YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASME
    • Journal of Applied Mechanics
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASME
    • Journal of Applied Mechanics
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Critical Comparison of Phase-Field, Peridynamics, and Crack Band Model M7 in Light of Gap Test and Classical Fracture Tests

    Source: Journal of Applied Mechanics:;2022:;volume( 089 ):;issue: 006::page 61008-1
    Author:
    Bažant
    ,
    Zdeněk P.;Nguyen
    ,
    Hoang T.;Abdullah Dönmez
    ,
    A.
    DOI: 10.1115/1.4054221
    Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
    Abstract: The recently conceived gap test and its simulation revealed that the fracture energy Gf (or Kc, Jcr) of concrete, plastic-hardening metals, composites, and probably most materials can change by ±100%, depending on the crack-parallel stresses σxx, σzz, and their history. Therefore, one must consider not only a finite length but also a finite width of the fracture process zone, along with its tensorial damage behavior. The data from this test, along with ten other classical tests important for fracture problems (nine on concrete, one on sandstone), are optimally fitted to evaluate the performance of the state-of-art phase-field, peridynamic, and crack band models. Thanks to its realistic boundary and crack-face conditions as well as its tensorial nature, the crack band model, combined with the microplane damage constitutive law in its latest version M7, is found to fit all data well. On the contrary, the phase-field models perform poorly. Peridynamic models (both bond based and state based) perform even worse. The recent correction in the bond-associated deformation gradient helps to improve the predictions in some experiments, but not all. This confirms the previous strictly theoretical critique (JAM 2016), which showed that peridynamics of all kinds suffers from several conceptual faults: (1) It implies a lattice microstructure; (2) its particle–skipping interactions are a fiction; (4) it ignores shear-resisted particle rotations (which are what lends the lattice discrete particle model (LDPM) its superior performance); (3) its representation of the boundaries, especially the crack and fracture process zone faces, is physically unrealistic; and (5) it cannot reproduce the transitional size effect—a quintessential characteristic of quasibrittleness. The misleading practice of “verifying” a model with only one or two simple tests matchable by many different models, or showcasing an ad hoc improvement for one type of test while ignoring misfits of others, is pointed out. In closing, the ubiquity of crack-parallel stresses in practical problems of concrete, shale, fiber composites, plastic-hardening metals, and materials on submicrometer scale is emphasized.
    • Download: (3.213Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Critical Comparison of Phase-Field, Peridynamics, and Crack Band Model M7 in Light of Gap Test and Classical Fracture Tests

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4287030
    Collections
    • Journal of Applied Mechanics

    Show full item record

    contributor authorBažant
    contributor authorZdeněk P.;Nguyen
    contributor authorHoang T.;Abdullah Dönmez
    contributor authorA.
    date accessioned2022-08-18T12:53:02Z
    date available2022-08-18T12:53:02Z
    date copyright4/26/2022 12:00:00 AM
    date issued2022
    identifier issn0021-8936
    identifier otherjam_89_6_061008.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4287030
    description abstractThe recently conceived gap test and its simulation revealed that the fracture energy Gf (or Kc, Jcr) of concrete, plastic-hardening metals, composites, and probably most materials can change by ±100%, depending on the crack-parallel stresses σxx, σzz, and their history. Therefore, one must consider not only a finite length but also a finite width of the fracture process zone, along with its tensorial damage behavior. The data from this test, along with ten other classical tests important for fracture problems (nine on concrete, one on sandstone), are optimally fitted to evaluate the performance of the state-of-art phase-field, peridynamic, and crack band models. Thanks to its realistic boundary and crack-face conditions as well as its tensorial nature, the crack band model, combined with the microplane damage constitutive law in its latest version M7, is found to fit all data well. On the contrary, the phase-field models perform poorly. Peridynamic models (both bond based and state based) perform even worse. The recent correction in the bond-associated deformation gradient helps to improve the predictions in some experiments, but not all. This confirms the previous strictly theoretical critique (JAM 2016), which showed that peridynamics of all kinds suffers from several conceptual faults: (1) It implies a lattice microstructure; (2) its particle–skipping interactions are a fiction; (4) it ignores shear-resisted particle rotations (which are what lends the lattice discrete particle model (LDPM) its superior performance); (3) its representation of the boundaries, especially the crack and fracture process zone faces, is physically unrealistic; and (5) it cannot reproduce the transitional size effect—a quintessential characteristic of quasibrittleness. The misleading practice of “verifying” a model with only one or two simple tests matchable by many different models, or showcasing an ad hoc improvement for one type of test while ignoring misfits of others, is pointed out. In closing, the ubiquity of crack-parallel stresses in practical problems of concrete, shale, fiber composites, plastic-hardening metals, and materials on submicrometer scale is emphasized.
    publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
    titleCritical Comparison of Phase-Field, Peridynamics, and Crack Band Model M7 in Light of Gap Test and Classical Fracture Tests
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume89
    journal issue6
    journal titleJournal of Applied Mechanics
    identifier doi10.1115/1.4054221
    journal fristpage61008-1
    journal lastpage61008-26
    page26
    treeJournal of Applied Mechanics:;2022:;volume( 089 ):;issue: 006
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian