Comparison of the phase-field approach and cohesive element modeling to analyze the double cleavage drilled compression fracture test of an elastoplastic material
{"title":"Comparison of the phase-field approach and cohesive element modeling to analyze the double cleavage drilled compression fracture test of an elastoplastic material","authors":"Arnaud Coq, Julie Diani, Stella Brach","doi":"10.1007/s10704-023-00755-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Brittle material Mode I fracture may be characterized by the double cleavage drilled compression test. For linear elastic materials, the critical energy release rate, or fracture toughness, can be estimated simply using the linear elastic fracture mechanics. For other types of constitutive behavior, the material parameter has to be determined with numerical fracture modeling. In this paper, we have used two approaches, the phase-field damage model and the cohesive elements, in order to estimate the critical energy release rate of an elastoplastic material. Firstly, we assessed the numerical models and discussed their parameters by comparison of available data from double cleavage drilled compression experimental tests run on a silica glass. Both phase-field damage and cohesive zone models were able to reproduce fracture initiation at the observed macroscopic stress for the linear elastic material. However, the material toughness could not be predicted by the phase-field approach due to the result dependence on the model regularization parameter. Secondly, an elastoplastic methyl methacrylate polymer was submitted to the compression test in our lab. Both models were then extended for elastic-perfectly plastic materials. Crack initiation was obtained at the observed macroscopic strain for similar critical energy release rate ranges for both approaches, providing good confidence in the estimated material toughness.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":590,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Fracture","volume":"245 3","pages":"209 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Fracture","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10704-023-00755-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Brittle material Mode I fracture may be characterized by the double cleavage drilled compression test. For linear elastic materials, the critical energy release rate, or fracture toughness, can be estimated simply using the linear elastic fracture mechanics. For other types of constitutive behavior, the material parameter has to be determined with numerical fracture modeling. In this paper, we have used two approaches, the phase-field damage model and the cohesive elements, in order to estimate the critical energy release rate of an elastoplastic material. Firstly, we assessed the numerical models and discussed their parameters by comparison of available data from double cleavage drilled compression experimental tests run on a silica glass. Both phase-field damage and cohesive zone models were able to reproduce fracture initiation at the observed macroscopic stress for the linear elastic material. However, the material toughness could not be predicted by the phase-field approach due to the result dependence on the model regularization parameter. Secondly, an elastoplastic methyl methacrylate polymer was submitted to the compression test in our lab. Both models were then extended for elastic-perfectly plastic materials. Crack initiation was obtained at the observed macroscopic strain for similar critical energy release rate ranges for both approaches, providing good confidence in the estimated material toughness.
脆性材料的 I 型断裂可通过双劈裂钻孔压缩试验来表征。对于线性弹性材料,临界能量释放率或断裂韧性可通过线性弹性断裂力学简单估算。对于其他类型的构成行为,材料参数必须通过数值断裂模型来确定。在本文中,我们采用了相场损伤模型和内聚元素两种方法来估算弹塑性材料的临界能量释放率。首先,我们对数值模型进行了评估,并通过对比硅玻璃双劈钻孔压缩实验测试的可用数据讨论了模型参数。相场损伤模型和内聚区模型都能再现线性弹性材料在观测到的宏观应力下的断裂起始。然而,由于结果取决于模型正则化参数,相场方法无法预测材料的韧性。其次,我们在实验室对一种弹性甲基丙烯酸甲酯聚合物进行了压缩试验。然后将这两个模型扩展到弹性全塑材料。在两种方法的临界能量释放率范围相似的情况下,在观察到的宏观应变处都出现了裂纹起始,这为估计材料韧性提供了很好的可信度。
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Fracture is an outlet for original analytical, numerical and experimental contributions which provide improved understanding of the mechanisms of micro and macro fracture in all materials, and their engineering implications.
The Journal is pleased to receive papers from engineers and scientists working in various aspects of fracture. Contributions emphasizing empirical correlations, unanalyzed experimental results or routine numerical computations, while representing important necessary aspects of certain fatigue, strength, and fracture analyses, will normally be discouraged; occasional review papers in these as well as other areas are welcomed. Innovative and in-depth engineering applications of fracture theory are also encouraged.
In addition, the Journal welcomes, for rapid publication, Brief Notes in Fracture and Micromechanics which serve the Journal''s Objective. Brief Notes include: Brief presentation of a new idea, concept or method; new experimental observations or methods of significance; short notes of quality that do not amount to full length papers; discussion of previously published work in the Journal, and Brief Notes Errata.