PAMM · Proc. Appl. Math. Mech. 13, 533 – 536 (2013) / DOI 10.1002/pamm.

201310258

Phase Field Modeling of Brittle and Ductile Fracture

Heike Ulmer1,∗ , Martina Hofacker1 , and Christian Miehe1
1
Institute of Applied Mechanics (CE), Chair 1, University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 7, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

The phase field modeling of brittle fracture was a topic of intense research in the last few years and is now well-established.
We refer to the work [1–3], where a thermodynamically consistent framework was developed. The main advantage is that the
phase-field-type diffusive crack approach is a smooth continuum formulation which avoids the modeling of discontinuities
and can be implemented in a straightforward manner by multi-field finite element methods. Therefore complex crack patterns
including branching can be resolved easily. In this paper, we extend the recently outlined phase field model of brittle crack
propagation [1–3] towards the analysis of ductile fracture in elastic-plastic solids. In particular, we propose a formulation that
is able to predict the brittle-to-ductile failure mode transition under dynamic loading that was first observed in experiments
by Kalthoff and Winkler [4] . To this end, we outline a new thermodynamically consistent framework for phase field models
of crack propagation in ductile elastic-plastic solids under dynamic loading, develop an incremental variational principle
and consider its robust numerical implementation by a multi-field finite element method. The performance of the proposed
phase field formulation of fracture is demonstrated by means of the numerical simulation of the classical Kalthoff-Winkler
experiment that shows the dynamic failure mode transition.
c 2013 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

1 Approximation of Crack Topology by Phase Field

We introduce the time-dependent crack phase field d ∈ [0, 1] characterizing for d = 0 the unbroken and for d = 1 the fully
broken state of the material. A regularized crack phase field d(x, t), see Fig. 1, is obtained from the minimization principle
 
1 l
Z Z
d(x, t) = Arg inf Γl (d) with Γl (d) = γ(d, ∇d) dV = [ d2 + |∇d|2 ] dV (1)
d ∈ WΓ(t) B B 2l 2

subject to the Dirichlet constraints WΓ(t) = {d | d(x, t) = 1 at x ∈ Γ(t)}. The crack functional Γl in terms of the crack
surface density function γ(d, ∇d) governs the regularization by the length scale parameter l giving for l → 0 the sharp crack
topology. The reader is referred to the recent work [1] for a more detailed derivation of the diffusive crack topology.

2 Incremental Variational Principle of Phase Field Fracture Coupled with Plasticity

The primary fields of the coupled problem are the displacement field u and the fracture phase field d, as well as the internal
field variables εp and α describing plastic strains and hardening, as visualized in Fig. 1. We introduce the global energy
storage functional
gc l
Z
E(u, εp , α, d) = [ ψ e (εe , d) + ψ p (α, d) + |∇d|2 ] dV with εe := ε − εp . (2)
B 2

The elastic energy function ψ e is additively decomposed into ψ0e+ due to tension and ψ0e− due to compression based on a
spectral decomposition of the elastic strain tensor

ψ e (εe , d) = g(d) ψ0e+ (εe ) + ψ0e− (εe ) with ψ0e± (εe ) = λ htr[εe ]i2± /2 + µ tr[εe2
±]. (3)

The degradation function g(d) = (1 − d)2 describes the degradation of the positive reference energy with evolving damage
and therefore ensures crack propagation in tension only. The plastic energy ψ p is associated with linear isotropic hardening
and an indicator function

ψ p (α, d) = ψ0p (α) + g(d) Iǫ with ψ0p (α) = 21 hα2 and Iǫ = 21 ǫhα − αc i2 . (4)

The indicator function, which is shown in Fig. 2, drives the ductile failure mechanism as soon as a critical equivalent plastic
strain αc is reached. The rate of the energy functional at given state {u, εp , α, d} is per definition the time derivative of the
energy storage functional
d
Z
E(u̇, d; u, d) := E = [σ : (∇s u̇ − ε̇p ) + β α̇ − f d˙ + κ · ∇d]
˙ ˙ dV (5)
dt B

∗ Corresponding author: Email ulmer@mechbau.uni-stuttgart.de, phone +49 711 685 69260, fax +49 711 685 66347

c 2013 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

534 Young Researchers’ Minisymposia Ma2: Analytical and engineering aspects in the material modeling of solids

σ · n = tN ∇d· n =0

Γ n
x∈B n x∈B x∈B
u d εp α
l
u=uD
displacement field phase field plastic strain hardening
Fig. 1: A multi-field approach of phase-field-type crack propagation. The global fields u, d and the local internal field variables εp , α.

and is governed by the stress tensor σ, the force β dual to the equivalent plastic strain α, the micro force κ

σ := ∂εe ψ , β := ∂α ψ = hα + g(d) ǫ hα − αc i , κ := ∂∇d ψ = gc l|∇d| , (6)

as well as the energetic driving force f accounting for brittle and ductile contributions to the crack evolution

f := −∂d ψ := f e + f p = 2(1 − d) ψ0e+ (εe ) + 2(1 − d) Iǫ (α) . (7)

The rate of the kinetic energy functional is considered to be a functional of the velocity u̇ at frozen acceleration ü

d d 1
Z Z
K(u̇; ü) := K = [ ρu̇ · u̇] dV = [ρu̇ · ü] dV . (8)
dt dt B 2 B

The dissipation functional for rate-independent processes is described in terms of the convex dissipation potential function φ
Z
˙ =
D∗ (ε̇p , α̇, d) ˙ dV
φ(ε̇p , α̇, d) with ˙ = φp (ε̇p , α̇) + φd (d)
φ(ε̇p , α̇, d) ˙ , (9)
B

where φp describes the plastic flow mechanism and φd the evolution of the crack phase field. Using the concept of maximum
dissipation one obtains separately φp for the plastic flow mechanism
q
φp (ε˙p , α̇) = sup [σ p : ε̇p − β p α̇ − λp tpc (σ p , β p ) ] with tpc (σ p , β p ) = |devσ p | − 23 (y0 + β p ) ≤ 0 (10)
σ p ,β p ,λp ≥0

in terms of the von Mises yield function tpc defining the elastic domain and φd for the evolution of the phase field

˙ = gc
φd (d) sup [ β d d˙ − λd tdc (β d , d) ] with tdc (β d , d) = β d − d≤0 (11)
β d ,λd ≥0 l

in terms of the fracture threshold function tdc . The rate potential function Π = E + K + D∗ − P balances the internal power
E + K + D∗ with the power due to external loading P . The governing equations are obtained from the modified variational
principle

˙ σ p , β p , λp , β d , λd } = Arg{
{u̇, ε̇p , α̇, d, inf sup sup Π}. (12)
u̇,ε̇p ,α̇,d˙ σ p ,β p ,λp ≥0 β d ,λd ≥0

˙ β d , λd ≥ 0 gives the coupled Euler-Lagrange equations

Variation with respect to the variables u̇, d,

(1) : Div[ σ ] + γ̄ = ρü (4) : λd ≥ 0

(2) : β d − f − Div[ gc l |∇d| ] = 0 (5) : β − glc d
d
≤0 (13)
(3) : d˙ − λd = 0 (6) : λd (β d − glc d) =0,

Iǫ (α) d
1

a) b)
αc α αc α
Fig. 2: a) The indicator function Iǫ in terms of the equivalent plastic strain α drives the ductile crack evolution. b) Ductile failure occurs as
soon as a critical equivalent plastic strain αc is reached.

c 2013 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.gamm-proceedings.com
PAMM · Proc. Appl. Math. Mech. 13 (2013) 535

coming along with the Neumann-type boundary conditions. Variation with respect to the plastic variables yields
(7) : −σ + σ p = 0 (11) : λp ≥ 0
(8) : β − βp = 0 q
p p p p (12) : |devσ p | − 23 (y0 + β p ) ≤ 0 (14)
(9) : ε̇ − λ devσ /|devσ
q |=0 q
(10) : −α̇ + λ p 2
=0 (13) : λp (|devσ p | − 23 (y0 + β p )) = 0 .
3

We now introduce a local history field that is obtained in a typical, possibly cyclical, loading process. It consists of a part
accounting for the elastic fracture process He and a part that drives the crack evolution in the case of ductile fracture Hp
H(x, t) := He + Hp := max ψ0e+ + 12 ǫhα − αc i2 .
 
(15)
s∈[0,t]

With this notion at hand the proposed fracture phase field model can be reduced to a system of only six equations
(1) : Div[ σ ] + γ̄ = ρü (4) : α̇ ≥0
gc q
2
(2) : [d − l2 ∆d] = 2(1 − d) H (5) : |devσ| − (y0 + β) ≤ 0
3 (16)
l q q
(3) : ε̇p = 32 α̇ devσ/|devσ| (6) : α̇ (|devσ| − 23 (y0 + β)) = 0 .

2.1 Staggered Solution Algorithm

The central idea of an algorithmic decoupling of the coupled equations (16) bases on an approximation of the current history
e p
field Hn+1 = Hn+1 + Hn+1
 e+
e ψ0 (∇s un ) for ψ0e+ (∇s un ) > Hne p
for α < αc : Hn+1 = e and Hn+1 =0
Hn otherwise
 e (17)
e ψ0 (∇s un ) for ψ0e (∇s un ) > Hne p 1 2
for α ≥ αc : Hn+1 = and Hn+1 = Iǫ = 2 ǫ(α − αc ) .
Hne otherwise
The current fracture phase field is then obtained from the algorithmic variational problem
1 l
Z
gc γ(d, ∇d) + (1 − d)2 Hn+1 dV } γ(d, ∇d) = d2 + |∇d|2 .
 
d = Arg{ inf with (18)
d B 2l 2
For a known fracture phase field d we compute the current displacement field u from the variational principle
{u, εp , α} = Arg{ inf sup Πτu (u, εp , α, σ, β, λp ) } . (19)
u,εp ,α σ p ,β p ,λ≥0

2.2 Extension 1: Adiabatic Evolution of Temperature

A decoupled consideration of temperature for adiabatic processes yields the temperature evolution equation
χ 1
θ̇ = [y0 + hα]α̇ + f d˙ (20)
ρc ρc
in terms of the constant dissipation factor χ and the heat capacity c. Additionally, we account for thermoplastic softening by
introducing a temperature dependent decrease of the hardening modulus h and the yield stress y0
h(θ) = h(θ0 ) exp(− θ−θ
ηh )
0
and y0 (θ) = y0 (θ0 ) exp(− θ−θ
ηy ) ,
0
(21)

where θ0 is the reference temperature and ηh and ηy characterize the slope of the exponential function, see Fig. 3.

h/y0 gc (α̇)
δ
h(θ0 )/y0 (θ0 ) gcd

gcb
θ α̇
θ0 α̇c
Fig. 3: Degradation of hardening modulus h and yield stress y0 Fig. 4: Evolution of critical energy release rate gc in terms of
due to temperature evolution. the rate of the equivalent plastic strain α̇.

www.gamm-proceedings.com c 2013 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

536 Young Researchers’ Minisymposia Ma2: Analytical and engineering aspects in the material modeling of solids

2.3 Extension 2: Evolution of Critical Energy Release Rate

Kalthoff & Winkler [4] concluded that ductile failure is associated with a higher energy than brittle failure, therefore we in-
troduce a higher critical energy release rate for ductile failure than for brittle fracture. Inspired by Zhou, Rosakis & Ravichan-
dran [5], who introduced a ductile failure criterion that depends on the rate of the equivalent plastic strain, we assume that the
transition of the energy release rate depends on the equivalent plastic strain rate α̇
α̇ − α˙c
g d − gcb
gc (α̇) = gcb + τ + τ · tanh with τ = c . (22)
δ 2
gcb is the critical brittle energy release rate, gcd represents ductile material behavior, the critical rate of the equivalent plastic
strain α̇c marks the increase of gc and the parameter δ characterizes the slope of the function, which is shown in Fig. 4.

3 Representative Numerical Example: Kalthoff-Winkler Test

The performance of the proposed model that couples regularized fracture with plasticity is demonstrated by means of the
numerical simulation of the classical Kalthoff-Winkler experiment [4]. Here, a doubly pre-notched steel plate is impacted
by a projectile with different impact velocities. Kalthoff and Winkler observed, that for a low impact velocity a brittle crack
propagates at an angle of about 70◦ with respect to the pre-crack. In contrast, for a higher impact velocity the failure mode
changes and a shear band evolves slightly downwards and subsequently fails by a fracture process. Exploiting the symmetry of
the problem, only one half of the plate is discretized for the numerical simulation. The results for the low impact velocity 20m/s
are shown in Fig. 5a)-c). The crack propagates at an angle of about 70◦ , which is in good agreement with the experimental
results. The tensile character of the crack is confirmed by the fact that there are plastic deformations at the notch tip only.
There is a small temperature rise of about 30K induced by the crack evolution. The results for the high impact velocity 39m/s
are shown in Fig. 5d)-f). First, large plastic deformations evolve slightly downwards, as soon as the critical plastic strain
is reached the cracking starts. The resulting crack pattern is in good agreement with the experimental results. Due to the
evolution of the plastic strains there is a rise of the temperature up to 450-700K in the area of the crack. Altogether these
results show that our model is able to reproduce the complex phenomenon of the dynamic failure mode transition.

20m/s

a) b) c)

d α θ

39m/s

d) e) f)

Fig. 5: Numerical investigation of Kalthoff-Winkler test. Shown are the results of half the specimen for an impact velocity of 20m/s (a-c)
and 39m/s (d-f). a) and d) iso-surface of the crack phase field for the fully damaged state d(x) = 1, b) and e) distribution of equivalent
plastic strain α, and c) and f) temperature θ.

References
[1] C. Miehe, F. Welschinger, and M. Hofacker, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 83, 1273–1311 (2010).
[2] C. Miehe, M. Hofacker, and F. Welschinger, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 199, 2765–2778 (2010).
[3] M. Hofacker and C. Miehe, Int. J. Fract. 178, 113–129 (2012).
[4] J. F. Kalthoff and S. Winkler, in: Impact Loading and Dynamic Behavior of Materials, edited by C. Y. Chiem, H.-D. Kunze and L. W.
Meyer, Vol. 1, 185–195 (1987).
[5] M. Zhou, A. J. Rosakis, and G. Ravichandran, Int. J. Plasticity. 14, 435–451 (1998).

c 2013 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.gamm-proceedings.com