DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7445748
title: A comparative assessment of different adaptive spatial refinement strategies in phase-field fracture models for brittle fracture

description: <strong>Abstract:</strong> (from [1]) For the smeared approximation of a discrete crack, phase-field fracture simulations of brittle materials require suitable finite element meshes in regions where crack propagation is expected to get an accurate resolution of the phase-field function. The intuitive option is to pre-refine the mesh in regions of the expected crack paths. However, this could lead to very computationally intensive simulations due to the high number of elements. Alternatively, adaptive spatial refinement of the finite element mesh is utilized based on appropriate error indicators to obtain the required accuracy in the areas of crack propagation. Different error indicators can be used: the most common one for phase-field fracture simulations is the threshold-based approach, in which elements are refined depending on the value of the phase-field function. Alternatively, the Kelly error indicator can be used as a criterion for spatial adaptivity. It considers the jumps in the gradients of the phase-field function between the elements. We additionally introduce here an error indicator based on configurational forces, that depend on the Eshelby stress tensor. For mode I loading in linear elastic fracture mechanics, the configurational forces have a close connection to the \(\mathscr{J}\)-Integral and the critical fracture energy \(\mathrm{G}_\mathrm{c}\) , respectively. Therefore, a suitable norm of the configurational forces is introduced as an error indicator here. These three error indicators are introduced and compared to each other in terms of accuracy and efficiency by means of numerical examples for crack growth in the single edge notched shear test. <strong>Contact:</strong> Maurice Rohracker Institute of Applied Mechanics Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Egerlandstr. 5 91058 Erlangen <strong>Software:</strong> All phase-field fracture simulations were performed with <em>deal.II</em> [2], version 9.2.0, on the HPC cluster <em>Meggie</em> of NHR@FAU. The authors gratefully acknowledge the scientific support and HPC resources provided by the Erlangen National High Performance Computing Center (NHR@FAU) of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU). The hardware is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). <strong>License:</strong> Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International <strong>Context:</strong> Dataset supplementing preprint: [1] M.Rohracker, P.Kumar, J.Mergheim, "A comparative assessment of different adaptive spatial refinement strategies in phase-field fracture models for brittle fracture", Forces in Mechanics, 2022, 10.1016/j.finmec.2022.100157. This dataset contains the complete results presented in [1], which include global variables, field variables, and meshes. <strong>File structure:</strong> The file structure is explained in more detail in the shipped <em>README.md</em> in the dataset folder. <strong>References:</strong> [1] M.Rohracker, P.Kumar, J.Mergheim, "A comparative assessment of different adaptive spatial refinement strategies in phase-field fracture models for brittle fracture", Forces in Mechanics, 2022, 10.1016/j.finmec.2022.100157. [2] D. Arndt, W. Bangerth, B. Blais, T. C. Clevenger, M. Fehling, A. V. Grayver, T. Heister, L. Heltai, M. Kronbichler, M. Maier, P. Munch, J.-P. Pelteret, R. Rastak, I. Thomas, B. Turcksin, Z. Wang, D. Wells, <strong>The deal.II Library, Version 9.2</strong> Journal of Numerical Mathematics, vol. 28, p. 131-146, 2020.
description: The authors gratefully acknowledge funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeintschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) - 377472739 (Research Training Group GRK 2423 'Fracture across Scales - FRASCAL').