly
correctly predicted
predicted crack trajectory after
crack trajectory after nucleation. nucleation.

Figure 9. Geometry of the specimen and adopted boundary conditions: compression test.
Figure 9. Geometry of the specimen and adopted boundary conditions: compression test.
Figure 9. Geometry of the specimen and adopted boundary conditions: compression test.

u = 9 × 10−3 mm u = 13.5 × 10−3 mm u = 22.5 × 10−3 mm

u = 9 × 10 mm
−3 u = 13.5 × 10 mm
−3 u = 22.5 × 10−3 mm
Figure
Figure 10. Crack
Crackmorphology
morphology field
field at predefined
at predefined displacement
displacement values.
values.
Figure 10. Crack morphology field at predefined displacement values.
4.2. Crack Propagation under Dynamic Loading
4.2. Crack Propagation under Dynamic Loading
4.2.1. Dynamic Tensile Test of Notched Specimens
4.2.
4.2.1.Crack Propagation
Dynamic Tensileunder Dynamic
Testwith
of Notched Loading
This example was dealt to validateSpecimens
the crack paths obtained experimentally under
4.2.1.
dynamicDynamic
This loadingTensile
example
with theTest
was sameofgeometry
dealt Notched Specimens
with to proposed
validate theSection
in crack2.1,
paths obtained
while experimentally
the elements’ size
under This example
and material
dynamic wasaredealt
properties
loading with with
as inthe to validate
the example
same studied
geometry thein crack
Sectionpaths
proposed 4.1.1. obtained
in Section 2.1,experimentally
while the ele-
ments’ The numerically
under dynamic obtained
loading with
size and material crack paths
the same
properties are illustrated
geometry
are as in Figure
proposed
in the example 11. The
in Section
studied transition
2.1, while
in Section ofthe ele-
4.1.1.
the crack
ments’The pattern
size observed
and material
numerically experimentally
properties
obtained crackare forin
as
paths hare
= 6 illustrated
the mm was correctly
example studied achieved
in Figure in Sectionwith
11. The our
4.1.1.
transition of
model. The obtained
The numerically crack trajectories
obtained are in agreement
crack pathsfor with
arehillustrated those found
in correctly experimentally
Figure 11.achieved
The transition of
the crack pattern observed experimentally = 6 mm was with our
(see Figure 3). Compared to the quasi-static case, a change in the crack path was observed
the crack
model. pattern observed
Theofobtained experimentally
crack between
trajectories for h =
are in agreement6 mm was correctly
with hole
thoseaxis. achieved with
found experimentally our
in the case 6 mm distance the pre-crack and the central
model.
(see The 3).
Figure obtained cracktotrajectories
Compared are incase,
the quasi-static agreement
a change with those
in the found
crack pathexperimentally
was observed
(see
in the case of 6 mm distance between the pre-crack and the central hole axis.was observed
Figure 3). Compared to the quasi-static case, a change in the crack path
in the case of 6 mm distance between the pre-crack and the central hole axis.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 10 of 18

(a) (b) (c)

Figure11.
Figure Numericalcrack
11.Numerical crackpaths
pathsfor
fordynamic
dynamictensile
tensiletests
testsfor:
for:(a)
(a)h h= = 5 mm;
5 mm; (b)(b)
h =h 6=mm;
6 mm;
(c) h = 9
(c)
mm. h = 9 mm.

4.2.2. Dynamic Shear Loading of Kalthoff Experiment

4.2.2. Dynamic Shear Loading of Kalthoff Experiment
The treated example for a dynamic fracture is related to a doubly notched specimen
The treated
subjected example
to an impact load,for a dynamic
commonly fracture
referred to asisthe
related to a doubly
Kalthoff–Winkler notched specimen
experiment [45],
subjected to an impact load, commonly referred to as the Kalthoff–Winkler
which has already been investigated by many other researchers [46–54]. The specimen experiment
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18
[45],which
geometry ishas already
shown been12,
in Figure investigated by many
and the impact loading other researchers
is generated by a [46–54].
projectile.The
Thespeci-
men geometry
symmetry is shown
conditions are in Figureto12,
adopted and the
reduce the computational
impact loading is generated by a projectile.
cost.
The symmetry conditions are adopted to reduce the computational cost.
t
 v0 t ≤ t0
The following velocity v =  t 0 was applied with t0 = 1 µs and v0 =
v t > t0
 0
16.5 m/s.
The material parameters were as stated in [42]: E = 190 GPa, ρ = 8 × 10−6 kg/mm3, ν =
0.3 and Gc = 22.2 × 10−3 kN/mm. The length scale parameter η was fixed as 0.4 mm and the
time step Δt was defined as 0.04 µs. The fracture began to propagate at 24 µs. The angle
between the horizontal axis was 68°, which corresponded well with the experimental
results of Kalthof–Winkler [48] and the numerical results of Zhou et al. [54].
Then, the effect of Gc, on the crack path, was tested. The phase field variable distri-
butions at 90 µs for Gc = 5 × 10−3, Gc = 10 × 10−3, Gc = 22.2 × 10−3 and Gc = 30 × 10−3 kN/mm
are displayed in Figure 13. For smaller Gc, more complicated crack schemes were found.
When Gc = 5 × 10−3 and 10 × 10−3 kN/mm, crack branching occurs. The reflected wave
caused secondary
Figure 12.
12. Geometry of cracks
of the in the and
the specimen
specimen lower right-hand
adopted boundarycorner of the
conditions: specimen,
Kalthoff as shown by
experiment.
Figure Geometry and adopted boundary conditions: Kalthoff experiment.
Zhou et al. [54]. However, only ( one crack was observed for a greater Gc. The principal
t
crack The
pattern, v0 t ≤ t0 of the pre-existing crack, was unaffected by
following velocity v = t0 the pointwas
which began from applied with t0 = 1 µs and v0 = 16.5 m/s.
changes in Gc. v 0 t > t0
Eventually,
The materialhigher impact
parameters velocities
were as statedofinv[42]:
0 = 25,
E =40
190and =8×
60ρm/s
GPa, 10−6examined.
were kg/mm3 , The
ν = 0.3 and G 22.2 ×in − 3
crack paths c = given
are 10 Figure
kN/mm. Thethe
14. As length scalevelocity
impact parameter η was fixed
increased, as 0.4and
earlier mmfaster
and the time step ∆t was defined as 0.04 µs.
crack formation and greater crack branching were observed. The fracture began to propagate at 24 µs. The
angle between the horizontal axis was 68 ◦ , which corresponded well with the experimental
As a result, the developed model can easily capture multiple dynamic crack
results of Kalthof–Winkler [48] and the numerical results of Zhou et al. [54].
branching with appropriately refined meshes. When several small fractures exist along a
Then, the effect of Gc , on the crack path, was tested. The phase field variable distribu-
major dominant one, this result is intriguing for the study of dynamic crack instability
tions at 90 µs for Gc = 5 × 10−3 , Gc = 10 × 10−3 , Gc = 22.2 × 10−3 and Gc = 30 × 10−3 kN/mm
problems [55].in
are displayed It Figure
is worth 13.mentioning
For smaller G that the tension-compression slit model [56] affects
c , more complicated crack schemes were found.
the Gc = 5 × 10−3 kN/mm
development of
− 3 the crack Gpatterns.
c=− 10
3 × 10−3 kN/mm
When Gc = 5 × 10 and 10 × 10 kN/mm, crack branching occurs. The reflected wave
caused secondary cracks in the lower right-hand corner of the specimen, as shown by Zhou
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 11 of 18

et al. [54]. However, only one crack was observed for a greater Gc . The principal crack
pattern, which began from the point of the pre-existing crack, was unaffected by changes
in Gc .
Eventually, higher impact velocities of v0 = 25, 40 and 60 m/s were examined. The
Figurepaths
crack are given
12. Geometry in Figure
of the 14. and
specimen As the impact
adopted velocityconditions:
boundary increased,Kalthoff
earlier experiment.
and faster crack
Figure 12. Geometry
formation of the
and greater specimen
crack and adopted
branching boundary conditions: Kalthoff experiment.
were observed.

Gc = 5 × 10−3 kN/mm Gc = 10 × 10−3 kN/mm

Gc = 5 × 10−3 kN/mm Gc = 10 × 10−3 kN/mm

Gc = 22.2 × 10−3 kN/mm Gc = 30 × 10−3 kN/mm

Gc = 22.2 × 10−3 kN/mm Gc = 30 × 10−3 kN/mm
Figure 13. Crack paths at 90 µs for different Gc values.
Figure 13.
Figure Crack paths
13. Crack paths at
at 90
90 µs for different
µs for different G
Gccvalues.
values.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

v0 = 16.5 m/s v0 = 25 m/s

v0 = 16.5 m/s v0 = 25 m/s

v0 = 40 m/s v0 = 60 m/s
Figure
Figure 14.
14. Crack
Crack paths
paths at
at 90
90 µs
µs for
for different
different velocity
velocity values.
values.

4.2.3. As a result,Crack
Dynamic the developed model
Propagation can Mixed-Mode
under easily captureLoading
multiple dynamic crack branching
with appropriately refined meshes. When several small fractures exist along a major domi-
In this part, we introduced a third example of the numerical simulations of a dy-
namic fracture test performed by Grégoire [57]. The specimen was directly impacted by a
fast jack with an impact velocity of 10 m/s and the compressive loading was transformed
by the circular hole into tensile loading in the vicinity of the initial notch. The specimen
geometry is shown in Figure 15. The geometry was discretized by 60,000 triangular ele-
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 12 of 18
v0 = 40 m/s v0 = 60 m/s
Figure 14. Crack paths at 90 µs for different velocity values.
nant one,v0 =this
40 result
m/s is intriguing for v0 =the
60study
m/s of dynamic crack instability problems [55].
It is worth
4.2.3.
Figure 14. mentioning
Dynamic
Crack Crack
paths that
µsthe tension-compression
Propagation
at 90 under
for different slit model
Mixed-Mode
velocity values. [56] affects the development
Loading
of the crack patterns.
In this part, we introduced a third example of the numerical simulations of a dy-
4.2.3. Dynamic Crack Propagation under Mixed-Mode Loading
namicDynamic
4.2.3. fractureCracktest performed
Propagation byunder
Grégoire [57]. The Loading
Mixed-Mode specimen was directly impacted by a
In
fast jackthis part,
with we
anwe introduced
impact velocity a third example
of 10example
m/s and of the numerical loadingsimulations of a dy-
In this part, introduced a third ofthe
the compressive
numerical simulations was transformed
of a dynamic
namic fracture
by the circular test performed
hole into by Grégoire
tensile loading [57]. The
inspecimen specimen
the vicinity was directly impacted by a
fracture test performed by Grégoire [57]. The wasof the initial
directly impactednotch. byThe
a fastspecimen
jack
fast jack
geometry with an impact
is shown velocity
in Figure of 10
15. and m/s
The the and
geometry the compressive
was discretized loading was transformed
with an impact velocity of 10 m/s compressive loading wasbytransformed
60,000 triangular by the ele-
by the circular
ments whose hole into tensile
characteristic loading
size in the vicinity of the initial notch.were The specimen
circular hole into tensile loading inisthes =vicinity
0.2 mm. ofThe
the material
initial notch. properties
The specimen those
geometryadopted
geometry is shown in Figure
15.ρThe 15. The geometry was discretized by 60,000 triangular ele-
inshown
is [57]: Ein= Figure
2.4 GPa, = 1.18 × 10 kg/mm
geometry −6 , ν = 0.42
was discretized
3 byand 60,000Gc triangular
= 7 × 10 kN/mm.
−4 elements The whoselength
ments whose characteristic size is s =The 0.2 mm. The material properties were those adopted
characteristic
scale parameter sizewas
is sη== 0.2
0.4 mm.
mm and material
the time properties
step was Δt were
= 0.5 those
× 10 −4 adopted
ms. Figure in [57]:
16 illus-
inE [57]:
= 2.4 EGPa,
= 2.4ρ =GPa,
1.18 ρ×= 10
1.18
−6 × 10−6 kg/mm
kg/mm , ν =and
3 , ν = 30.42 0.42Gand= 7G× c = 7
10 −4× kN/mm.
10−4 kN/mm. The The
lengthlength
scale
trates the dynamic crack propagation obtained byc simulation. −4
scale parameter
parameter was η was η =mm
= 0.4 0.4 and
mm theandtime the step
time was step∆t was= 0.5Δt =×0.5 ×410
− ms. Figure 16 illus-
The crack propagation began from the initial crack10with ms.an Figure
angle16ofillustrates
−76°, which
trates
the the dynamic
dynamic crack crack propagation
propagation obtained obtained
by by simulation.
simulation.
corresponded
The crack
well to the began
propagation
experimental
from the
result
initial
of Grégoire [57]. In Figure 17, we super-
posed The thecrack propagation
experimental began
result and fromthe the initial crack
numerical crack
result
with
with an
an angle
obtained anglewith
of
of −76°,76◦ ,which
−phase which
field and
corresponded
corresponded well well to the experimental
to the experimentalresult resultofofGrégoire
Grégoire [57].[57].
In In Figure
Figure 17, we17, superposed
we super-
XFEM
posed method
the experimentaltreated by Grégoire [57]. Clearly, the phase field method has aand
greater
the experimental result result
and theand the numerical
numerical result result
obtained obtained with phase
with phase field and fieldXFEM
abilitymethod
XFEM to reproduce the
by experimental [57].observations. In fact,field
the crack path hasobtained by the
method treatedtreated
by Grégoire Grégoire
[57]. Clearly, Clearly,
the phase thefield
phase method method
has a greater aability
greaterto
developed
ability
reproduce program
to reproduce
the experimentaland the experimental
the experimental
observations. observations.are
In fact, thepractically
Incrack
fact, the similar.
pathcrack path by
obtained obtained by the
the developed
developed
program and program and the experimental
the experimental are practically are practically
similar. similar.

Figure15.
Figure 15.Geometry
Geometryofofthe
thespecimen
specimen and
and adopted
adopted boundary
boundary conditions:
conditions: dynamic
dynamic compression
compression test. test.
Figure 15. Geometry of the specimen and adopted boundary conditions: dynamic compression test.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

Figure16.
Figure
Figure 16.
16. Numerical
Numerical
Numerical crack
crack
crack path.
path.
path.

Figure 17. Superposition

Figure 17. Superposition of
of the
the experimental
experimental and
and numerical
numerical crack
crack paths.
paths.

4.2.4. Crack Arrest Due to Compressive Stress

The last example considered in this sub-section was the ‘one crack two holes’ stud-
ied by Grégoire [57] and Li et al. [56]. The aim was to better understand the effect of holes
presence at the cracks; initiation and propagation, as treated by Fageehi and Alshoaibi
 iedied
bybyGrégoire
Grégoire [57]
[57]andand LiLietetal.al.
[56]. The
[56]. Theaimaimwas
wastotobetter
betterunderstand
understandthe theeffect
effectofofholes
holes
presence
presence at at
thethecracks;
cracks; initiation
initiationand andpropagation,
propagation,asastreated
treatedby byFageehi
Fageehiand andAlshoaibi
Alshoaibi
[58]. The
[58]. specimen
The specimen was wasdirectly
directly impacted
impactedbybya afast fastjack
jackwith
withananimpact
impactvelocity
velocityof
of1010m/s.
m/s.
TheThespecimen
specimen geometry
geometry is is
shown
shown inin
Figure
Figure18.18.The
Thematerial
materialproperties
propertiesand andthe
themesh
meshsizesize
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 areare
thethe
same
same asasin in
thethepreceding
precedingexample.example.Figure
Figure1919shows
showsthe thedynamic
dynamiccrackcrackpropaga-
propaga-
13 of 18
tion
tion obtained
obtained forfor different
different time
time steps.
steps.
The The crack
crack propagatedfrom
propagated fromthe theinitial
initialcrack
crackandanditsitsarrest
arrestoccurs
occursatat0.13
0.13ms
msin in the
the
vicinity
vicinity of of
the the high-compression
high-compression
4.2.4. Crack Arrest Due to Compressive Stress area
area located
located under
under the
the right
right circular
circular hole.
hole. The
The predicted
predicted
crack
crack arrested
arrested in in
thethesamesameway wayasasthe theexperimental
experimentalone. one.Then,
Then,atatthe theboundary
boundaryof of the
the
The last example considered in this sub-section was the ‘one crack two holes’ studied
right
right circular
circular hole,
hole, a secondarycrack
a secondary cracknucleation
nucleationwas wasobserved
observedatat0.135 0.135msmsunder
under high
high
by Grégoire [57] and Li et al. [56]. The aim was to better understand the effect of holes
tension.
tension. This
This result
result is is very
very similartotothat
similar thatobtained
obtainedby byLiLietetal.
al.[56].
[56].However,
However,thisthisphe-
phe-
presence at the cracks; initiation and propagation, as treated by Fageehi and Alshoaibi [58].
nomenon
nomenon was
was not not observed
observed experimentally by Grégoire [57].
The specimen was directly experimentally
impacted by a fast by Grégoire
jack with [57].
an impact velocity of 10 m/s. The
For For length
length scale
scale η η
= = 0.2mm,
0.2 mm,nononucleation
nucleationofofsecondary
secondarycrack crackwaswasdetected
detectedatat tt ==
specimen geometry is shown in Figure 18. The material properties and the mesh size are
0.135
0.135 msms (see Figure
(see 20). This result highlights,again,
again,thetheimportance
importanceofofinternal
internallength
lengthas as
the same as Figure 20).
in the preceding This result highlights,
example. Figure 19 shows the dynamic crack propagation
a material
a obtained
material parameter.
parameter.
for different time steps.

Figure18.
Figure 18. Geometry
Geometry of
of the
the specimen
specimen and adopted boundary
boundary conditions:
conditions: ‘One
‘Onecrack
cracktwo
twoholes’
holes’
Figure 18. Geometry of the specimen and adopted boundary conditions: ‘One crack two holes’
experiment.
experiment.
experiment.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18

t = 0.1 ms t = 0.11 ms
t = 0.1 ms t = 0.11 ms

t = 0.13 ms t = 0.135 ms
Figure paths at
Figure 19. Crack paths at different
different time
time steps
steps(η
(η==0.4).
0.4).

The crack propagated from the initial crack and its arrest occurs at 0.13 ms in the
vicinity of the high-compression area located under the right circular hole. The predicted
crack arrested in the same way as the experimental one. Then, at the boundary of the right
circular hole, a secondary crack nucleation was observed at 0.135 ms under high tension.
This result is very similar to that obtained by Li et al. [56]. However, this phenomenon was
not observed experimentally by Grégoire [57].
For length scale η = 0.2 mm, no nucleation of secondary crack was detected at
t = 0.135 ms (see Figure 20). This result highlights, again, the importance of internal length
as a material parameter.
η = 0.4 mm η = 0.2 mm

Figure 20. Crack paths at t = 0.135 ms for different η values.

5. Conclusions
Several 2D plane stress benchmark examples for quasi-static and dynamic crack
propagations were investigated. The effects of critical energy release rate, velocity and
length scale parameter on the results were also checked. It can therefore be concluded
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 t = 0.13 ms t = 0.135 ms
14 of 18
Figure 19. Crack paths at different time steps (η = 0.4).

η = 0.4 mm η = 0.2 mm

Figure 20. Crack paths at t = 0.135 ms for different

different η values.

5.
5. Conclusions
Conclusions
Several
Several 2D 2D plane
plane stress
stress benchmark
benchmark examples
examples for for quasi-static
quasi-static andand dynamic
dynamic crack
crack
propagations
propagations were investigated. The effects of critical energy release rate, velocity and
were investigated. The effects of critical energy release rate, velocity and
length
length scale
scaleparameter
parameterononthe theresults
resultswere alsoalso
were checked.
checked.It can
It therefore be concluded
can therefore from
be concluded
this
fromstudy
this that,
study with thewith
that, hybridtheformulation, the phase the
hybrid formulation, fieldphase
method provides
field methoda hopeful toola
provides
for managing fracture problems and complicated crack path topologies
hopeful tool for managing fracture problems and complicated crack path topologies with with correct crack
patterns and satisfactory
correct crack patterns and accuracy. We conducted
satisfactory accuracy.tensileWetests on pre-cracked
conducted tensilespecimens
tests on
with a centralspecimens
pre-cracked hole madewith in quenched
a central steel
hole C90
made duein to the limited
quenched number
steel C90 due of to
experimental
the limited
results that demonstrated the dynamic effect on the crack path in brittle materials. The
number of experimental results that demonstrated the dynamic effect on the crack path
trajectory of the crack is a function of the distance between the pre-crack and the hole
in brittle materials. The trajectory of the crack is a function of the distance between the
axis as well as the loading types: quasi-static or dynamic tests. The numerical analysis
pre-crack and the hole axis as well as the loading types: quasi-static or dynamic tests. The
revealed the same phenomena. In 2D problems, the implementation of this model is simpler
numerical analysis revealed the same phenomena. In 2D problems, the implementation
and requires less time to calculate than the case of anisotropic formulation. The results
of this model is simpler and requires less time to calculate than the case of anisotropic
obtained with the phase field method using a hybrid formulation are extremely useful. In
formulation. The results obtained with the phase field method using a hybrid formula-
fact, this method is capable of capturing various dynamic fracture phenomena including
tion are extremely useful. In fact, this method is capable of capturing various dynamic
fragmentation, crack arrest, crack branching, and multiple branching.
fracture phenomena including fragmentation, crack arrest, crack branching, and multiple
As future perspectives, we will first focus on the enhancement of the energy expression
branching.
in order to be able to predict the crack initiation in the case of a uniaxial compression test
As future perspectives, we will first focus on the enhancement of the energy ex-
and will take into account the crack roughness on the propagation phenomena. We will
pression
also extendin order
this workto betoable to predict
study the crack initiation
three-dimensional in thepropagation
brittle crack case of a uniaxial com-
and ductile
pression test and will take into account the crack
fracture, taking into account the plastic behavior of the material. roughness on the propagation phe-
nomena. We will also extend this work to study three-dimensional brittle
The drawback of this technique is that it requires a small mesh size to ensure correct crack propaga-
crack pathductile
tion and fracture,
estimation. Thus,taking
a greatintodeal
account the plastic
of computing behavior
time of the
and a very material.computer
powerful
The drawback of this technique is that it requires a small
to carry out the simulations in the case of real engineering structures are needed. mesh size to ensure
The correct
hybrid
crack path estimation. Thus, a great deal of computing time and
formulation should be enhanced to predict the crack initiation in the case of a uniaxial a very powerful com-
puter to carry out the simulations in the case of real engineering
compression test and to take into account the effect of crack roughness on propagation structures are needed.
The hybrid formulation should be enhanced to predict the crack initiation in the case of a
phenomena.
uniaxial compression test and to take into account the effect of crack roughness on
propagation
Author phenomena.
Contributions: Resources, Y.K. and Y.H.; Writing-original draft, Y.K.; Writing—review &
editing, Y.K.; Software, Y.K.; Investigation, Y.H., A.A. and B.Z. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented are available on request from the correspond-
ing author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Finite Element Discretization

We numerically solved the phase field models based on the finite element method
for the hybrid formulations. We used the staggered scheme, in which the displacement
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 15 of 18

field and the phase field are updated alternatively. This scheme was chosen to ensure the
robustness of the numerical solutions. In MATLAB, the finite element method is used with
the weak form of the governing equations given by:
Z Z Z
..
(−ρu.δudΩ − σ : δε)dΩ + b.δu dΩ + f.δu dS = 0 (A1)
Ω Ω ∂Ω

and  
1
Z Z
−2H (1 − α)δαdΩ + Gc 2η ∇α∇δα + αδα dΩ = 0 (A2)
Ω 2η
Ω

Using Voigt notation in a 2D setting, the primary variables can be discretized as follows:
m m
u= ∑ Nui ui , α = ∑ Ni αi (A3)
i=1 i=1

in which  
Ni 0
Nui = (A4)
0 Ni
 T
where Ni is the shape function associated with node i, ui = ux , uy i and αi are the
displacement and phase field values at node i. In this work we opted for the use of the
standard 3-node triangular element, so that the index m = 3. The corresponding derivative
quantities are given by:
m m
ε = ∑ Bui ui , ∇α = ∑ Biα αi (A5)
i=1 i=1

with  
Ni,x 0  
Ni,x
Bui =  0 Ni,y , Biα = (A6)
Ni,y
Ni,y Ni,x
As a consequence, the test functions and their derivatives were discretized as
m m
δu = ∑ Ni δui , δα = ∑ Ni δαi
i=1 i=1 (A7)
m m
δε = ∑ Bui δui , ∇δα = ∑ Biα δαi
i=1 i=1

After discretization, the Equations (A1) and (A2) are written as:
Z Z Z Z
..
− (ρNiuT NuT
j dΩui − BuT u
i CBj dΩui + NiuT b dΩ + NiuT fdS = 0
Ω Ω Ω ∂Ω (A8)
| {z } | {z } | {z }
..
Fine
u = Mu Fint
u = Ku u Fext
u
Z  
Gc
Z
− 2Gc ηBiαT Bjα +( + 2H)Ni Nj dΩαi + 2HNi dΩ = 0
2η
Ω Ω (A9)
| {z } | {z }
Fint
α = K α α Fext
α

where Fine int ext

u , Fu and Fu are the inertial, internal, and external forces for the displacement
int ext
field and Fα and Fα are the internal and external force terms of the phase field. C is the
elasticity tensor.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 16 of 18

Additionally, the mass and stiffness matrices can be written as

ρNiuT NuT
 R
 M= j dΩ
ΩR



Ku = BuT u
i CBj dΩ

(A10)
 Ω
Rh i
2Gc ηBiαT Bjα + ( G

c
Kα = 2η + 2H)Ni Nj dΩ


Ω

Appendix B. Implicit Dynamics Solver

In order to solve the dynamic equilibrium Equation (A8), the Newmark integration
(Newmark, [59]) was adopted in this work with β = 1/4 and γ = 1/2 to ensure the algo-
rithm stability.
At the beginning of the instant t0 , the initial accelerations a0 are calculated on the
basis of the a priori boundary and initial conditions. Subsequently, the current nodal
displacements and velocities are predicted from the following equations:

pred . ∆t2 ..
un+1 = un + ∆tun + un (A11)
4
∆t ..
. pred .
un
un +1 = un + (A12)
2
Then the nodal accelerations are solved from the governing equation:

∆t2
 
.. pred
M+ Ku un+1 = Fuext n+1 − Ku un+1 (A13)
2

Later, the current nodal displacements and velocities are updated from equations:

pred ∆t2 ..
un +1 = un +1 + u (A14)
4 n +1
. . pred ∆t ..
un +1 = un +1 + u (A15)
2 n +1

References
1. Griffith, A.A. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 1921, 221,
163–198.
2. Zhou, S.J.; Lomdahl, P.S.; Thomson, R.; Holian, B.L. Dynamic crack processes via molecular dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996,
76, 2318. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Rountree, C.L.; Kalia, R.K.; Lidorikis, E.; Nakano, A.; van Brutzel, L.; Vashishta, P. Atomistic aspects of crack propagation in
brittle materials: Multimillion atom molecular dynamics simulations. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2002, 32, 377–400. [CrossRef]
4. Gui, Y.L.; Bui, H.H.; Kodikara, J.; Zhang, Q.B.; Zhao, J.; Rabczuk, T. Modelling the dynamic failure of brittle rocks using a hybrid
continuum-discrete element method with a mixed-mode cohesive fracture model. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2016, 87, 146–155. [CrossRef]
5. Zhou, F.; Molinari, J.F. Dynamic crack propagation with cohesive elements: A methodology to address mesh dependency. Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. 2004, 59, 1–24. [CrossRef]
6. Falk, M.L.; Needleman, A.; Rice, J.R. A critical evaluation of cohesive zone models of dynamic fracture. J. Phys. 2001, 11,
Pr5-43–Pr5-50.
7. Martinelli, D.; Insana, A. Application of a Finite-Discrete Element Method Code for Modelling Rock Spalling in Tunnels: The
Case of the Lyon-Turin Base Tunnel. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 591. [CrossRef]
8. Huespe, A.E.; Oliver, J.; Sanchez, P.J.; Blanco, S.; Sonzogni, V. Strong discontinuity approach in dynamic fracture simulations.
Mec. Comput. 2006, 25, 1997–2018.
9. Moës, N.; Dolbow, J.; Belytschko, T. A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.
1999, 46, 131–150. [CrossRef]
10. Réthoré, J.; Gravouil, A.; Combescure, A. An energy-conserving scheme for dynamic crack growth using the extended finite
element method. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 2005, 63, 631–659. [CrossRef]
11. Prabel, B.; Combescure, A.; Gravouil, A.; Marie, S. Level set X-FEM non-matching meshes: Application to dynamic crack
propagation in elastic–plastic media. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 2007, 69, 1553–1569. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 17 of 18

12. Gomez-Gamboa, E.; Diaz-Rodriguez, J.G.; Mantilla-villalobos, J.A.; Bohorquez-Becerra, O.R.; Martinez, M.D.J. Experimental and
Numerical Evaluation of Equivalent Stress Intensity Factor Models under Mixed-Mode (I+II) Loading. Infrastructures 2024, 9, 45.
[CrossRef]
13. Pijaudier-Cabot, G.; Bažant, Z.P. Nonlocal damage theory. J. Eng. Mech. 1987, 113, 1512–1533. [CrossRef]
14. Jirasek, M. Nonlocal models for damage and fracture: Comparison of approaches. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1998, 35, 4133–4145.
[CrossRef]
15. Moës, N.; Stolz, C.; Bernard, P.E.; Chevaugeon, N. A level set based model for damage growth: The thick level set approach. Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. 2011, 86, 358–380. [CrossRef]
16. Bernard, P.E.; Moës, N.; Chevaugeon, N. Damage growth modeling using the thick level set (TLS) approach: Efficient discretization
for quasi-static loadings. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2012, 233–236, 11–27. [CrossRef]
17. Francfort, G.; Marigo, J.J. Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1998, 46, 1319–1342.
[CrossRef]
18. Francfort, G.; Marigo, J.J. Vers une théorie énergétique de la rupture fragile. Comptes Rendus Mécanique 2002, 330, 225–233.
[CrossRef]
19. Bourdin, B.; Francfort, G.; Marigo, J.J. Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2000, 48, 797–826.
[CrossRef]
20. Baktheer, A.; Martinez-Paneda, E.; Aldakheel, F. Phase field cohesive zone modeling for fatigue crack propagation in quasi-brittle
materials. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2024, 422, 116834. [CrossRef]
21. 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, 1273–1311. [CrossRef]
22. Heister, T.; Wheeler, M.F.; Wick, T. A primal-dual active set method and predictor-corrector mesh adaptivity for computing
fracture propagation using a phase-field approach. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2015, 290, 466–495. [CrossRef]
23. Kaczmarczyk, L.; Ullah, Z.; Lewandowski, K.; Meng, X.; Zhou, X.Y.; Athanasiadis, I.; Nguyen, H.; Chalons-Mouriesse, C.A.;
Richardson, E.; Miur, E.; et al. MoFEM: An open source parallel finite element library. J. Open Source Softw. 2020, 5, 1441.
[CrossRef]
24. Wick, T. Modified Newton methods for solving fully monolithic phase-field quasi-static brittle fracture propagation. Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2017, 325, 577–611. [CrossRef]
25. Wu, J.Y.; Huang, Y. Comprehensive implementations of phase-field damage models in abaqus. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2020, 106,
102440. [CrossRef]
26. Aldakheel, F.; Hudobivnik, B.; Hussein, A.; Wriggers, P. Phase-field modeling of brittle fracture using an efficient virtual element
scheme. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2018, 341, 443–466. [CrossRef]
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, 2765–2778. [CrossRef]
28. Amor, H.; Marigo, J.J.; Maurini, C. Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical
experiments. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2009, 57, 1209–1229. [CrossRef]
29. Sicsic, P.; Marigo, J.J.; Maurini, C. Initiation of a periodic array of cracks in the thermal shock problem: A gradient damage
modeling. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2014, 63, 256–284. [CrossRef]
30. Farrell, P.; Maurini, C. Linear and nonlinear solvers for variational phase-field models of brittle fracture. Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng. 2017, 109, 648–667. [CrossRef]
31. Chaboche, J.L.; Feyel, F.; Monerie, Y. Interface debonding models: A viscous regularization with a limited rate dependency. Int. J.
Solids Struct. 2001, 38, 3127–3160. [CrossRef]
32. Lorentz, E.; Benallal, A. Gradient constitutive relations: Numerical aspects and application to gradient damage. Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng. 2005, 194, 5191–5220. [CrossRef]
33. Marigo, J.J.; Maurini, C.; Pham, K. An overview of the modelling of fracture by gradient damage models. Meccanica 2016, 51,
3107–3128. [CrossRef]
34. Bourdin, B.; Francfort, G.A.; Marigo, J.J. The Variational Approach to Fracture; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008.
35. Molnar, G.; Gravouil, A.; Seghir, R.; Réthoré, J. An open-source Abaqus implementation of the phase-field method to study the
effect of plasticity on the instantaneous fracture toughness in dynamic crack propagation. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2020,
365, 113004. [CrossRef]
36. Kriaa, Y.; Hentati, H.; Zouari, B. Optimized method for computing phase-field model using decoupling scheme. In Design and
Modeling of Mechanical Systems—III, Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Design and Modeling of Mechanical Systems, Hammamet,
Tunisia, 27–29 March 2017; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1101–1110. [CrossRef]
37. Kriaa, Y.; Hentati, H.; Zouari, B. Applying the phase-field approach for brittle fracture prediction: Numerical implementation and
experimental validation. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2020, 29, 828–839. [CrossRef]
38. Ambati, M.; Gerasimov, T.; De Lorenzis, L. A review on phase-field models of brittle fracture and a new fast hybrid formulation.
Comput. Mech. 2015, 55, 383–405. [CrossRef]
39. Wu, J.Y. A unified phase-field theory for the mechanics of damage and quasi-brittle failure. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2017, 103, 72–99.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4000 18 of 18

40. Lesicar, T.; Polancec, T.; Tonkovic, Z. Convergence Check Phase-Field Scheme for Modelling of Brittle and Ductile Fractures. Appl.
Sci. 2023, 13, 7776. [CrossRef]
41. Jeong, H.; Signetti, S.; Seok Han, T.; Ryu, S. Phase field modeling of crack propagation under combined shear and tensile loading
with hybrid formulation. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2018, 155, 483–492. [CrossRef]
42. Borden, M.J.; Verhoosel, C.V.; Scott, M.A.; Hughes, T.J.; Landis, C.M. A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture. Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2012, 217–220, 77–95. [CrossRef]
43. Nguyen, T.T.; Yvonnet, J.; Zhu, Q.Z.; Bornert, M.; Château, C. A phase field method to simulate crack nucleation and propagation
in strongly heterogeneous materials from direct imaging of their microstructure. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2015, 133, 37–38. [CrossRef]
44. Sammis, C.G.; Ashby, M.F. The Failure of Brittle Porous Solids under Compressive Stress States. Acta Merall 1986, 34, 511–526.
[CrossRef]
45. Kalthoff, J.F. Modes of dynamic shear failure in solids. Int. J. Fract. 2000, 101, 1–31. [CrossRef]
46. Rabczuk, T.; Zi, G.; Gerstenberger, A.; Wall, W.A. A new crack tip element for the phantom-node method with arbitrary cohesive
cracks. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 2008, 75, 577–599. [CrossRef]
47. Rabczuk, T.; Zi, G. A meshfree method based on the local partition of unity for cohesive cracks. Comput. Mech. 2007, 39, 743–760.
[CrossRef]
48. Rabczuk, T.; Bordas, S.; Zi, G. A three-dimensional meshfree method for continuous multiple-crack initiation, propagation and
junction in statics and dynamics. Comput. Mech. 2007, 40, 473–495. [CrossRef]
49. Ren, H.; Zhuang, X.; Rabczuk, T. Dual-horizon peridynamics: A stable solution to varying horizons. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng. 2017, 318, 762–782. [CrossRef]
50. Ren, H.; Zhuang, X.; Cai, Y.; Rabczuk, T. Dual-horizon peridynamics. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 2016, 108, 1451–1476. [CrossRef]
51. Rabczuk, T.; Samaniego, E. Discontinuous modelling of shear bands using adaptive meshfree methods. Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Eng. 2008, 197, 641–658. [CrossRef]
52. Rabczuk, T.; Areias, P.M.A.; Belytschko, T. A simplified mesh-free method for shear bands with cohesive surfaces. Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 2007, 69, 993–1021. [CrossRef]
53. Rabczuk, T.; Zi, G.; Bordas, S.; Hung, N.-X. A simple and robust three-dimensional cracking-particle method without enrichment.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2010, 199, 2437–2455. [CrossRef]
54. Zhou, S.; Rabczuk, T.; Zhuang, X. Phase field modeling of quasi-static and dynamic crack propagation: COMSOL implementation
and case studies. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2018, 122, 31–49. [CrossRef]
55. Zhang, Z.; Paulino, G.H.; Celes, W. Extrinsic cohesive modelling of dynamic fracture and microbranching instability in brittle
materials. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 2007, 72, 893–923. [CrossRef]
56. Li, T.; Marigo, J.J.; Guilbaud, D.; Potapov, S. Gradient damage modeling of brittle fracture in an explicit dynamics context. Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. 2016, 108, 1381–1405. [CrossRef]
57. Grégoire, D. Initiation, Propagation, Arrêt et Redémarrage de Fissures Sous Impact. Ph.D. Thesis, Institut National des Sciences
Appliquées de Lyon, Lyon, France, 2008.
58. Fageehi, Y.A.; Alshoaibi, A.M. Investigating the Influence of Holes as Crack Arrestors in Simulating Crack Growth Behavior
Using Finite Element Method. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 897. [CrossRef]
59. Newmark, N.M. A method of computation for structural dynamics. ASCE J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1959, 85, 67–94. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.