@Article{icces.2023.09672,
AUTHOR = {Shuyu Chen, Jun Zeng},
TITLE = {Fracture of Soft Materials with Interfaces: Phase Field Modeling Based on  Hybrid ES-FEM/FEM},
JOURNAL = {The International Conference on Computational \& Experimental Engineering and Sciences},
VOLUME = {27},
YEAR = {2023},
NUMBER = {2},
PAGES = {1--2},
URL = {http://www.techscience.com/icces/v27n2/54164},
ISSN = {1933-2815},
ABSTRACT = {The engineering application prospects of soft materials in key areas such as aerospace and life science have 
stimulated extensive research interests in the academic community. An important topic here is to predict 
the service and failure behavior of such materials. Although considerable progress has been made, realworld application scenarios usually involve bi-material as well as multi-material adhesion, with cohesive 
interface rupture as the main failure vehicle. Inconsistent asymptotic solutions in the context of large 
deformations pose obstacles to the establishment of a theoretical framework for the interface fracture 
problem in soft materials [1]. Driven by both engineering and academia, numerical investigations into this 
issue have gradually gained popularity. Over the past three decades, modeling techniques developed around 
material damage and fracture have proliferated, in which the phase field variational approach based on 
Griffith’s theory stands out [2]. The sought-after phase-field method(PFM) that relies on the edge-based 
finite element method (ES-FEM) / finite element method (FEM) hybrid strategy was found to be well applied 
to large strain fractures of soft materials, which mitigates the mesh distortion of large deformations while 
considering computational efficiency. This hybrid scheme incorporates the advantages of ES-FEM and FEM 
and excels in large-strain fracture of soft materials. By analogy to the interface fracture in the linear elastic 
regime, based on the calculation results of the hybrid strategy, some studies systematically report the 
fracture behavior of soft materials with interfaces from three aspects: interface strength, tilt angle and 
interface position. Three different crack morphologies: (i) direct penetration; (ii) penetration with 
deflection; (iii) deflection without penetration, were identified, bearing a close resemblance to the 
experimental photographs. On this basis, a brand-new phase diagram of crack behavior was drawn in the 
parameter space of interface strength versus tilt angle. Besides, from the perspective of stress analysis, a 
potential explanation for the competing mechanism of penetration vs deflection concerning the crack 
impinging on an interface was furnished.},
DOI = {10.32604/icces.2023.09672}
}