Int J Fract (2020) 225:129–152

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-020-00469-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Validation of a 3-D adaptive stable generalized/eXtended finite

element method for mixed-mode brittle fracture propagation
Faisal M. Mukhtar1 · Phillipe D. Alves2 · C. Armando Duarte2

Received: 17 April 2020 / Accepted: 12 July 2020 / Published online: 8 August 2020
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
In this paper, a Stable Generalized/eXtended Finite Element Method (SGFEM) is combined with mesh adaptivity for the robust
and computationally efficient simulation of mixed-mode brittle fracture propagation. Both h-refinement around the fracture
front and p-enrichment of the analysis domain are used to control discretization errors. A Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
(LEFM) model based on Griffith’s criterion is adopted. LEFM scaling relations are used at each fracture propagation step to
back calculate SIFs that meet Griffith’s criterion. As a result, no iterations are necessary to find loading scaling parameters
or fracture size that meets Griffith’s criterion. The method is validated against several experimental data sets for mode I
and mode I+II fracture propagation problems. Very good agreement between SGFEM and experimental results is observed.
These include fracture path, Crack Opening Displacement (COD), and load and fracture length versus COD curves. The
computational efficiency of the method is also assessed.

Keywords Generalized FEM · EXtended FEM · Fracture propagation · Brittle fracture · Validation · Mixed-mode · Mesh
adaptivity

1 Introduction
Generalized or eXtended FEMs for the solution of fracture
mechanics problems (Oden et al. 1998; Oden and Duarte
1997; Duarte et al. 2000; Belytschko and Black 1999; Dol-
bow et al. 2000) have been developed and improved for more
than two decades and are available in several mainstream
commercial software such as Abaqus, ANSYS, LS-DYNA,
OptiStruct, etc. The GFEM and XFEM are essentially
identical methods (Belytschko et al. 2009). The acronym
GFEM is adopted in this paper. The GFEM (Babuška et al.
1994; Duarte et al. 2000; Oden et al. 1998; Babuška and
B Faisal M. Mukhtar
faisalmu@kfupm.edu.sa
Phillipe D. Alves
alves2@illinois.edu
C. Armando Duarte
caduarte@illinois.edu
1 Dept. of Civil and Env. Eng., King Fahd University of
Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
2 Dept. of Civil and Env. Eng., University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 205 North Mathews Av, Urbana,
IL 61801, USA
Melenk 1997; Melenk and Babuška 1996; Moës et al. 1999;
Belytschko and Black 1999) can be interpreted as a Finite
Element Method (FEM) with an enriched test/trial space
which is obtained by hierarchically augmenting a standard
finite element approximation space, S F E M , with an enrich-
ment space, S E N R derived from a priori knowledge about
the solution of a problem. The enrichment space used in the
GFEM enables the use of finite element meshes that do not fit
crack surfaces or their fronts. This flexibility of the method is
particularly appealing in the case of 3-D simulations of crack
propagation, like those considered in this paper. Furthermore,
the convergence rate of the GFEM presented in (Sanchez-
Rivadeneira et al. 2020) is at least three times higher than
quadratic finite elements with quarter-point elements (Hen-
shell and Shaw 1975; Barsoum 1976) around the crack front,
which are broadly used to solve fracture problems. However,
the condition number of the GFEM stiffness matrix grows
much faster than in the classical FEM as the mesh is refined.
There is a considerable amount of work on approaches to
address the conditioning issue of the method (Babuška and
Banerjee 2012; Zhang et al. 2016, 2014; Kergrene et al.
2016; Babuška et al. 2017; Ndeffo et al. 2017). The approach
adopted here is the so-called Stable GFEM (SGFEM) with a
discontinuous interpolant enrichment modification and a p-

123
130
hierarchical FEM basis—the pFEM-DSGFEM introduced in
Sanchez-Rivadeneira et al. (2020) for 3-D fracture problems.
This SGFEM, with the proper choice of singular enrichments,
leads to stiffness matrices with a scaled condition number of
the same order as in the standard FEM. A summary of the
pFEM-GFEM and its well-conditioned counterpart pFEM-
DSGFEM is presented in Sect. 3. Details can be found in
Sanchez-Rivadeneira et al. (2020).
Available analytical information for fracture mechan-
ics problems is limited to simple fracture geometries and
physics, for example, 2-D planar cracks with straight fronts.
While this limited information can still be used to define an
enrichment space S E N R when solving problems with more
realistic fracture geometries, mesh refinement is required to
compensate for the suboptimal enrichments. In this paper, the
pFEM-DSGFEM presented in Sanchez-Rivadeneira et al.
(2020) is combined with mesh adaptivity as described in
Sect. 4.
The goal of this paper is the validation of an adaptive
pFEM-DSGFEM for linear elastic fracture mechanics prob-
lems. Hereafter, the acronyms GFEM and pFEM-DSGFEM
refer to the method presented in Sanchez-Rivadeneira et al.
(2020), unless the context indicates otherwise. Crack prop-
agation is assumed to be governed by Griffith’s criterion
(Griffith 1921; Nuismer 1975). The governing equations
of the problem solved at each crack propagation step are
summarized in Sect. 2. The GFEM and some of the algo-
rithms adopted here have been extensively verified (Sanchez-
Rivadeneira et al. 2020; Pereira et al. 2009, 2010; Garzon
et al. 2014; Gupta and Duarte 2014) but not systematically
validated. While the methodology adopted here is capable of
simulating brittle fracture propagation under general mixed-
mode conditions, in this paper the focus is on the validation
of the method under in-plane modes I and II conditions. The
method is validated in Sect. 5 against several experimental
data sets for mode I and mode I+II fracture propagation prob-
lems. The GFEM solution of a mixed mode problem is also
compared with phase-field FEM solutions presented in Pham
et al. (2017) and Kumar and Lopez-Pamies (2020).
The literature on GFEMs for fracture propagation is quite
extensive but most of the works have focused on the devel-
opment of the method and its verification against analytical
or reference solutions. Examples of works dedicated to the
validation of the method for problems governed by LEFM
include the works of Grégoire et al. (2007) on 2-D dynamic
crack propagation, the work of Bergara et al. (2017), Ferrie
et al. (2006), Shi et al. (2010), Nikfam et al. (2019), Tian
et al. (2019), and Varfolomeev et al. (2014) on 3-D fatigue
crack propagation. We can also mention the work of Giner
et al. (2009), and Ventura et al. (2003) on 2-D simulations of
brittle crack propagation. The validation of 3-D models for
brittle crack propagation solved with a GFEM seems to be
not available in the literature.
123
F. M. Mukhtar et al.
Several of the algorithmic aspects of the GFEM adopted
here have been presented in Pereira et al. (2009, 2010), Gar-
zon et al. (2014), Gupta and Duarte (2014). They include the
representation and update of non-planar fracture surfaces,
the integration of the weak form over element intersected by
the fracture, etc. A brief discussion on the main computa-
tional geometry strategies adopted in this paper is presented
in Sect. 3.3 while the crack propagation algorithm with mesh
adaptivity is presented in Sect. 4. This algorithm requires at
each crack propagation step the following information: (i) the
crack propagation direction; (ii) the magnitude of the crack
front advancement; (iii) a crack growth criterion to deter-
mine whether a point on the crack front propagates or not.
These issues are also discussed in Sect. 4. The satisfaction
of a brittle fracture propagation criterion in 3-D may require
an iterative procedure to find loading scaling factors or the
crack size that meets the criterion. In this paper, LEFM scal-
ing relations are used to back calculate scaling factors that
lead to the satisfaction of the propagation criterion. These
scaling factors are also used to compute other quantities of
interest such as reaction forces and Crack Opening Displace-
ment (COD). These are low-cost post-processing operations
performed on the GFEM solution of each crack propagation
step. They involve no iterations or recalculation of the GFEM
solution. To our knowledge, this is a novel strategy to solve 3-
D mixed-mode brittle fracture propagation problems. Details
are presented in Sect. 4.1.3. Similar ideas are used by Shabir
et al. Shabir et al. (2019) to find load-displacement curves for
crack propagation in polycrystalline specimen and by Gupta
and Duarte (2014) to solve a Mode I hydraulic fracture prop-
agation problem.
The simulations presented in Sect. 5 validate not only an
adaptive GFEM for brittle fracture propagation but also the
algorithmic aspects of the method and the adopted computa-
tional fracture growth model for LEFM presented in Sect. 4.
The main conclusions of this work are summarized in Sect.
6.
2 Governing equations
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) assumptions are
adopted. Inertial effects and gravity load are neglected. The
prescribed loads and displacements are assumed to be pro-
portional. Under these assumptions, the simulation of brittle
fracture propagation using the GFEM involves the solution of
a sequence of linear elasticity problems—one LEFM prob-
lem for each fracture propagation step. The strong and weak
formulations of this problem are as follows.
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth 131

with E () the energy space Szabo and Babuška (1991) with
norm

u ε() = B(u, u) (7)

3 A generalized Finite Element Method for

3-D fractures

Consider standard linear finite element shape functions

Nα (x), α ∈ Ih = {1, 2, . . . , n}, associated with node x α
of a mesh with n nodes. These FE shape functions form a
partition of unity (PoU), i.e.:
Fig. 1 Schematic of a 3-D domain  with a crack surface ΓC

Nα (x) = 1 ∀x ∈  (8)
Strong form: Consider a cracked elastic domain  ¯ = ∪ α∈Ih
∂ in R and a crack surface ΓC with crack front γF like the
3

one illustrated in Fig.1. A GFEM shape function φαi (x) is given by the product
The equilibrium equations are given by of a FE shape function Nα (x) and an enrichment function
E αi (x), i.e.,
∇· σ = 0 in  (1)
φαi (x) = Nα (x)E αi (x) (no summation on α) (9)
where σ denotes the Cauchy stress tensor. The boundary
conditions are given by where α ∈ Ihe ⊂ Ih is the index of a node in a FE mesh
and i ∈ I (α) = {1, 2, . . . , m α } is the index of the enrich-
u = ū on Γu (2) ment function at the node. These enrichment functions form
mα
σ · n = t̄ on Γt (3) a basis of the local space χα (ωα ) = span{E αi }i=1 called
patch approximation space with patch ωα being the union of
where ū and t̄ are prescribed displacements and tractions, all finite elements sharing node x α .
respectively, n is the unit normal vector to Γ ≡ ∂, Γu ∪Γt = Let S F E M be the underlying finite element approximation
Γ , and Γu ∩ Γt = ∅. space given by
Hooke’s law, i.e., σ = Cε, where C is a fourth-order

tensor, is adopted. Small deformations are also assumed so SF E M = cα Nα , cα ∈ R3 (10)
that the strain tensor can be written as ε = 21 (∇u + ∇u ). α∈Ih

While the enrichment space is given by

Weak form: The variational form of the problem described
above is given by the following statement: ⎡ ⎤
 1
Find u ∈ V () such that, ∀v ∈ V0 () SE N R = 13 Nα χα , 13 = ⎣1⎦ (11)
α∈Ih 1
B(u, v) = F(v) (4)
The test/trial GFEM space SG F E M is given by
where

SG F E M = S F E M + S E N R (12)
B(u, v) = σ (u) : ε(v)d (5)

That is, SG F E M is obtained by hierarchically augment-
F(v) = t̄· vdΓ (6)
Γu ing the FEM space S F E M with the global enrichment space
SE N R .
and For linear elastic fracture problems, the enrichment space
  S E N R is typically partitioned into three subspaces
V () = v ∈ E () : v|Γu = ū
 
S E N R = S E N R ⊕ SH
p
V0 () = v ∈ E () : v|Γu = 0 E N R ⊕ SE N R
br
(13)

123
132 F. M. Mukhtar et al.

p
where S E N R represents the polynomial enrichment func-
tion space (which hierarchically increases the polynomial
order of the approximation). SH E N R contains the space of
piecewise constant and piecewise high-order polynomials,
which allows representing the discontinuity along the crack
surface. Sbr E N R contains branch (singular) enrichment func-
tions which approximate the asymptotic behavior of the
solution field in a neighborhood of the crack front.
It is noted that SH E N R is not empty only for patches ωα ,
α ∈ IhH ⊆ Ih , where IhH is the set of nodes whose support
is intersected by the crack surface, but not the crack front, Fig. 2 Crack front Cartesian and polar coordinate systems
while Sbr E N R is defined only for patches ωα , α ∈ Ih ⊆ Ih ,
br
br
where Ih is the set of nodes within a neighborhood of the
crack front. 3.1.2 Singular enrichments

3.1 pFEM-GFEM approximation for 3-D fracture The singular enrichment space Sbr E N R is built based on the
problems Oden-Duarte (OD) branch enrichment functions (Oden and
Duarte 1997; Duarte et al. 2000) which uses the first term
The pFEM-GFEM is based on a p-hierarchical FEM basis from each mode of the 2-D asymptotic expansion of the
( pFEM), constructed via the use of orthogonal polynomi- elasticity solution in the neighborhood of a planar crack in an
als and standard linear finite element shape functions (Szabo infinite plate with stress-free crack faces (Szabo and Babuška
and Babuška 1991; Bravos 2004). The first order approxi- 1991).
mation consists of the standard linear finite element shape Let (r , θ, z̄) and (x̄, ȳ, z̄) denote the local crack front
functions associated with vertex nodes in a FE mesh. High- cylindrical and Cartesian coordinate system respectively at
order hierarchical shape functions can be associated with point (x, y, z) denoted in the global Cartesian coordinate sys-
high dimensional geometrical entities of the mesh: edges, tem as shown in Fig. 2. Let κ denote the Kolosov’s constant
faces, and volume of 3-D elements. In this paper, we adopt defined as κ = 3 − 4ν for plane strain and κ = 3−ν 1+ν for
second and third order p-hierarchical basis. The polyno- plane stress, and ν the Poisson’s ratio. The scalar-valued OD
p
mial enrichment function space S E N R is defined based on enrichments adopted in this paper are given by
these p-hierarchical basis. We refer to Section 3 of Sanchez-
Rivadeneira et al. (2020) and the monographs Szabo and √
Babuška (1991); Bravos (2004) for details. L OD6-scalar
front (x) = r R̄(x)
⎡  θ
  θ ⎤
κ − 21 cos θ2 − 21 cos 3θ2  κ + 32 sin θ2 +
1 1 3θ 3 1
2 sin 3θ
2
3.1.1 Discontinuous enrichments ⎣ κ + sin − sin κ − 2 cos 2 + 1
cos 3θ ⎦
2 2 2 2 2 2
sin θ2 cos θ2
The discontinuous enrichment space SH E N R is defined using (16)
the piecewise constant Heaviside function H (x)
where R̄(x) is defined as
⎧
⎪
⎨1 if x is on the positive side
⎧⎡ ⎤
H (x) = or on the crack surface (14) ⎪
⎪ R11 R12 R13
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎪⎢ ⎥
0 otherwise ⎪
⎪⎣ R21 R22 R23 ⎦ if z̄is parallel tox, yorzaxis
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ R31 R32 R33
The high-order discontinuous enrichment space SH R̄(x) = (17)
E N R is ⎪⎡ ⎤
⎪
⎪ R11 R12 0
given by ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪⎢ ⎥
⎪
⎪⎣ R21 R22 0⎦ otherwise
  ⎪
⎪
SH
p ⎩
E N R = H (x) S F E M ⊕ S E N R (15) R31 R32 0

p
with S E N R as defined earlier. In the case of quadratic approx-
imation adopted in this paper, this leads to the definition of
vertex and edge Heaviside enrichment functions.
Entries Ri j , i = 1, 2, 3, represent the components of the
base vector in the direction j of crack coordinate system with
respect to the global base vectors. Basis L OD6-scalar
front is able

123
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth 133

to approximate both modes I and II uncoupled with mode III

Sanchez-Rivadeneira et al. (2020).
αi (x) be the i-th column of L front
Let L br OD6-scalar (x). The sin-

gular enrichment space is given by

⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎨  m
br =2
α ⎪
⎬
Sbr
ENR = αi  L αi (x)Nα (x),
a br br
αi ∈ R
a br 3
⎪
⎩α∈I br ⎪
⎭
i=1
h

(18)
Fig. 3 Non-planar crack surface and base vectors at crack front vertices
where  stands for the entry-wise product of two vectors (Pereira et al. 2009)
operator (Hadamard product).
The quadratic pFEM-GFEM approximation of a displace-
ment field for a linear elastic fracture mechanics problem
u(x) ∈ R3 follows from the definition of space SG F E M and generalization of the modification based on finite element
is given by interpolants introduced in Babuška and Banerjee (2012).
A pFEM-GFEM approximation space defined using these
   enrichment modifications is denoted a Discontinuous Inter-
uh (x) = a α Nα (x) + c αβ Nα (x)Nβ (x)
α∈Ih α∈Ih x β ∈ωα
   polant Stable pFEM-GFEM ( pFEM-DSGFEM) space. Both
β =α pF E M edge sh fn
 enrichment modifications are space-preserving. This means
H
+ a α H (x)Nα (x) vertex sh fn that pFEM-GFEM and pFEM-DSGFEM spaces are the
  
α∈IhH GFEM same—only their bases differ (Sanchez-Rivadeneira and
 
+ cH
αβ H (x)Nα (x)Nβ (x) Duarte 2019; Sanchez-Rivadeneira et al. 2020). It is also
  
α∈IhH x β ∈ωα
pF E M−G F E M edge sh fn
noted that the computational cost of these enrichment mod-
β =α
ifications is low and their implementation not difficult.
  α =2
m br
+ αi  L αi (x)Nα (x)
a br br
(19)
  
α∈Ihbr i=1
G F E M vertex sh fn
3.3 Computational geometry issues
where a α , a H H
α , c αβ , c αβ , a αi ∈ R (for a fixed i). Here
br 3

α and β refer to vertex node indices, therefore Nα (x), α ∈
Ih , represent vertex shape functions – the linear partition of
unity. The quadratic pFEM edge shape functions appear as
the product Nα (x)Nβ (x). Cubic approximations are defined
in a similar manner.
3.2 Discontinuous interpolant stable pFEM-GFEM
(pFEM-DSGFEM)
The pFEM-GFEM approximation (19) leads to a stiffness
matrix with a condition number that is higher than in the
classical finite element. This issue can be addressed by mod-
ifying the enrichment functions introduced earlier. A brief
summary of the enrichment modification techniques used
in pFEM-DSGFEM is presented next. Detailed expositions
can be found in Sanchez-Rivadeneira and Duarte (2019) and
Sanchez-Rivadeneira et al. (2020).
The first enrichment modification simply shifts the enrich-
ment functions such that they are zero at the mesh nodes
they are assigned to. The second enrichment modification
entails subtracting from an enrichment function its discon-
tinuous piecewise linear interpolant (Sanchez-Rivadeneira
and Duarte 2019; Sanchez-Rivadeneira et al. 2020). This is a
The implementation of the GFEM requires efficient and
robust computational geometry strategies. These include the
representation of non-planar crack surfaces, the definition of
base vectors of coordinate systems used in the computation of
singular enrichment functions, and algorithms for automatic
generation of elements used for the numerical integration
of the weak form. In this paper, crack surfaces are repre-
sented using surface meshes like those shown in Figs. 3 and
12 . These triangulations are known as geometrical crack
surfaces. The surface mesh is independent of the 3-D mesh
used to solve the problem and composed of a set of triangles
(facets) that represent the crack geometry and location. It is
noted that these triangulations have no degrees of freedom.
They serve only for computational geometry purposes. Fig-
ure 3 shows base vectors of coordinate systems defined at
crack front vertices of a geometrical crack surface. Besides
the computation of singular enrichments, these base vectors
are also used for the extraction of stress intensity factors at
crack front vertices (cf. Appendix A), and for the crack front
advancement as described in Sect. 4.1. We refer to Appendix
A of Sanchez-Rivadeneira et al. (2020) and the references
therein for details on computational geometry aspects of the
implementation of the GFEM adopted in this paper.

123
134
4 Crack propagation algorithm with mesh
adaptivity
This section presents the main steps in a 3-D GFEM
simulation of fracture propagation. Linear elastic fracture
mechanics is adopted. The propagation algorithm is based on
those proposed in Pereira et al. (2010), Garzon et al. (2014),
Gupta and Duarte (2014) and is implemented in the 3-D adap-
tive GFEM software ISET Duarte (2016).
Given the representation of the crack surface at propaga-
tion step (cf. Sect. 3.3), the following is performed:
1. Refine the 3-D GFEM mesh around the crack front
such that the element size meets user-prescribed crite-
ria. Examples of these meshes are shown in Figs. 7 and
16 . Details on the refinement algorithm can be found in
Section 4.2 of Gupta and Duarte (2014).
2. Compute the intersection between the geometrical crack
surface and the GFEM mesh. The Computational Geom-
etry Algorithms Library (CGAL) [62] implementation
of AABB trees (trees of axis-aligned bounding boxes) is
adopted for these computations. These intersections are
in turn used for the generation of integration sub-elements
as described in Pereira et al. (2009); Sanchez-Rivadeneira
et al. (2020).
3. Enrich the finite element nodes with singular, Heaviside
and polynomial functions, as described in Sect. 3.1.
4. Integrate the stiffness matrix and load vector associated
with the GFEM discretization of (4). This is performed
with the aid of integration sub-elements.
5. Solve the linear elastic problem (4) discretized with the
GFEM.
6. Extract mode I, II and III Stress Intensity Factors (SIFs)
at every vertex on the crack front of the geometrical crack
surface. The extraction method adopted in this paper is
described in Appendix A.
The SIFs are used to determine, at each crack front vertex,
if the crack will propagate and the direction and mag-
nitude of propagation as described in Sect. 4.1. These
quantities define propagation vectors at each crack front
vertex.
7. The propagation vectors are used to define the position of
the crack front vertices at the next propagation step. The
geometrical crack surface is updated by adding a new
layer of triangular facets to the current crack front or
by stretching the current crack front vertices. The strat-
egy used depends on the magnitude of the crack front
advancement vector at each front vertex.
After several propagation steps, the crack surface trian-
gulation may be remeshed to reduce the number of facets
and speed up computational geometry operations.
Details on these algorithms for geometrical crack surface
updating and remeshing are described in Garzon et al.
123
F. M. Mukhtar et al.
(2014). Figure 12 shows the evolution of a crack surface
and its update.
8. After updating the geometrical crack surface, the 3-D
GFEM mesh is unrefined to the initial mesh provided by
the user. The algorithm is then repeated until no crack
front vertex meet the propagation criterion or the user-
prescribed number of propagation steps is reached.
The algorithm enables automated, efficient, and accurate
simulations of 3-D fracture propagation as demonstrated
in Sect. 5. It is noted that in the propagation algorithm,
the boundary conditions of the problem are unchanged
throughout the simulation—no iterations are necessary to
find loading parameters or fracture size that meet a propaga-
tion criterion. The rational for this is presented in Sect. 4.1.3.
4.1 A computational fracture growth model for
linear elastic fracture mechanics
The propagation algorithm described in Sect. 4 is based on
linear elastic fracture mechanics assumptions and requires,
at a crack propagation step, the following information at each
crack front vertex of the geometrical fracture surface:
1. The crack propagation direction. In this work, we adopt
Schöllmann’s criterion (Schöllmann et al. 2002). A sum-
mary of the equations used in this criterion is presented
in Sect. 4.1.1.
2. The magnitude of the crack front advancement. A Paris-
type law is used to compute this at each front vertex based
on the maximum advancement magnitude, Δamax , pre-
scribed by the user and other law-specific parameters.
The law adopted in this work and the rational for its adop-
tion are presented in Sect. 4.1.2
3. A crack growth criterion to determine whether a point
on the crack front propagates or not. Griffith’s criterion
(Griffith 1921; Kuna 2013) is typically adopted for brittle
materials. The satisfaction of this criterion may require
an iterative procedure to find loading parameters or the
crack size that meets the criterion. In this paper, LEFM
scaling relations are used to back calculate, at each prop-
agation step, loading factors that lead to the satisfaction
of Griffith’s criterion. Details are provided in Sect. 4.1.3.
4.1.1 Crack propagation direction: Schöllmann’s criterion
Crack front deflection can be represented by the kinking
angle θ0 and the twisting angle ψ0 , as shown in Fig. 4.
These quantities are computed using Schöllmann’s criterion
(Schöllmann et al. 2002). It assumes, like in the 2-D Max-
imum Tangential Stress (MTS) criterion (Erdogan and Sih
1963), that the crack growth direction is perpendicular to the
maximum principal stress.
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth 135

4.1.2 Crack front advancement magnitude

Crack growth in linear elastic fracture mechanics is depen-

dent on the stress intensity factors or, equivalently, on the
energy release rate (Paris and Erdogan 1963; Kuna 2013).
Griffith’s criterion is commonly used for brittle fracture
growth (Griffith 1921; Nuismer 1975; Kuna 2013). It is given
by

0, if Gmixed ( j) < Gc
Δa( j) = (22)
> 0, if Gmixed ( j) = Gc

where Δa( j) is the magnitude of crack advancement at crack

front vertex j,
Fig. 4 Crack growth under each mode and their superposition. The Gmixed ( j) is the energy release rate in the direction of
kinking angle θ0 and the twisting angle ψ0 define the direction of crack crack propagation at front vertex j, and Gc is the critical
front propagation (Gupta and Duarte 2014) energy release rate of the material. In the case of plane strain
conditions, Gc is given by
The kinking angle θ0 is a non-linear function of all three
1 − ν2 2
SIFs and is determined by the conditions Gc = KIc (23)
E
 
∂σ1  ∂ 2 σ1 
= 0 < 0 

where K I c is the fracture toughness of the material under
∂θ θ=θ0 ∂θ 2 θ=θ0 mode I loading.
The energy release rate at each crack front vertex is used
where σ1 is the maximum principal stress. to determine whether the crack front propagates or not. The
Once the kinking angle θ0 is calculated, the twisting angle, crack propagates when the energy release rate at any crack
ψ0 , is given by the direction of σ1 and can be computed using front vertex in the direction of crack propagation, Gmixed ,
  reaches the critical energy release rate of the material (Griffith
1 2τθ z (θ0 ) 1921; Nuismer 1975). Gmixed is computed using (Nuismer
ψ0 = arctan (20)
2 σθ (θ0 ) − σz (θ0 ) 1975),

where σθ , τθ z and σz are components of the stress tensor Gmixed = G I /I I + G I I I (24)

in a cylindrical coordinate system defined at the crack front.
For further details, the reader is referred to Schöllmann et al.
where G I /I I and G I I I are given by Nuismer (1975),
(2002); Richard et al. (2005).
The kinking and twisting angles are used to prescribe the   ∗ "
1 − ν2 1 θ   ! 2
direction of crack propagation at each crack front vertex of G I /I I = cos K I 1 + cos θ ∗ − 3K I I sin θ ∗
E 2 2
the geometrical crack surface (Pereira et al. 2010). An effec-
(25)
tive crack front propagation direction θ ∗ is defined based on
θ0 and an increment accounting for the twisting angle ψ0 , and
and
thus the effect of K I I I . Details on the procedure to compute
this increment are provided in Pereira (2010). #  ∗ $2
1+ν θ
Schöllmann’s criterion degenerates to Erdogan and Sih’s GI I I = K I I I cos (26)
E 2
MTS criterion (Erdogan and Sih 1963) if K I I I = 0 which is
the case of all problems solved in this paper. In this case, the where direction θ ∗ is the effective kinking angle as defined
kinking angle θ0 is given by Kuna (2013) in Sect. 4.1.1.
⎧ ⎡  ⎤ It is noted that the criterion given by Eq. (22) does not pro-
⎪ 
⎪
⎨2 arctan ⎣ 1 K I − 1 KI 2 vide the magnitude of the crack front advancement along the
+ 8⎦ , if K I I  = 0
θ0 =
⎪
4 KI I 4 KI I (21) crack front once the condition Gmixed = Gc is met at a crack
⎪
⎩
0, if K I I = 0 front vertex. The criterion as stated in (22) is not suitable for
a computational implementation. Lazarus (2003) presented
and the twisting angle ψ0 = 0. a regularization of Irwin’s criterion – which is equivalent to

123
136 F. M. Mukhtar et al.

Griffith’s criterion—based on a Paris-type law with a high evolves continuously from the front due to the absence
exponent. This law provides the magnitude of the crack front of Mode III effects. Experimental and analytical evidence
advancement along the crack front. It scales the magnitude (Sommer 1969; Lazarus et al. 2001; Lin et al. 2010; Pham
of the advancement such that the point on the crack front and Ravi-Chandar 2014; Leblond and Frelat 2014; Pham and
with the largest mode I stress intensity factor advances the Ravi-Chandar 2017) have shown that crack growth under
most. We adopt a similar strategy which is suitable for the K I I I = 0 presents fracture facets rotated with respect to
simulation of 3-D crack propagation in brittle materials. The the crack front forward direction. These facets eventually
magnitude of crack advancement, Δa( j), at a crack front coalesce to form a continuous crack surface.
vertex j is taken as,
⎧ 4.1.3 Crack growth criterion and scaling factors
⎨0, if K I ,eq ( j) ≤ K I c
 m
Δa( j) = K I ,eq ( j)−K I c The crack propagation algorithm described so far does not
⎩Δamax , if K I ,eq ( j) > K I c
,eq −K I c
K Imax
enforce that Gmixed ( j) ≤ Gc at every crack front vertex j. In
(27) the crack propagation simulations presented in Sect. 5, this
condition is enforced using LEFM scaling relations. Crack
where m and Δamax are model parameters. A model sim- propagation is simulated with prescribed displacements or
ilar to (27) is adopted in Rungamornrat et al. (2005). The loads that are equal to or larger than the maximum dis-
equivalent mode I stress intensity factor, K I ,eq ( j), at crack placements/loads applied to the experimental specimen. The
front vertex j is computed using the expression proposed by scaling factors computed as described below are then used,
Schöllmann et al. (2002) and Richard et al. (2005), at each fracture propagation step, to back calculate SIFs such
    that Gmixed ( j) ≤ Gc . These scaling factors are also used to
1 θ0 2 θ0 3 compute other quantities of interest such as reaction forces
K I ,eq ( j) = cos K I cos − K I I sin(θ0 )
2 2 2 2 and Crack Opening Displacement (COD). As a result, no
 ⎫
#   $2 ⎬ iterations are necessary to find loading parameters or fracture
θ0 3
+ K I cos2 − K I I sin(θ0 ) + 4K I2I I size that meet Griffith’s criterion, thus saving a considerable
2 2 ⎭
amount of computational work.
(28) Let K I , K I I , and K I I I denote the SIFs extracted from
the GFEM solution at a crack propagation step. LEFM is
where K I , K I I , K I I I , and θ0 are computed at crack front assumed to be valid. Furthermore, the loads, t̄, and displace-
vertex j with θ0 computed using Schöllmann’s criterion as ments, ū, prescribed on Γt and Γu , respectively, are assumed
described in Sect. 4.1.1. to be proportional.
If K I I I = 0, then Let the scaled SIFs be defined by
 
θ0 θ0 θ0
K I ,eq ( j) = cos2 K I cos − 3K I I sin (29) K ic := αc K i i = I , I I , I I I (32)
2 2 2
 
1 θ0
= cos [K I (1 + cos θ0 ) − 3K I I sin θ0 ] with the scaling factor αc a parameter such that
2 2
(30)
% Gmixed (K Ic , K Ic I , K Ic I I ) = Gc (33)
E
= G I /I I (θ0 ) (31)
1 − ν2
These last two equations and (24) give
Parameter Δamax represents the maximum displacement
magnitude among all front vertices. It is applied to the crack   ∗ "
1 − ν2
1 θ   ! 2
αc2 cos K I 1 + cos θ ∗ − 3K I I sin θ ∗
front vertex with the highest equivalent stress intensity fac- E 2 2
#  ∗ $2
,eq . In this work, parameter Δamax is selected by the
tor K Imax 1+ν θ
user. The effect of this parameter on the simulation results is + αc2 K I I I cos = αc2 Gmixed (K I , K I I , K I I I ) = Gc
E 2
investigated in Sect. 5. Parameter m is taken as unity in all
problems solved in this paper. It is noted that a crack front Therefore, the scaling factor at a crack propagation step
advancement is prescribed at a front vertex only if the crack can be computed using
growth criterion (22) is satisfied.

Remark 1 The foregoing discussions (Sects. 4.1.1 and 4.1.2) Gc
αc = (34)
and simulations presented in Sect. 5 assume that the crack Gmixed (K I , K I I , K I I I )

123
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth
A similar expression can also be derived using the equiv-
alent mode I stress intensity factor K I ,eq .
In a 3-D problem, the energy release rate Gmixed is not
constant along the crack front. Thus, one must select where
to evaluate (34). One option is to evaluate it at the crack front
vertex that has the highest value of Gmixed . This guarantees
that Griffith’s criterion is satisfied at all crack front vertices.
In the case of problems solved in Sect. 5, Gmixed is nearly
constant along the crack front. Thus, in this paper, the scaling
factor αc is computed using the average of Gmixed values
extracted at all crack front vertices. We found that this average
value provides slightly more accurate results than taking the
maximum value of Gmixed .
Based on previous assumptions, the following relations
hold
ūc t̄ c Kc
= = I = αc
ū t̄ KI
where ū and t̄ are displacements and tractions prescribed on
Γu and Γt and ūc and t̄ c are these quantities scaled such that
the GFEM solution satisfies Griffith’s criterion at a propa-
gation step. Thus, the scaling factor αc computed at a given
crack propagation step using (34) can be used to scale the
prescribed displacements and tractions such that the GFEM
solution satisfies Griffith’s criterion at that step. It is noted
that the GFEM solution does not need to be re-computed
using ūc and t̄ c as boundary conditions. Instead, quantities
of interest computed from the available GFEM solution are
scaled using αc . For example, the reaction forces, r cu , at Γu
and the Crack Opening Displacement, COD, can be com-
puted using
r cu = αc ru CODc = αc COD (35)
This procedure is adopted in the simulations presented in
Sect. 5. Linear elastic fracture mechanics scaling relations are
also used by Shabir et al. (2019) to find load–displacement
curves for crack propagation in polycrystalline specimen.
5 Validation with experimental results
In this section, the GFEM and algorithms presented ear-
lier are validated against three experimental data sets. The
experiments involve mode I and mode I+II fracture propaga-
tion problems with increasing complexity in crack path. The
first two problems were proposed by Pham et al. (2017) and
adopt a standard and a modified compact tension (CT) speci-
men. The latter is a mixed-mode problem while the former is
mode I. Load versus Crack Opening Displacement (COD),
crack length versus COD, and crack path predicted by the
GFEM are compared with the experimental data of Pham
137
et al. (2017). The third problem is the fracture test conducted
by Ingraffea and Grigoriu (1990) on deep beams with a series
of holes. This problem is used to further verify the capability
of the GFEM in predicting crack paths influenced by sev-
eral holes that make the crack propagation sensitive to initial
crack geometry and location relative to the holes. In all simu-
lations, Stress Intensity Factors (SIFs) are extracted using the
Displacement Correlation Method (DCM). A brief review of
the DCM formulation adopted in this work is presented in
Appendix A.
5.1 Mode I fracture propagation: compact tension
Specimen CT24 of Pham et al. (2017)
The systematically designed experiments conducted by
Pham et al. (2017) consists of two groups of specimens.
The first one includes six compact tension (CT) specimens
while the second one adopts three specimens and a modi-
fied CT specimen geometry. Figure 5 shows the geometry
and dimensions of the specimens in the first group (mode
I conditions). The material of the specimen is a thermo-
plastic polymer, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), whose
elastic material properties and fracture parameters, as deter-
mined in Pham et al. (2017), are: Modulus of elasticity
E = 2.98 GPa; Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.35; and Fracture
energy G c = 0.285 kJ/m2 that resulted in an estimated frac-
ture toughness K I c = 0.98 MPa m1/2 .
The initial sharp crack is generated in the specimen ahead
of the U-notch, using a wedge impact along with a blade.
The top and bottom holes are loaded monotonically, with dis-
placements u+ −
y and u y , respectively, as illustrated in Fig. 5.
Figure 6 shows the setup used in the experiments of
Pham et al. (2017). It consists of an Instron testing machine,
cameras, and loading grips. The test proceeds using a
displacement-controlled loading whose magnitude, and the
displacement of the load-points are monitored. At the same
time, a set of two cameras are placed on opposite sides of
the specimen to capture the images used for calculating the
crack opening displacement (COD) at the load line, using
DIC analysis, and tracking the crack front location. The COD
corresponding to each load step is determined using time cor-
relation between the image and loading time sequences. More
details about the experiment and a summary about the image
analysis can be found in Pham et al. (2017).
Boundary conditions at specimen holes: The displacements
imposed by loading pins on the top and bottom holes of the
specimen are modeled as displacements prescribed to nodes
located along the load lines shown in Fig. 5. These nodes are
equally spaced in the thickness direction of the specimen.
Both vertical and lateral movements of the so defined nodes
in the bottom hole are prevented in the GFEM model. Vertical
123
138
Fig. 5 Dimensions (in mm) of the CT specimen used in the mode I
fracture experiment
Fig. 6 Experimental setup showing the CT specimen (1), cameras (2),
and loading grips (3), (Pham et al. 2017)
upward displacement of magnitude 1.5 mm is applied to the
nodes of the top hole while its lateral movement is restricted.
To prevent rigid body motion, one node in each of the top
and bottom loaded lines is restricted from movement in all
directions. A discussion on the influence of these modeling
assumptions is presented in Sect. 5.2.5.
Remark 2 It is well known that point displacement bound-
ary condition is inconsistent in elasticity problems, except
to prevent rigid body motion (Szabo and Babuška 1991).
Numerical experiments not presented here were performed to
check the sensitivity of computed reaction forces at the nodes
with prescribed displacements. They show that, as long as a
123
F. M. Mukhtar et al.
reasonably coarse mesh is used at the specimen holes, the
results are not sensitive with respect to discretization param-
eters adopted in this paper, such as the polynomial order of
the GFEM approximation or element size at the holes.
Experimental results of Specimen CT24 of Pham et al.
(2017) is used in this section, unless stated otherwise, for the
validation of the adaptive GFEM and the fracture propagation
algorithm presented in Sects. 3 and 4 , respectively. This
specimen was tested under mode I condition. Two sets of
meshes and GFEM approximations of degree p = 2 and
p = 3 are adopted in the studies presented next. The effect
of crack advancement magnitude, Δamax , used in Equation
(27) as well as the effect of the initial crack front geometry
are investigated next.
5.1.1 Mesh refinement and enrichment study
Figure 7a, c show the two user-provided meshes used in the
convergence studies presented in this section. Hereafter, the
sequence of meshes based on them and used for the simu-
lation of crack growth are denoted by “coarse” and “fine”
meshes. The meshes ignore the initial crack ahead of the
specimen notch. The crack is instead discretized using the
GFEM enrichment functions presented in Sects. 3.1.1 and
3.1.2. The nearly uniform meshes provided by the user are
automatically refined around the crack front as shown in
Fig. 7b and d such that the maximum edge length of ele-
ments intersected by the crack front, h max , is close to 0.1 mm.
Thus, h max /a ≈ 3.65 × 10−2 , where a = 2.74 mm is the
length of the initial sharp crack. This ratio follows the rec-
ommendations by Gupta et al. (2017). This same h max is
used in all simulations presented in this section. The problem
size using the coarse meshes and GFEM approximations of
degree p = 2 ranges between 41,751 and 121,347 equations.
In the case of simulations with fines meshes and p = 2, the
number of equations ranges between 194,661 and 227,475.
Figure 8 shows plots of load versus COD and crack length
versus COD. The crack length measurements shown in these
plots starts from the left edge of the specimen shown in
Fig. 5. The load is the reaction force at the nodes with pre-
scribed displacement as explained earlier. These quantities
are computed at each crack propagation step using the scal-
ing relations defined in Sect. 4.1.3. GFEM results for the
sequence of coarse and fine meshes with p = 2 basis func-
tions and Δamax = 0.1 mm are shown in the figure, together
with the experimental results from Pham et al. (2017). The
GFEM curves match well the experimental data. In addition,
the two GFEM curves in each plot are nearly identical. This
is the case since the same element size is adopted near the
crack front for both sequences of meshes. The mesh refine-
ment away from the crack front has no impact on the results
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth 139

Fig. 7 Discretization using coarse and fine meshes (a and c) and the
corresponding typical automatic mesh refinement around the crack front
during the fracture propagation (b and d) for the CT specimen used for
mode I fracture

for this problem. Based on this, hereafter only the coarse

mesh is used in the simulations.

Remark 3 The small “bumps” observed in the experimental

curves shown in Fig. 8 is an indication of the several instances
where the crack stopped growing, momentarily, while the
COD and the load continue to increase until at a later instant
when the crack restarts its growth (Pham et al. 2017). This
was attributed to the local non-homogeneity in the material b
of the specimen.
Fig. 8 Mesh convergence in the GFEM simulation of Specimen CT24
Figure 9 shows GFEM results for the sequence of coarse using Δamax = 0.1 mm and p = 2 a Load variation, b Crack length
meshes with approximations of degree p = 2 and p = 3, versus COD
and Δamax = 0.1 mm. The GFEM curves, again, match well
the experimental data and show that a quadratic basis suffices
for the sequence of coarse meshes adopted for this problem. 5.1.3 Effect of initial crack front geometry

5.1.2 Effect of crack advancement magnitude 1amax
The effect of crack advancement magnitude Δamax is con-
sidered in this section. Figure 10 shows plots of load versus
COD and crack length versus COD for the coarse mesh with
p = 2 GFEM basis functions, and Δamax = 0.3, 0.1 and
0.035 mm. Good agreement with the experimental data is
observed in all cases. Hereafter, Δamax = 0.1 mm is adopted,
unless stated otherwise.
In all simulations presented earlier, the initial sharp crack cre-
ated from the specimen notch was assumed to be planar, with
a straight crack front, and of length a = 2.74 mm. However,
the initial crack front generated by the razor blade impact
for Specimen CT24 was not straight (Pham et al. 2017). In
this section, we investigate the effects of the geometry of the
initial crack front on the results presented so far.
A zoomed view of the micrograph of the initial crack sur-
face of Specimen CT24 of Pham et al. (2017) is shown in

123
140 F. M. Mukhtar et al.

a a

b b
Fig. 9 p-adaptivity in the GFEM simulation of Specimen CT24 using Fig. 10 GFEM simulation of Specimen CT24 versus experimental
coarse meshes and Δamax = 0.1 mm a Load variation, b Crack length results for different crack increments using coarse meshes and p = 2 a
versus COD Load variation b Crack length versus COD

Fig. 11. The geometry of the curved crack front shown in the
figure was digitally extracted and used to define the geomet-
rical crack surface shown at the top of Fig. 12. The GFEM
simulation with the sequence of coarse meshes, p = 2,
and Δamax = 0.1 mm were repeated using this initial crack
geometry. The results are compared in Fig. 13 with the pre-
vious ones (based on a straight initial crack front) and the
experimental data for Specimen CT24. The length of the
crack with a curved front is measured at the side of the
specimen with a shorter initial crack, which approximately
coincides with the length of the initial crack with a straight
front. The only observed effect of the fabrication error in the
initial crack geometry is a drop in the threshold load value
required to propagate the crack. The compliance of the model
with a curved initial crack front is larger than the one with a
straight crack front. However, once the propagation starts, the
two GFEM curves become nearly identical. Figure 12 shows
snapshots of the geometrical crack surface at propagation
steps 40 and 120. Each layer of triangular facets (added to
the initial surface) corresponds to a propagation step. The
snapshots show that the shorter portion of the crack surface
catches up with the longer one after several propagation steps.

123
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth 141

Fig. 11 Micrograph of the fracture surface for Specimen CT24 (Pham

et al. 2017)

Fig. 12 Geometrical crack surface for the initial crack with a curved
front (top). The geometrical crack surface at propagation steps 40 and
120 are shown in the middle and bottom of the figure

This section illustrates the flexibility that the GFEM with

mesh adaptivity provides to the user. The method can handle
a broad range of initial crack geometries and changes to that
do not require any user change to the input 3-D mesh used
in the simulations.
b
Fig. 13 Influence of the initial crack front geometry in the GFEM sim-
ulation of Specimen CT24 using coarse mesh, Δamax = 0.1 mm, and
p = 2 a Load variation, b Crack length versus COD

5.1.4 Comparison with other specimens and phase-field

FEM
Figure 14 compares the GFEM simulation of Specimen CT24
(using coarse meshes, Δamax = 0.1 mm, and p = 2) with
experimental results from specimens CT21, CT22, and CT24
of Pham et al. (2017). The observed scatter in experimental
data is due to variations in initial sharp crack geometry, dif-
ferences in initial crack bluntness, etc. (Pham et al. 2017).
Results of a phase-field FEM simulation of Specimen CT24
reported in Pham et al. (2017) are also included in the figure.
The GFEM and phase-field curves agree very well with the
experimental results of Specimen CT24.
5.1.5 Computational performance
While the GFEM and phase-field results are close, as shown
in Fig. 14, the computational cost of phase-field simulations
is higher than for the GFEM with mesh adaptivity. The phase-
field FEM model for Specimen CT24 adopts an unstructured
mesh with 52,000 hexahedron elements. The element size
in the region that contains the expected crack path is 25μm
(Pham et al. 2017). The average maximum (minimum) edge
length of elements intersected by the crack front in the coarse
GFEM meshes, like the one shown in Fig. 7(b), is h̄ max =

123
142
a et al. (2017)
b mixed-mode conditions. Each specimen is created by drilling
Fig. 14 GFEM simulation of Specimen CT24 (with coarse meshes,
Δamax = 0.1 mm, and p = 2) compared with data from three speci-
mens and phase-field FEM simulations reported in Pham et al. (2017).
a Load variation b Crack length versus COD
96μm (h̄ min = 22μmm). The average number of tetrahedron
elements in the sequence of coarse meshes is 12,658.
It is reported in Pham et al. (2017) that the phase-field sim-
ulation of crack propagation in Specimen CT24 took about
two hours to complete on a machine with 80 processors. The
GFEM simulation of Specimen CT24 on the sequence of
coarse meshes using Δamax = 0.1 mm and p = 2 took a
little less than 3 hours on a 2019 MacBook Pro with 8 cores.
The average time spent to solve one propagation step was 28
sec. and 365 propagation steps were solved during the entire
123
F. M. Mukhtar et al.
Fig. 15 Dimensions (in mm) of the modified CT specimen of Pham
simulation. The superior computational performance of the
GFEM is due to: (i) smaller problem size since in the GFEM
refinement is performed along a line (crack front) while in
the phase-field FEM the mesh needs to be refined along the
entire crack surface; (ii) At each crack propagation step, a lin-
ear problem is solved by the GFEM and a highly non-linear
one is solved by the phase-field FEM.
5.2 Mode I+II fracture propagation: Modified CT
Specimen CT31 of Pham et al. (2017)
This section presents the validation of the adaptive GFEM
and the fracture propagation algorithm against data sets from
a mode I+II fracture propagation problem. The experimental
data are from Specimen CT31 of Pham et al. (2017) unless
stated otherwise. Figure 15 shows the geometry and dimen-
sions of the specimens of Pham et al. (2017) tested under
a third hole in a CT specimen as shown in the figure. This
hole influences the crack path as shown later on, leading to
mode I+II fracture propagation.
The material properties of the specimen and the prescribed
boundary conditions are the same as in Sect. 5.1. The bound-
ary conditions are modeled as displacements prescribed to
nodes of the GFEM mesh as described in Sect. 5.1.
Mesh refinement and enrichment studies are presented
next. The effect of crack advancement magnitude, Δamax ,
is also investigated. The actual geometry of the initial crack
front in Specimen CT31 is not available. Thus, its effect on
the GFEM results is not considered—the initial crack front is
assumed to be straight in all simulations presented in this sec-
tion. The initial crack surface, however, is slightly curved and
the sharp crack does not start exactly from the U-notch tip.
This happens due to fabrication imperfections, and it results
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth 143

in both the initial crack tail and front having some offset
away from the intended nominal initial crack surface loca-
tion. Hence, the mixed-mode simulations presented in this
section model the initial crack surface as non-planar with
a vertical off-set estimated from the experimental results of
Pham et al. (2017). The adopted crack front is given by the
segment (x = 13.221, y = 0.374, −1.5 ≤ z ≤ 1.5) mm,
with the origin of the coordinate system at U-notch “tip”
(located at the middle plane of the specimen and at a dis-
tance of 40.64 mm from the right face of the specimen).

5.2.1 Mesh refinement and enrichment study

Figure 16a, c show the two user-provided meshes used in the

convergence studies presented in this section. Hereafter, the
sequence of meshes based on them and used for the simu-
lation of crack growth are denoted by “coarse” and “fine”
meshes. The meshes ignore the initial crack ahead of the
specimen notch as in the previous section. The nearly uni-
form meshes provided by the user are automatically refined
around the propagating crack front as shown in Fig. 16b, d
such that the maximum edge length of elements intersected
by the crack front, h max , is close to 0.1 mm. This same h max is
used in all simulations presented in this section. The problem
Fig. 16 Discretization using coarse and fine meshes (a and c) and the
size using the coarse meshes and GFEM approximations of corresponding typical automatic mesh refinement around the crack front
degree p = 2 ranges between 36,597 and 87,381 equations. during the fracture propagation (b and d) for the modified CT specimen
In the case of simulations with fines meshes and p = 2, the used for mixed-mode fracture
problem size ranges between 262,572 and 309,360.
Figure 17 shows plots of load versus COD and the pre-
dicted crack path. The load is the reaction force at the nodes
with prescribed displacement as explained earlier. These sonably well the experimental data and show that a quadratic
quantities are computed at each crack propagation step using basis suffices for the sequence of coarse meshes adopted for
the scaling relations defined in Sect. 4.1.3. GFEM results this problem. Figure 19 shows contour plots of von Mises
for the sequence of coarse and fine meshes with p = 2 stress field on the deformed configuration (with magnifi-
basis functions and Δamax = 0.1 mm are shown in the cation) at crack propagation steps 20 and 120. Figure 20
figure, together with the experimental results from Pham compares the crack path predicted by the GFEM with the
et al. (2017). The stiffness of the specimen before the crack experiment of Pham et al. (2017). The GFEM simulation
propagates is matched very well by the GFEM model. The adopts coarse meshes, Δamax = 0.1 mm, and p = 2. It is
predicted critical load for crack propagation is slightly higher clear that the GFEM path agrees well with the experimental
than the measured one but the GFEM curves match reason- one.
ably well the experimental data. The observed difference in
Fig. 17a between the GFEM curves and experimental data for
COD greater than ≈ 0.32 mm is related to the model adopted
for the boundary conditions at the holes of the specimen. This
is further discussed in Sect. 5.2.5. The two GFEM curves in 5.2.2 Effect of crack advancement magnitude 1amax
each plot shown in Fig. 17 are nearly identical. This is the
case since, as in the previous problem, the same element size The effect of crack advancement magnitude Δamax is consid-
is adopted near the crack front for both sequences of meshes. ered in this section. Figure 21 shows plots of load versus COD
Based on this, hereafter only the coarse mesh is used in the and the crack path for the coarse mesh with p = 2 GFEM
simulations. basis functions, and Δamax = 0.3, 0.1 and 0.035 mm. Good
Figure 18 shows GFEM results for the sequence of coarse agreement with the experimental data is observed in all cases.
meshes with approximations of degree p = 2 and p = 3, This justifies the adopted Δamax = 0.1 mm in the simulations
and Δamax = 0.1 mm. The GFEM curves, again, match rea- presented earlier.

123
144
a a
b
Fig. 17 Mesh convergence in the GFEM simulation of Specimen CT31
using Δamax = 0.1 mm, and p = 2 a Load variation, b Crack path
5.2.3 Comparison with other specimens and phase-field
FEM
Figure 22 compares the GFEM simulation of Specimen CT31
(using coarse meshes, Δamax = 0.1 mm, and p = 2) with
experimental results from specimens CT31, CT32, and CT33
of Pham et al. (2017). It can be observed that the load versus
COD curve for Specimen CT33 deviates from the curves for
specimens CT31 and CT32. The crack path from all experi-
ments are, however, close for x > 17 mm. The GFEM results
are compared in Fig. 23 with phase-field FEM simulations
123
F. M. Mukhtar et al.
b
Fig. 18 p-adaptivity in the GFEM simulation of Specimen CT31 using
coarse meshes and Δamax = 0.1 mm a Load variation, b Crack path
of Specimen CT31 by Pham et al. (2017) and by Kumar and
Lopez-Pamies (2020). Phase-field results from Pham et al.
(2017) are for two choices of the ratio l0 /h where l0 is an
intrinsic size scale for the damage model in the phase-field
simulation and h is the element size in the region that contains
the expected crack path. Unstructured meshes with small ele-
ments (h = 25μm and h = 6.25μm ) are used (Pham et al.
2017). The GFEM and phase-field load versus COD curves
agree very well with the experimental results of Specimen
CT31. The crack paths predicted by GFEM is close to the
phase-field results of Pham et al. (2017) and nearly identical
to the phase-field results of Kumar and Lopez-Pamies (2020).
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth
Fig. 19 Contour plots of von Mises stress field on the deformed con-
figuration (with magnification) for two crack propagation steps
5.2.4 Computational performance
The GFEM simulation of Specimen CT31 on the sequence
of coarse meshes using Δamax = 0.1 mm and p = 2 took
about 27.5 minutes on a 2019 MacBook Pro with 8 cores. The
average number of tetrahedron elements in these meshes is
145
Fig. 20 Final crack path for Specimen CT31 a GFEM simulation with
coarse meshes, Δamax = 0.1 mm, and p = 2, b Experiment of Pham
et al. (2017)
12,581. The average time spent to solve one propagation step
was 13 sec. and 127 propagation steps were solved during
the entire simulation. The reduced cost of a propagation step
compared to Specimen CT24 is due to the smaller problem
size at each propagation step. Fewer propagation steps are
required for the simulation of Specimen CT31 than Specimen
CT24 since the initial (final) crack of Specimen CT31 is
longer (shorter) than for Specimen CT24.
5.2.5 Effects of model adopted for boundary conditions at
CT specimen holes
The observed difference in, for example, Fig. 17a between
the GFEM load versus COD curves and experimental data is
discussed in this section.
The displacements imposed by the loading pins on the top
and bottom holes of the CT and modified CT specimens are
modeled as displacements prescribed to nodes located along
the load lines, as described in Sect. 5.1. The actual loading
is, however, a contact problem where one of the contacting
surfaces (the specimen’s circular surfaces of the hole faces)
rotates relative to the vertically moving cylindrical loading
pin. As such, the location of the effective loaded zone changes
during the experiment. The adopted model, on the other hand,
assumes that the loaded/contacting surfaces remain the same
throughout the test. The loading pins do not prevent rotation
123
146
a
b b
Fig. 21 GFEM simulation of Specimen CT31 versus experimental
results for different crack increments using coarse meshes and p = 2 a
Load variation, b Crack path
of the specimen. This motivated the adoption of point con-
straints in our model. If, however, displacements were instead
prescribed on element faces, the relative rolling movement
between the loading pins and the holes would be prevented,
leading to an excessively constrained model.
It is noted that the rotation of the CT specimen analyzed
in Sect. 5.1 is smaller than in the case of the specimen ana-
lyzed in this section (Pham et al. 2017). In the first case the
crack propagates along a plane of symmetry and the speci-
men rotation is small (Pham et al. 2017). The turning of the
crack in the Mode I+II problem causes a rotation of the spec-
123
F. M. Mukhtar et al.
a
Fig. 22 GFEM simulation of Specimen CT31 (with coarse meshes,
Δamax = 0.1 mm, and p = 2) compared with data from three speci-
mens of the modified CT test of Pham et al. Pham et al. (2017). a Load
variation b Crack path
imen larger than in the Mode I problem. This may explain the
better matching between the GFEM load versus COD curves
and experimental data shown in Fig. 8a (Mode I problem)
than in Fig. 17a (Mode I+II problem).
The relative motion between the loading pins and the mod-
ified CT specimen holes is illustrated in Fig. 24. The locations
of the contact on the hole surfaces change from A to A and
A at the top and bottom holes, respectively, as the speci-
men deforms. This movement is prevented by the adopted
boundary conditions.
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth
[Pham et al.(2017)]
[Pham et al.(2017)]
a
[Pham et al. (2017)]
[Pham et al. (2017)]
[Kumar and Lopez-Pamies (2020)]
b
Fig. 23 GFEM simulation of Specimen CT31 (with coarse meshes,
Δamax = 0.1 mm, and p = 2) compared with phase-field FEM simu-
lations by Pham et al. (2017) and by Kumar and Lopez-Pamies (2020).
a Load variation, b Crack path
5.3 Mode I+II fracture propagation: Cornell fracture
group beam with holes
This section presents the validation of the adaptive GFEM
using experiments conducted by the Cornell University frac-
ture group (Ingraffea and Grigoriu 1990; Bittencourt et al.
1996). The tests adopt deep beams with a series of holes
as illustrated in Fig. 25. The goal is to validate the capabil-
ity of the GFEM in predicting crack paths that are sensitive
to the size and location, relative to the holes, of the initial
147
Fig. 24 Illustration of the deformed (black dashed line) and unde-
formed (solid blue line) configurations of the modified CT specimen
showing the rotations of points along the loaded holes
Fig. 25 Geometry (with dimensions in inches) and boundary conditions
of the beam with holes under 3-point loading (Bittencourt et al. 1996;
Ingraffea and Grigoriu 1990)
crack. Two case are considered: Case (i) adopts an initial
crack size a = 1 in (25.4 mm) and its distance to the beam
centerline b = 6 in (152.4 mm). These parameters are illus-
trated in Fig. 25; Case (ii) adopts a = 2.5 in (63.5 mm) and
b = 6 in (152.4 mm). The specimens were prepared out of a
plexiglass sheet with Modulus of elasticity E = 450, 000 psi
(3.102 GPa), Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.35 and Fracture energy
G c = 1.73 lbf/in (0.304 N/m).
This problem, or some slight variation of it, has been
used to validate several methods and fracture propagation
algorithms. Among them, we can mention quarter-point
finite elements with remeshing (Bittencourt et al. 1996), the
Element-Free Galerkin Method (Ventura et al. 2002), phase-
field FEMs (Mesgarnejad et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2019), and
eXtended FEM (Loehnert 2014). We comment of the com-
putational cost of the GFEM later in this section.
123
148
Fig. 26 GFEM simulation of fracture propagation in a beam with holes.
a User-provided mesh, b Predicted crack path for Case 1, and c Predicted
crack path for Case 2
Figure 26a shows the user-provided mesh adopted in the
simulations presented in this section. The same mesh is used
for both initial fracture cases described above. The input
mesh is nearly uniform and has 98,644 tetrahedral elements.
Elements intersected by the crack front were refined as in
previous problems. The average number of tetrahedron ele-
ments used in the sequence of meshes to solve cases (i) and
(ii) was 111,150 and 111,005, respectively. A polynomial
order of p = 2 and a value of Δamax = 1 mm were adopted
in the simulations. Simulations with Δamax = 0.1 mm were
also performed and produced the same crack paths as those
with Δamax = 1 mm.
Figure 26b, c show predicted crack paths for cases 1 and
2 described earlier. The sensitivity of the crack path with
respect to initial crack size and distance between the crack
and holes is clear. Case 1 leads to the arrest of the crack at
the middle hole while in Case 2 the crack arrests at the top
hole.
The GFEM crack paths for cases 1 and 2 are compared
with experimental results (Ingraffea and Grigoriu 1990; Bit-
tencourt et al. 1996) in Figs. 27 and 28 , respectively. The
123
F. M. Mukhtar et al.
Fig. 27 Comparison between GFEM crack path and experimental
results (Ingraffea and Grigoriu 1990; Bittencourt et al. 1996) for Case
1 (a = 2.5 in and b = 6 in)
Fig. 28 Comparison between GFEM crack path and experimental
results (Ingraffea and Grigoriu 1990; Bittencourt et al. 1996) for Case
2 (a = 2.5 in and b = 6 in)
agreement is very good for both cases, in spite of using a rela-
tively small number of 3-D elements—thanks for the adopted
singular enrichments and mesh adaptivity. The average time
spent to solve one propagation step was 35.43 s. and 41.35 s.
for cases (i) and (ii), respectively. A total of 103 and 119 prop-
agation steps were solved in the crack propagation simulation
of cases (i) and (ii), respectively. The 2-D phase-field FEM
model of Mesgarnejad et al. (2015) uses a mesh with approxi-
mately 1.35 million linear triangular elements, which is about
one order of magnitude more elements than in the adopted
3-D GFEM meshes. This problem, with different choices for
parameters a and b, was solved by Loehnert (2014) using a
2-D XFEM and a mesh of 272,800 bi-linear elements, which
is more than double the number of elements in the adopted
3-D GFEM meshes.
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth
6 Conclusions
An adaptive Generalized FEM for the simulation of mixed-
mode brittle fracture propagation is presented and validated
against several experimental data sets for mode I and mode
I+II fracture propagation problems. Very good agreement
between the GFEM and experimental results is observed.
These include fracture path, Crack Opening Displacement
(COD), and load and fracture length versus COD curves. The
computational efficiency of the method is also assessed. The
simulation cost of the GFEM is shown to be significantly
smaller than state-of-the-art phase-field FEMs. This is due
to (i) smaller problem size since in the GFEM refinement is
required only along a line (crack front) while in the phase-
field FEM the mesh needs to be refined along the entire crack
surface; (ii) At each crack propagation step, a linear problem
is solved by the GFEM and a highly non-linear one is solved
by the phase-field FEM.
Three benchmark problems with available experimental
data are used for the validation of the GFEM formulation and
crack propagation algorithms. The first problem is a Compact
Tension (CT) specimen under mode I loading. Mesh refine-
ment and enrichment studies are presented and show that a
polynomial order p = 2, combined with mesh refinement
around the crack front, suffices to deliver accurate results.
The effect of crack advancement magnitude and initial crack
front geometry are also investigated. They demonstrate the
flexibility of the method in adopting different starting crack
geometries while adopting the same user-defined mesh.
The second benchmark problem is a mode I+II fracture
propagation simulation in a modified CT specimen. Dis-
cretization parametric studies are also performed for this
problem with the same conclusions as for the mode I problem.
The effects of the model adopted for boundary conditions at
CT specimen holes are discussed in details. They show that
the contact between the loading pins and the specimen needs
to be modeled in order to remove observed inconsistencies
of the adopted model. We plan to investigate this by combin-
ing, in a non-intrusive manner (Gupta et al. 2012), the GFEM
code used in the simulations presented in this paper with a
standard FEM code like Abaqus [1]. This will leverage and
complement the capabilities of the methods and algorithms
implemented in these codes.
The third benchmark problem aimed at validating the
capability of the GFEM in predicting mode I+II crack paths
in deep beams with a series of holes. These paths are sensitive
to the size and location of initial cracks relative to the holes.
The crack paths predicted by the GFEM once again matched
very well experimental results (Ingraffea and Grigoriu 1990;
Bittencourt et al. 1996). The number of 3-D finite elements
used by the GFEM is shown to be significantly smaller the
number of 2-D elements used by a phase-field FEM.
149
Further validation of the GFEM presented here will be
pursued. This includes, for example, problems with mode III
effects and problems with multiple spatial scales of interest.
Acknowledgements F. M. Mukhtar gratefully acknowledges the partial
support from King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals. Ph. D.
Alves and C. A. Duarte gratefully acknowledge the partial support from
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
A The displacement correlation method
This section presents the expression for the extraction of SIFs
based on the Displacement Correlation Method (DCM)
(Chan et al. 1970; Banks-Sills and Sherman 1986)
and the averaging scheme adopted in this paper. A more
detailed derivation can be found in Gupta et al. (2017).
The approximation of K I can be computed as follows
%
2π G
K I∗ (r ) = u y (r ), (36)
r κ +1
where
u y (r ) = u y (r , π ) − u y (r , −π ) (37)
is the displacement jump in the ȳ-direction of the crack
front coordinate system (cf. Fig. 2).
The error of this approximation is O(r ). It can be improved
using Richardson extrapolation Heath (1997) which is given
by
K I∗ (ra ) = K I + C̃ra
K I∗ (rb ) = K I + C̃rb , (38)
where ra and rb define the location of sampling points
with ra < rb .
The above equations can be solved for K I
 
rb ra ∗
KI = K I∗ (ra ) − K I (rb ) . (39)
rb − ra rb
This approximation of K I has an error of O(r 2 ) instead
of O(r ). Analogous expressions can be derived to calculate
approximations for K I I and K I I I .
The averaging scheme is adopted in this work. In this
strategy, several pairs of sampling points at ra and rb are
used to compute approximations of K I with Eq. (39). The
123
150
final approximation of K I is taken as the average of those
approximations.
Let K I∗ (rk ) be an approximation of K I evaluated at rk
using Eq. (36), k = 1, ..., Nsampl , with rk < rk+1 . Nsampl
denotes the total number of sampling points used in the aver-
aging scheme.
Let K I ,k , be an approximation of K I computed using
Eq. (39) with ra = rk and rb = rk+1 = rk + Δk , i.e.,
  lizando elementos finitos hierarquicos multidimensionais. Ph.D.
rk+1 rk
K I ,k = K I∗ (rk ) − K I∗ (rk+1 ) . (40)
Δk rk+1
A simple average of K I ,k , k = 1, . . . , Nsampl − 1, gives
the final approximation for K I
Nsampl −1
1 
KI = K I ,k . (41)
Nsampl − 1
k=1
Analogous averaging procedures are used for K I I and
KI I I .
In this paper, the same distance between two consecu-
tive sampling points is adopted, i.e., Δk = Δ = 0.1h min
where h min is the minimum edge size of the elements cut by
the crack front. The location of the first sampling point is
defined by ρ̄ = r1 /h min = 0.4. The total number of sam-
pling points used for the averaging scheme is Nsampl = 10.
These parameters are selected based on recommendations
from Gupta et al. (2017).
References
Abaqus: Version 6.14 Documentation. Dassault Systemes Simulia Cor-
poration, Providence, RI, USA (2014)
Babuška I, Banerjee U (2012) Stable generalized finite element method
(SGFEM). Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 201–204:91–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2011.09.012
Babuška I, Melenk J (1997) The partition of unity method. Int J Num
Methods Eng 40:727–758
Babuška I, Caloz G, Osborn J (1994) Special finite element methods for
a class of second order elliptic problems with rough coefficients.
SIAM J Num Analy 31(4):945–981
Babuška I, Banerjee U, Kergrene K (2017) Strongly stable generalized
finite element method: application to interface problems. Com-
put Methods Appl Mech Eng 327:58–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cma.2017.08.008
Banks-Sills L, Sherman D (1986) Comparison of methods for calculat-
ing stress intensity factors with quarter-point elements. Int J Fract
32:127–140
Barsoum R (1976) On the use of isoparametric finite elements in linear
fracture mechanics. Int J Num Methods Eng 10(1):25–37. https://
doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620100103
Belytschko T, Black T (1999) Elastic crack growth in finite elements
with minimal remeshing. Int J Num Methods Eng 45:601–620
Belytschko T, Gracie R, Ventura G (2009) A review of
extended/generalized finite element methods for material model-
ing. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 17:043001. https://doi.org/10.
1088/0965-0393/17/4/043001
123
F. M. Mukhtar et al.
Bergara A, Dorado J, Martin-Meizoso A, Martínez-Esnaola J (2017)
Fatigue crack propagation in complex stress fields: experiments
and numerical simulations using the extended finite element
method (XFEM). Int J Fatigue 103:112–121. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.05.026
Bittencourt T, Wawezynek P, Ingraffea A, Sousa J (1996) Quasi-
automatic simulation of crack propagation for 2D LEFM problems.
Eng Fract Mech 55(2):321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-
7944(95)00247-2
Bravos CMAA (2004) Um sistema de refinamento h-p adaptativo uti-
thesis, Faculdade de Engenharia Mecanica, Universidade Estad-
ual de Campinas
CGAL: Computational Geometry Algorithms Library (2012). http://
www.cgal.org
Chan S, Tuba I, Wilson W (1970) On the finite element method in linear
fracture mechanics. Eng Fract Mech 2:1–17
Dolbow J, Moës N, Belytschko T (2000) Discontinuous enrichment in
finite elements with a partition of unity method. Finite Elem Analy
Des 36:235–260
Duarte C (2016) ISET-An Adaptive Generalized Finite Element Solver,
Reference Manual. ISET Developers, http://gfem.cee.illinois.edu
Duarte C, Babuška I, Oden J (2000) Generalized finite element
methods for three dimensional structural mechanics prob-
lems. Comput Struct 77:215–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-
7949(99)00211-4
Erdogan F, Sih G (1963) On the crack extension in plates under plane
loading and transverse shear. J Basic Eng 85:519–527
Ferrie E, Buffiere JY, Ludwig W, Gravouil A, Edwards L (2006) Fatigue
crack propagation: In situ visualization using X-ray microtomog-
raphy and 3D similation using the extended finite element method.
Acta Materialia 54:1111–1122
Garzon J, O’Hara P, Duarte C, Buttlar W (2014) Improvements of
explicit crack surface representation and update within the gener-
alized finite element method with application to three-dimensional
crack coalescence. Int J Num Methods Eng 97(4):231–273. https://
doi.org/10.1002/nme.4573
Giner E, Sukumar N, Tarancón JE, Fuenmayor FJ (2009)
An Abaqus implementation of the extended finite element
method. Eng Fract Mech 76(3):347–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engfracmech.2008.10.015
Grégoire D, Maigre H, Réthoré J, Combescure A (2007) Dynamic crack
propagation under mixed-mode loading—comparison between
experiments and X-FEM simulations. Int J Solids Struct
44(20):6517–6534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.02.044
Griffith AA (1921) The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philo-
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series
A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character
221:163–198
Gupta P, Duarte C (2014) Simulation of non-planar three-dimensional
hydraulic fracture propagation. Int J Num Analyt Methods
Geomech 38:1397–1430. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2305
Gupta P, Pereira J, Kim DJ, Duarte C, Eason T (2012) Analysis of
three-dimensional fracture mechanics problems: a non-intrusive
approach using a generalized finite element method. Eng Fract
Mech 90:41–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.04.
014
Gupta P, Duarte C, Dhankhar A (2017) Accuracy and robustness
of stress intensity factor extraction methods for the general-
ized/eXtended Finite Element Method. Eng Fract Mech 179:120–
153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.03.035
Heath M (1997) Scientific computing: an introductory survey. McGraw-
Hill series in computer science, McGraw-Hill
Henshell R, Shaw K (1975) Crack tip finite elements are unnecessary.
Int J Num Methods Eng 9(3):495–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/
nme.1620090302
Validation of 3-D SGFEM for brittle fracture growth
Ingraffea AR, Grigoriu M (1990) Probabilistic fracture mechanics: A
validation of predictive capability. Report 90-8 Department of
Structural Engineering Cornell University
Kergrene K, Babuška I, Banerjee U (2016) Stable generalized finite
element method and associated iterative schemes; application to
interface problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 305:1–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2016.02.030
Kumar A, Lopez-Pamies O (2020) Personal Communication
Kuna M (2013) Finite elements in fracture mechanics: theory “numer-
ics” applications. Springer, Dordrecht
Lazarus V (2003) Brittle fracture and fatigue propagation paths
of 3D plane cracks under uniform remote tensile loading.
Int J Fract 122(1–2):23–46. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FRAC.
0000005373.73286.5d
Lazarus V, Leblond JB, Mouchrif SE (2001) Crack front rotation and
segmentation in mixed mode i+ iii or i+ ii+ iii. Part ii: Comparison
with experiments. J Mech Phys Solids 49(7):1421–1443
Leblond JB, Frelat J (2014) Development of fracture facets from a
crack loaded in mode i+ iii: solution and application of a model
2d problem. J Mech Phys Solids 64:133–153
Lin B, Mear M, Ravi-Chandar K (2010) Criterion for initiation of cracks
under mixed-mode i+ iii loading. Int J Fract 165(2):175–188
Loehnert S (2014) A stabilization technique for the regularization of
nearly singular extended finite elements. Comput Mech 54(2):523–
533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-014-1003-7
Melenk J, Babuška I (1996) The partition of unity finite element method:
Basic theory and applications. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
139:289–314
Mesgarnejad A, Bourdin B, Khonsari M (2015) Validation simulations
for the variational approach to fracture. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 290:420–437
Moës N, Dolbow J, Belytschko T (1999) A finite element method for
crack growth without remeshing. Int J Num Methods Eng 46:131–
150
Ndeffo M, Massin P, Moës N, Martin A, Gopalakrishnan S (2017) On
the construction of approximation space to model discontinuities
and cracks with linear and quadratic extended finite elements. Adv
Model Simul Eng Sci 4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40323-017-
0090-3
Nikfam M, Zeinoddini M, Aghebati F, Arghaei A (2019) Experimental
and XFEM modelling of high cycle fatigue crack growth in steel
welded T-joints. Int J Mech Sci 153–154:178–193. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.01.040
Nuismer R (1975) An energy release rate criterion for mixed mode
fracture. Int J Fracture 11:245–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00038891
Oden J, Duarte C, Zienkiewicz O (1998) A new cloud-based hp finite
element method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 153:117–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(97)00039-X
Oden J, Duarte C (1997) Chapter: Clouds, Cracks and FEMs. In:
B. Reddy (ed.) Recent Developments in Computational and
Applied Mechanics, pp. 302–321. International Center for Numer-
ical Methods in Engineering, CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain http://
gfem.cee.illinois.edu/papers/jMartin_color.pdf
Paris A, Erdogan F (1963) A critical analysis of crack propagation laws.
J Basic Eng 85:528–534
Pereira J (2010) Generalized finite element methods for three-
dimensional crack growth simulations. PhD Dissertation, Univer-
sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana. IL, USA
Pereira J, Duarte C, Guoy D, Jiao X (2009) Hp-Generalized FEM and
crack surface representation for non-planar 3-D cracks. Int J Num
Methods Eng 77(5):601–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.2419
Pereira J, Duarte C, Jiao X, Guoy D (2009) Generalized finite element
method enrichment functions for curved singularities in 3D frac-
ture mechanics problems. Comput Mech 44(1):73–92. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00466-008-0356-1
151
Pereira J, Duarte C, Jiao X (2010) Three-dimensional crack growth with
hp-generalized finite element and face offsetting methods. Comput
Mech 46(3):431–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-010-0491-
3
Pham K, Ravi-Chandar K (2014) Further examination of the criterion
for crack initiation under mixed-mode i+ iii loading. Int J Fract
189(2):121–138
Pham K, Ravi-Chandar K (2017) The formation and growth of echelon
cracks in brittle materials. Int J Fract 206(2):229–244
Pham K, Ravi-Chandar K, Landis C (2017) Experimental validation of
a phase-field model for fracture. Int J Fract 205(1):83–101. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10704-017-0185-3
Richard HA, Fulland M, Sander M (2005) Theoretical crack path pre-
diction. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 28(1–2):3–12. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.2004.00855.x
Rungamornrat J, Wheeler M, Mear M (2005) A numerical technique
for simulating nonplanar evolution of hydraulic fractures. In: Pro-
ceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
p. 9. Dallas, TX, USA SPE-96968-MS
Sanchez-Rivadeneira A, Duarte C (2019) A stable generalized/extended
FEM with discontinuous interpolants for fracture mechanics.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 345:876–918. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cma.2018.11.018
Sanchez-Rivadeneira A, Shauer N, Mazurowski B, Duarte C (2020)
A stable generalized/extended p-hierarchical FEM for three-
dimensional linear elastic fracture mechanics. Comput Methods
Appl Mech Eng 364:112970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2020.
112970
Schöllmann M, Richard H, Kullmer G, Fulland M (2002) A new crite-
rion for the prediction of crack development in multiaxially loaded
structures. Int J Fract 117(2):129–141. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1020980311611
Shabir Z, Van der Giessen E, Duarte C, Simone A (2019) On the appli-
cability of linear elastic fracture mechanics scaling relations in the
analysis of intergranular fracture of brittle polycrystals. Int J Fract
220(2):205–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-019-00381-x
Shi J, Chopp D, Lua J, Sukumar N, Belytschko T (2010) Abaqus imple-
mentation of extended finite element method using a level set
representation for three-dimensional fatigue crack growth and life
predictions. Eng Fract Mech 77(14):2840–2863. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engfracmech.2010.06.009
Sommer E (1969) Formation of fracture ‘lances’ in glass. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 1(3):539–546
Szabo B, Babuška I (1991) Finite Elem Analy. Wiley, New York
Tian R, Wen L, Wang L (2019) Three-dimensional improved XFEM
(IXFEM) for static crack problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng 343:339–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2018.08.029
Varfolomeev I, Burdack M, Moroz S, Siegele D, Kadau K (2014)
Fatigue crack growth rates and paths in two planar specimens
under mixed mode loading. Int J Fatigue 58:12–19. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2013.04.013
Ventura G, Xu J, Belytschko T (2002) A vector level set method and
new discontinuity approximations for crack growth by efg. Int J
Num Methods Eng 56:923–944
Ventura G, Budyn E, Belytschko T (2003) Vector level sets for descrip-
tion of propagating cracks in finite elements. Int J Num Methods
Eng 58(10):1571–1592. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.829
Wu J, Nguyen V, Nguyen C, Sutula D, Bordas S, Sinaie S (2019) Phase
field modelling of fracture. Adv Appl Mech. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cma.2019.112614
Zhang Q, Banerjee U, Babuška I (2014) Higher order stable general-
ized finite element method. Numerische Mathematik 128(1):1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-014-0609-1
123
152 F. M. Mukhtar et al.

Zhang Q, Babuška I, Banerjee U (2016) Robustness in stable gen- Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
eralized finite element methods (SGFEM) applied to Poisson dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
problems with crack singularities. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng 311:476–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2016.08.019

123