Contributions of The Direct Flexoelectric Effects and Strain Gradient Effects To Fracture Criteria of Flexoelectric Solids

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000
Procedia Structural Integrity 52 (2024) 455–471 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Fracture, Damage and Structural Health Monitoring
Discussion ofFracture,
contributions
Damage and of the directHealth
Structural flexoelectric
Monitoring effects and
strain gradient effects to fracture criteria of flexoelectric solids
Discussion of contributions of the direct flexoelectric effects and
T. Profanteffects
strain gradient
a
, M. Kotoul a,b*
, J. Sládek
to fracture
c
, V. Sládek
criteria
c
, J. Pokludab solids
of flexoelectric
a
Institute of Solid Mechanics, Mechatronics and Biomechanics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, BUT, Technická 2896/2, Brno, 616 69,
b
T. Profant , M. Kotoul
a
, J. Sládek , V. Sládek , J. Pokluda
a,b* Czech Republic c c b
Faculty of Special Technology, Alexander Dubček University of Trenčín, Studentska 2, 911 50 Trenčín, Slovak Republic
a
c
Department
Institute of Solid Mechanics, of Mechanics,
Mechatronics Slovak Academy
and Biomechanics, of Sciences,
Faculty Bratislava
of Mechanical 984503, Slovak
Engineering, Republic 2896/2, Brno, 616 69,
BUT, Technická
Czech Republic
b
Faculty of Special Technology, Alexander Dubček University of Trenčín, Studentska 2, 911 50 Trenčín, Slovak Republic
Abstract c
Department of Mechanics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava 984503, Slovak Republic
It is known that the direct flexoelectric effect is a consequence of the polarization of the material, which is proportional to the strain
gradients.
Abstract The strain gradients are prominent near material defects, especially at the crack tips, where the flexoelectric effect
redistributes the stress field and consequently influences the crack propagation. The flexoelectricity is a size dependent effect, i.e.
it depends
It is known on
thatantheinternal material length
direct flexoelectric effectparameter as the additional
is a consequence material of
of the polarization characteristic.
the material, This
whichfact makes the equilibrium,
is proportional to the strain
constitutive,
gradients. The andstrain
boundary equations
gradients complicated
are prominent nearasmaterial
well as defects,
the asymptotic
especially solution
at theatcrack
the crack
tips, tip contrary
where to the asymptotic
the flexoelectric effect
solution in the
redistributes thelinear
stresselastic fracture
field and mechanics.
consequently In our recent
influences workpropagation.
the crack (Profant et al, The2023) we have applied
flexoelectricity thedependent
is a size matched asymptotic
effect, i.e.
expansion
it depends method known mainly
on an internal materialfrom the parameter
length fluid mechanics
as the to derive thematerial
additional expressions for the amplitude
characteristic. This factfactors
makesthat the appear in the
equilibrium,
flexoelectric
constitutive, asymptotic
and boundary solution for the
equations crack as functions
complicated as well of
asthe
theclassical stress
asymptotic intensity
solution at factors
the crackof LEFM in the to
tip contrary loadings of mode
the asymptotic
Isolution
or mode in II.
the The
linearapplication of themechanics.
elastic fracture matched asymptotic
In our recentexpansion method
work (Profant et is
al,conditioned
2023) we have by the knowledge
applied the matchedof theasymptotic
so-called
boundary
expansionlayer,
method which
knownis evaluated
mainly fromfromthethefluid
energetic criteriatoatderive
mechanics the crack
the tip. The principal
expressions for theadvantage
amplitude is that the that
factors amplitude
appearfactors
in the
in the flexoelectric
flexoelectric asymptotic
asymptotic solution solution
for thedo not as
crack need to be calculated
functions through
of the classical finite
stress elementfactors
intensity simulation
of LEFM of a in
finite
the crack.
loadings of mode
In
I orthis contribution,
mode we will use
II. The application ofthe
theresults
matched of the forementioned
asymptotic expansionmatched
method asymptotic expansion
is conditioned by theanalysis
knowledgefor theofstudy of crack
the so-called
propagation
boundary layer,by taking
which into account that
is evaluated fromthetheasymptotics is onlyatvalid
energetic criteria within
the crack tip.a region around advantage
The principal the crack tip that the
is that is on the orderfactors
amplitude of the
flexoelectric lengthasymptotic
in the flexoelectric scale or thesolution
strain gradient
do not need elasticity (SGE) length
to be calculated scale.finite
through The element
classicalsimulation
Griffith postulate
of a finite regarding
crack. a critical
energy release rate Gwe
In this contribution, c is will
applied. Theresults
use the aim is of to the
estimate the contributions
forementioned matchedofasymptotic
direct flexoelectric
expansion effects and for
analysis strain
thegradient
study ofeffects
crack
for various combinations
propagation by taking intoofaccount
flexoelectric
that thematerial
asymptoticsproperties to valid
is only the expected
within areduction of thethe
region around energy
crackrelease
tip thatrate.
is on the order of the
flexoelectric length scale or the strain gradient elasticity (SGE) length scale. The classical Griffith postulate regarding a critical
© 2023 TheDirect
Authors. Published bygradient
flexoelectricity; Elseviertheory;crack;asymptotic
B.V. expansion;amplitude factors;fracure criteria
energy release
Keywords: rate Gc is applied. The aim is to estimate the contributions of direct flexoelectric effects and strain gradient effects
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
for various combinations of flexoelectric material
Peer-review under responsibility of Professor Ferri Aliabadi properties to the expected reduction of the energy release rate.
1. Introduction
Keywords: Direct flexoelectricity; gradient theory;crack;asymptotic expansion;amplitude factors;fracure criteria
The classical relation between applied strain and electric polarization, known as piezoelectricity, is thoroughly
1. Introduction
defined (Cady, 2018) and has been widely used to investigate the behavior of piezoelectric materials at the macro
The classical
2452-3216 relation
© 2023 The between
Authors. applied
Published strain B.V.
by ELSEVIER and electric polarization, known as piezoelectricity, is thoroughly
defined
This is an(Cady, 2018)
open access and under
article has been widely
the CC BY-NC-NDusedlicense
to investigate the behavior of piezoelectric materials at the macro
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of Professor Ferri Aliabadi
2452-3216 © 2023 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
2452-3216 © 2023 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
10.1016/j.prostr.2023.12.046
456 T. Profant et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 52 (2024) 455–471
2 T. Profant et al/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000
scale. However, several experimental studies have demonstrated the size-dependent linear electro-mechanical
coupling at micro/nanoscale (Baskaran et al, 2011; Catalan et al, 2011). This occurs when the structure dimensions
become comparable to the material length scale and the state of stress at a point is not only dependent on the strain but
also on the strain gradient. The electromechanical coupling between polarization and strain gradient is termed as
flexoelectricity (Mao & Purohit, 2014; Sladek et al, 2017a). Following its discovery several decades ago, studies of
flexoelectricity in solids have been scarce due to the seemingly small magnitude of this effect in bulk samples. The
development of nanoscale technologies, however, has renewed the interest in flexoelectricity, as the large strain
gradients often present at the nanoscale can lead to strong flexoelectric effects. In fact, the concept of flexoelectricity
was firstly originated from liquid crystals (Newnham, 2004). The irregularly-shaped polarized molecules existing in
liquid crystals can be reoriented by the mechanical strain gradient. Later, similar strain gradient induced polarization
phenomenon was also found in crystalline dielectrics, especially in the perovskites. Contrary to the piezoelectric effect,
flexoelectricity is not just limited to non-centrosymmetric materials but it may induce electric polarization in the
centrosymmetric material by breaking the material’s symmetry (Yan & Jiang, 2013). Therefore, due to flexoelectric
effect, non-piezoelectric materials may also be used to produce piezoelectric composites (Sharma et al, 2010) and thus
call out new challenges for researchers in the field of nanotechnology. Since flexoelectricity is a gradient effect, thus
size-dependent, it cannot be directly incorporated into continuum mechanics, which does not possess an intrinsic length
scale. Rather, flexoelectricity needs to be modelled under the framework of strain-gradient elasticity theory (SGET).
The first attempts to capture flexoelectricity within this phenomemological framework pertain to Mindlin (Mindlin,
1968) and Toupin (Toupin, 1962). Recently, the phenomenological description of flexoelectricity and its application
has been developed in a number of studies. Maranganti et al. (Maranganti et al, 2006) developed fundamental solutions
(Green’s functions) for the governing equations of ferroelectricity, (Majdoub et al, 2008b) (Majdoub et al, 2008a) have
shown that flexoelectricity may lead to dramatic increase in the energy harvesting capability for piezoelectric
nanostructures. Ultimate strain gradients that any material can withstand is that which exist around a crack tip, hence
cracks are therefore a natural ground where to search for flexoelectric effects. Abdollahi at al.(Abdollahi et al, 2015)
found that, in the presence of flexoelectricity, the resistance to fracture significantly increases in a size-dependent
manner for thin BaTiO3 or PbTiO3 films, and moreover that this toughening is asymmetric with respect to the sign of
the polarization. Variational formulation for boundary-value problems for flexoelectric solids and its implementation
in the FEM was developed e.g. in (Sladek et al, 2017a)(Mao et al, 2016; Sladek et al, 2018; Sladek et al, 2017b) and
applied to solution of crack problems. Joseph et al. (Joseph et al, 2018) performed analytical study of fracture in a
flexoelectric double cantilever beam using the strain gradient theory. Comparing to the phenomenological Landau-
Ginzburg-Devonshire theory,(Tagantsev & Yudin, n.d.) the continuum theory of flexoelectricity is complicated by
higher order and nonlocal mechanical and electromechanical couplings in the internal energy, multiple definitions of
deformation metrics, and subsequently more comprehensive governing equations and boundary conditions.
Physical models of the flexoelectricity were first formulated in terms of microscopic theories. The ionic
contribution to flexoelectricity was evaluated for several perovskite ferroelectrics and bi-atomic crystals by
Maranganti and Sharma (Maranganti & Sharma, 2009) using the framework offered by Tagantsev (Tagantsev,
1986).Ab initio calculations of this contribution were performed by Hong et al (Hong et al, 2010) and Ponomareva et
al (Ponomareva et al, 2012) for SrTiO3, BaTiO3, and their solid solution. The first-principles calculations of the purely
electronic contribution to flexoelectricity have been done by Hong and Vanderbilt (Hong & Vanderbilt, 2011) for a
number of crystals, including classical perovskites. The concept behind these calculations, stemming from the classical
work by Martin (Martin, 1972) was formulated in (Resta, 2010). The electronic contribution to flexoelectricity in
carbon nanosystems was evaluated in(Dumitricǎ et al, 2002)(Kalinin & Meunier, 2008) using ab initio calculations.
While both first principles and continuum modelling of flexoelectricity have undergone impressive progress in the
past few years, there are strengths and limitations to either approach, suggesting that only a combined effort will
eventually prove itself effective. Perhaps a first attempt to unify ab-initio formulation of flexoelectricity and strain-
gradient elasticity in crystalline insulators was reported in (Stengel, 2016) with claiming that first-principles data can
been used as the “exact” reference on which the continuum model is built. We used a similar strategy in prediction
of brittle fracture of nanocomponents have (Kotoul et al, 2020; Kotoul et al, 2019), which can be naturally extended
into flexoelectric fracture problems.
Detailed impacts of flexoelectricity on materials and related applications were treated in recent review papers (Shu
et al, 2019)(Wang et al, 2019). They state that although the study of flexoelectricity has an impressive achievement,
T. Profant et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 52 (2024) 455–471 457
T. Profant et al / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000 3
the state-of-the-art understanding of this field is still in its initial stage and lots of the fundamental problems regarding
the flexoelectricity are unresolved.
Here, we will use the results of our recent paper concerning the matched asymptotic expansion analysis (Profant et
al, 2023) for the study of crack propagation. The principal advantage is that the amplitude factors in the flexoelectric
asymptotic solution do not need to be calculated through finite element simulation of a finite crack, which due to
gradient effects requires physical fields to be approximated by conforming elements with C1 continuity.It is assumed
that the asymptotics is only valid within a region around the crack tip that is on the order of the flexoelectric length
scale or the strain gradient elasticity (SGE) length scale. The classical Griffith postulate regarding a critical energy
release rate Gc and the critical crack opening displacement (COD) for the crack to advance are to be applied. The aim
is to estimate the contributions of direct flexoelectric effects and strain gradient effects for various combinations of
flexoelectric material properties to the expected reduction of the energy release rate and/or the critical COD. While in
the paper (Profant et al, 2023) only mechanical boundary loads are considered, in this contribution also electrical
boundary loads are taken into account and the coupling of mechanical and electrical quantities is considered.
2. Basic equations
The simplest form of the linear constitutive laws for dielectric solid are applied in the following and the strain
gradient energy term is adopted from (Mao & Purohit, 2014) An isotropic dielectric solid with direct flexoelectricity
is considered, whose energy function per unit volume U ( ε, ε, P ) depends on the infinitesimal strain tensor
1
ε= ( u + u ) (1)
2
its gradient ∇𝜺𝜺 and the polarization vector field P. A symbol ∇ represents the vector differential operator. The
corresponding conjugates, i.e. the Cauchy stress σ, the double stress τ and the electric field E must satisfy the
governing equilibrium equations
 ( σ −  τ ) = 0,
− 0 2 +  P = 0, (2)
E +  = 0,
where the body force per volume is omitted, 𝜖𝜖0 is the permittivity of the vacuum and 𝜑𝜑 is the electric potential. The
isotropic flexoelectric solid is characterized by the Lamé coefficients 𝜆𝜆 and 𝜇𝜇, the length scale parameter 𝑙𝑙, the two
flexoelectric constants 𝑓𝑓1 and 𝑓𝑓2 , the dielectric permittivity 𝜖𝜖 and the dependence of the polarization vector field 𝑷𝑷 on
the strain gradients ∇𝜺𝜺. The constitutive equations describe all these circumstances
=σ Tr ( ) I + 2 ε,
=P a −1  E − f1Tr ( ε ) − 2 f 2  ε  ,
( ) ( ) (
l 2 σ + f1 Pei ei + Pe j e j + f 2 ei ei P + e j e j P + f 2 ei Pei + e j Pe j =
τ= l 2σ )
+ f1  Pi ( ei ei ei + ei e j e j ) + Pj ( e j ei ei + e j e j e j )  + f 2  Pi ( ei ei ei + e j e j ei ) + Pj ( ei ei e j + e j e j e j )  (3)
   
+ f 2  Pi ( ei ei ei + e j ei e j ) + Pj ( ei e j ei + e j e j e j ) 
 
where 𝑖𝑖 ≡ 𝑥𝑥, 𝑗𝑗 ≡ 𝑦𝑦 or 𝑖𝑖 ≡ 𝑟𝑟, 𝑗𝑗 ≡ 𝜃𝜃. Hence the basis vectors 𝒆𝒆𝑖𝑖 and 𝒆𝒆𝑗𝑗 represent the basis (𝒆𝒆𝑥𝑥 , 𝒆𝒆𝑦𝑦 ) of a Cartesian or
the basis (𝒆𝒆𝑟𝑟 , 𝒆𝒆𝜃𝜃 ) of a polar coordinate system. The reciprocal susceptibility constant 𝑎𝑎 is given by the relation
𝑎𝑎−1 = 𝜖𝜖 − 𝜖𝜖0 . (4)
The governing equations admit the following boundary conditions
=u u, on Vu ,
ν = n  ( u ) = ν , on V ,
( )
t = n  ( σ −   τ ) −   ( n  τ ) +   n n  ( n  τ )= t , on Vt ,
(5)
r =n  ( n  τ ) =r on Vr ,
=  , on V ,
 =n  ( 0 E + P ) = , on VD ,
where 𝒏𝒏 is the external unit normal to the smooth boundary 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 . The boundary is composed such a way, that
V = Vu Vt = V Vr = V VD and Vu Vt = V Vr = V VD =  . The operator  is defined as
=
 ( I − nn)  (6)
and the symbols u , ν , t , r ,  and  are the boundary values of displacements u, their gradients ν , auxiliary
force tractions t , double force tractions r, electric potential  and surface charge ω. The Navier-type equation for
the displacement field u and the electric potential  derives from the linearized theory mentioned above. Substituting
(1)into the Maxwell equation (2)2 and into the divergences of (2)3-(3)2 one gets
∇2 (𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝑓𝑓∇ ⋅ 𝒖𝒖) = 0, (7)
where f = f1 + 2f2. Using this relation between the electric potential  and the displacements u, the second Navier-
type equation can be derived from the rest of the equilibrium and constitutive equations (2)1, (2)3 and (3). This
equation can be written in the form
(  +  ) (1 − l122 )  ( u) +  (1 − l222 ) 2 u =0, (8)
where l1 and l2 are given by
 f2 f 22 f2
l12 =
l2 − 0 + , l22 =
l2 − 2 . (9)
( +  ) a ( +  ) a a
These relations enable to set up non-dimensional parameters (Mao & Purohit, 2015)
f2 f
= = and  (10)
l a l a
A polar coordinate system with the basis (er, eθ) is practical to use in the asymptotic analysis at the tip of the crack.
For this reason, the vectors s1 and s2 are introduced to represent the following differential expressions
s1   (  =
 u ) s1r er + s1 e ,
2
(11)
s2  = u s2 r er + s2 e ,
in which
s1r = (
 r  r ur + r −1ur + r −1 u , ) (12)
(
s1 = r −1  r ur + r −1ur + r −1 u , )
s2r = ( )
 r  r ur + r −1ur + r −2  (  ur − 2u ) ,
(13)
s =
2  (  u + r u ) + r
r r
−1 −2
 (  u + 2ur )
According to (Gourgiotis & Georgiadis, 2009), it is also useful to introduce the quantities sr and sθ representing the
contribution of the classical elasticity to the equilibrium of the flexoelectric body as follows
sr = s1r + (1 − 2 ) s2r ,
(14)
s = s1 + (1 − 2 ) s2 .
Equations (11)-(14) allow one to rewrite the equilibrium equation (8) in the form
( ) (
sr − l12  2 s1r − r −2 s1r − 2r −2  s1 − (1 − 2 ) l22  2 s2 r − r −2 s2 r − 2r −2  s2 =
0, ) (15)
s − l12 ( s  − r
2
1
−2
s1 + 2r −2  s1r ) − (1 − 2 ) l ( s  − r
2
2
2
2
−2
s2 + 2r −2  s2 r)=
0.
It should be noted that neglecting the flexoelectricity parameters f1 and f2 in (9) simplifies the equilibrium equations
(15) in the case of the strain gradient elasticity and neglecting l simplifies the equilibrium equations (15) in the case
of the classical elasticity.
3. Some comments on matched asymptotic expansion method
The matched asymptotic expansion method is an important mathematical tool in the asymptotic analysis mainly
applied in the fluid mechanics. The matched asymptotic expansion method with the boundary layer approach is also
increasingly adopted to get the change in potential energy of the notch or crack array if the very small and finite crack
increment is considered at its tips (Leguillon et al, 2001; Martin et al, 2001; Leguillon et al, 2000; Kotoul et al, 2010;
Vu-Quoc & Tran, 2006). The principle consists in construction of the so-called inner and outer asymptotic solutions
which are then matched along a certain boundary. First of all it should be noted that an analytical solution governed
by the direct flexoelectricity laws and that describes this effect in the nearby domain of the defect as well as its
weakening in the remote parts of the material is not available. Instead of that, it is possible to find the so-called outer
solution, which suppresses the influence of the strain gradients, and the so-called inner solution, which includes their
dominancy. The outer solution for the crack tip ( uout ,  out ) can be derived if the polar coordinate system ( r ,  ) is
introduced at the point x0 inside or near the process zone whose dimension is proportional to the material length scale
parameter l as shown in Fig. 1. The outer solution ( uout ,  out ) is valid outside the zone r   x0 , where the strain
gradients ∇𝜺𝜺 are negligible small with respect to the magnitudes of the strains ∇𝜺𝜺 and the maximum error in the
governing equilibrium equations (2) is of the order O(l4)for x0  l .
Omitting the double stress τ due to the negligible small values of the strain gradients ∇𝜺𝜺 outside the crack process
zone, the traction boundary conditions (5)3 prevailing at the tip of the crack can be supposed as
Fig. 1. The traction free and isolated/conducted faces of the semi-infinite crack of the LEFM problem as the outer solution uout ,I or uout ,II .
t out = 0, for r   x0 and   =  ,

n  σ out = (16)
n
where = ( 0, 1) . The same argument can be put to the polarization P , which reduces the boundary condition (5)6
to the insulating or conducting form
Eout = 0,
    .
 for r  x0 and  = (17)
Er = 0.
out


The outer solution 𝒖𝒖𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 obeying the boundary conditions (16) and (17) is equivalent to the solution describing the
crack tip field in the classical elasticity under the plain strain conditions with exponent 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 1⁄2, i.e. for the case
of the symmetric mode I crack tip opening is
1 1
KI 1 3
=urout

,I
( r ) 2 ( 2 )− 2 ( 5 − 8 ) cos   − cos   ,
4  2 2 
(18)
1 1
KI 1 3
=uout

,I
( r ) 2 ( 2 )− 2  − ( 7 − 8 ) sin   + sin  
4  2 2 
and for the case of the antisymmetric mode II
1 1
K II 1 3
=urout

, II
( r ) 2 ( 2 )− 2 ( −5 + 8 ) sin   + 3sin   ,
4  2 2 
(19)
1 1
K II 1 3
=uout

, II
( r ) 2 ( 2 )− 2 ( −7 + 8 ) cos   + 3cos   .
4  2 2 
Moreover, the outer electric potential is zero valued for both mode of loading:
out , I out , II
= = 0. (20)
The derivation of (20) from boundary conditions (17) is discussed in our paper (Profant et al, 2023).
The inner solution for the fracture problem in the isotropic dielectric material obeying the direct flexoelectric
equilibrium equations (2) is based on the asymptotic plane strain analyses provided in (Mao & Purohit, 2015)or
(Gourgiotis & Georgiadis, 2009) for the case of the strain gradient elasticity. A semi-infinite plane crack in the
isotropic flexoelectric material with the implemented polar coordinate system (𝑟𝑟, 𝜃𝜃) at its tip is considered and
depicted in Fig. 2. The traction-free crack faces given by the external normal 𝒏𝒏 = (0, ±1) and associated with the
boundary conditions
t=0, for r  0 and  =

r=  (21)
at the tip of the crack are supposed. Moreover, the insulating or conductive crack faces are considered for mode I or
mode II, respectively
 ==
0 or Er 0 for r 0 and  =
 (22)
Fig. 2. The traction free and isolated/conducted faces of the semi-infinite crack of the fracture problem in the material exhibits the flexoelectric
properties as the inner solution 𝒖𝒖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 or 𝒖𝒖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 .
The solution of this fracture problem is given in (Profant et al, 2023). It shows, that the fulfilling of the boundary
conditions (21) and (22) leads to the asymptotic solution whose exponent of the dominant terms for the displacement
field is 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 3⁄2 associated with generally five independent amplitude factors. The inner solution requires the
scaling-up of the coordinate system, because of the vanishingly small dimension of the region on which is defined.
Hence, the gauge 𝛿𝛿 = 𝑙𝑙 ⁄𝐿𝐿 is introduced as well as the scaled-up radius vector 𝑅𝑅 = 𝑟𝑟⁄𝛿𝛿 . Then the asymptotic form of
the inner solutions for the mode I or II loading with insulated or conducting crack faces, respectively, can be written
as
3 3
 1 5 3 
urin,=ID
 R 1 +  2 cos 2  +  2 R 2  A1 cos  + A2 cos  + A3 cos   ,
 2 2 2 
1 1
 f
 in, ID = C0 +  2 R 2   5 A − 3 ( 3l + 5 ) A + A 
 2 a  1 12 3 
4
(23)
1 
 f  A − 5l + 3 A + 5 A  − f  5 A − 3 3l + 5 A + A    cos 1  −  −1 f  uin, ID
+  2 1 ( )   1 ( )   
2 ( a 0 + 1)  
12 3 4 12 3 4
 2 a
3 3
 1 5 3 
uin, ID = − R 2 sin 2 +  2 R 2  A4 sin  − A2 sin  − l12 A3 sin   ,
 2 2 2 
and
3 3
 1 3 5 
urin, IIE =
 R 3 sin 2 +  2 R 2  B1 sin  − B3 sin  + B2 sin   ,
 2 2 2 
3 3
 1 3 5 
uin, IIE =
 R3 cos 2 +  2 R 2  B4 cos  + B3l12 cos  + B2 cos   , (24)
 2 2 2 
1 1
f   1 3 
 in, IIE =
C0 +  2 R 2 B3 ( 3l12 +5 )  sin  + sin    ,
2 a   2 2 
where
5l12 + 8l22 (1 − 2 )
l12 = − .
3l12 + 8l22 (1 − 2 )
The amplitude factors 𝛤𝛤1 , 𝛤𝛤2 , 𝛤𝛤3 and 𝐶𝐶0 are associated with the so-called lower-order terms of the asymptotic solution
and the Cauchy type stresses and electric potential at the crack tip (R= 𝑟𝑟⁄𝑙𝑙 = 0), respectively. The amplitude factors
𝐴𝐴1,…,4 and 𝐵𝐵1,…,4 are the amplitude factors associated with the dominant terms of the asymptotic solution for the case
of mode I and mode II loadings.
The outer solution 𝒖𝒖𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,⋅ and the inner solution 𝒖𝒖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,⋅ (the dot in the upper index means the symbol 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 or 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 in the
following) represent the solution of the same problem in two regions of different dimensions. In addition, neither the
outer nor inner solution offers its intermediate form, which would describe the transition between them. This transition
is somewhere in the region whose length is of order 𝑂𝑂(𝑙𝑙) behind the tip of the crack, if 𝑙𝑙 ≪ 𝐿𝐿. Let 𝑙𝑙0 be the distance
𝑟𝑟 ′ = 𝑙𝑙0 from the tip of the crack of the outer solution 𝒖𝒖𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,⋅ as the lowest limit value of the radius 𝑟𝑟 ′ , at which the error
is still of the order 𝑂𝑂(𝑙𝑙34 ) ≼ 𝑂𝑂(𝑙𝑙 4 ), where 𝑙𝑙3 ≡ 𝑙𝑙1 ≈ 𝑙𝑙2 . From this follows that the value of the shift of the coordinate
system (𝑟𝑟 ′ , 𝜃𝜃 ′ ) is 𝑥𝑥0 ≈ −𝑙𝑙0 ,see Fig. 3. The matching procedure described in details in (Profant et al, 2023) leads to
the overdetermined system of algebraic equations with unknows 𝐴𝐴1,…,4 or 𝐵𝐵1,…,4 for loading modes I or II, respectively.
the expressions assessing the amplitude factors 𝐴𝐴1,…,4 and 𝐵𝐵1,…,4 can be written as
KI KI ( )
l12 4 2 + 5 + 1 + 4 2 + 7 + 3
A1 
6 El0 ( 2 )
1/2 (12 2
)
+ 7 − 5 , A2  −
6 El0 ( 2 )
1/2
l12 ( 8 − 1) − 8 + 9
,
(25)
2K I 2 2 +  − 1 KI
A3  −
El0 ( 2 )
1/2
l12 ( 8 − 1) − 8 + 9
, A4 
6 El0 ( 2 )
1/2
12 2 +  − 11 ( )
K II K II ( )
l12 4 2 + 5 + 1 + 4 2 + 7 + 3
B1  −
6 El0 ( 2 )
1/2 (12 2
)
+ 7 − 5 , B2  −
2 El0 ( 2 )
1/2
l12 ( 8 − 1) − 8 + 9
,
(26)
6 K II 2 2 +  − 1 K II
B3  −
El0 ( 2 )
1/2
l12 ( 8 − 1) − 8 + 9
, B4 
6 El0 ( 2 )
1/2
12 2 +  − 11 , ( )
where 𝐸𝐸 is Young’s modulus and 𝜈𝜈 is the Poisson ratio.
Fig. 3. Matching the outer solution 𝒖𝒖𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,⋅ and the inner solution 𝒖𝒖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,⋅ , where a dot in the upper index means 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 or 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼. The traction vector 𝒕𝒕𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,⋅ of
the outer solution is still valid at the distance 𝑙𝑙0 from the fictitious tip of the outer crack. On the other hand, the Cauchy type stresses in the total
stress vector 𝒕𝒕𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,⋅ of the inner solution prevails with respect to the remaining higher-order stresses at the distance 𝑅𝑅 = 𝑙𝑙0 𝛿𝛿 −1 from the true tip of
the crack. Consequently, the scaling-up of the inner domain allows both solutions to be matched along these boundaries.
The important role of the parameter 𝑙𝑙0 is obvious from expressions (25) and (26). The parameter 𝑙𝑙0 is known as the
boundary layer in the matched asymptotic expansion analysis. The path independency of the 𝐽𝐽-integral allows the
parameter 𝑙𝑙0 to be fixed by comparing the classical elasticity J-integral and the gradient elasticity J-integral. The
expression of the 𝐽𝐽-integral for loading modes I and II of the flexoelectric material with the crack obeying the
conducting and insulating boundary conditions, respectively, can be found in (Mao & Purohit, 2015) and written as
 
 l  5 − 4 − ( 7 − 6 ) 
2
2 2 
J1ID  ( 11
3C − 2C12 ) + 8C12  ,
16 (1 − )  1 −  2 

 
  2
 (27)
 4 (1 − )  5 − 4 − ( 7 − 6 )   2 1 −  − ( −  ) (1 − 2 ) 2 
 2 2 
2
J1IIE  l (1 −  ) 
= C + C ,

 (
2 2 − 3 2 + 1
2
)
12
(1 −  )(1 − 2 ) 22

 
where
3/2 1/2
 l   l 
− lim 
C11 =  uin, ID ( R,  ) , C12 =
− lim   in, ID ( R,  ) ,
R →0   R  R →0   R 
(28)
1/2 1/2
 l   l 
  r ( R, 0 ) , C22 = ( R, 0 )
in , IIE in , IIE
C21 lim 
= − lim   
R →0   R  R →0   R 
and
1 1
in, =
2


in ,
(
in , in , 
 r u − R  ur − u 

) (29)
The dot in the upper script of quantities in (29) again means the symbols 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 or 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 of mode I or mode II loading,
respectively. Substituting (25) and (26) into (28) leads to
464
10 T. Profant
T. Profant et al. / Procedia
et al/ Structural Structural
Integrity ProcediaIntegrity 52 000–000
00 (2023) (2024) 455–471
C11 = −
4 K I l1/2 ( )
3l12 4 2 +  − 3 − 12 3 + 13 2 + 13 − 12
,
3El0 ( 2 )
1/2
l12 ( 8 − 1) − 8 + 9
C12 = −
2 K I l1/2 ( )
3l12 4 2 +  − 3 − 12 3 + 13 2 + 13 − 12
,
El0 ( 2 )
1/2
l12 ( 8 − 1) − 8 + 9
(30)
K II l1/2
C21 =
− 1/2
( + 1) ,
El0 ( 2 )
C22 = −
2 K II l1/2 ( )
l12 12 3 − 7 2 − 14 + 5 − 12 3 + 7 2 + 10 − 9
2 El0 ( 2 )
1/2
l12 ( 8 − 1) − 8 + 9
The path independency of the 𝐽𝐽-integral implies that the gradient elasticity 𝐽𝐽-integrals (27) must be equal to their
counterparts from the classical elasticity
K I2, II
J=
1
ID , IIE
E
(1 − ) 2
(31)
The comparison of the 𝐽𝐽-integrals in (27) with (31) for 𝛿𝛿 = 0.01, 𝜖𝜖 ⁄𝜖𝜖0 = 1000, 𝛼𝛼 = 0.1 and 𝛽𝛽 = 0 is shown in Fig.
4. The intersections of the grey-colored curves representing (27) with the black ones, which represent the expression
on the right-hand side of (31), give the solution for 𝑙𝑙0 . Therefore, the values for 𝑙𝑙0𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑙𝑙0𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 for modes I and II can
be obtained after substitution of (30) into (27).
Fig. 4. The 𝐽𝐽𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 -integral and (ii) 𝐽𝐽𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 -integral for various values of 𝑙𝑙0 and as a function of the Poisson ratio 𝜈𝜈. The grey line is the values of 𝐽𝐽-
integral in LEFM and the black lines correspond to the values of 𝐽𝐽-integral in the theory of flexoelectricity. The remaining parameters are 𝛿𝛿 =
0.01, 𝜖𝜖⁄𝜖𝜖0 = 1000, 𝛼𝛼 = 0.1 and 𝛽𝛽 = 0.
In the paper (Profant et al, 2023) the matched asymptotic analysis has been performed only for mechanically loaded
Mode I crack (pure insulating) and for Mode II crack (pure conducting). However, for cracks in electromechanically
active materials it is very difficult to completely separate mechanical and electrical modes since they always form a
mixture from the point of crack opening modes. Mao and Purohit (Mao & Purohit, 2015) introduced besides Mode I
and II also pure electrical Mode D (insulating, zero tractions) and E (conducting, zero tractions) and defined the
electric field intensity factor KE as
T. Profant
T. Profant et al /etStructural
al. / Procedia Structural
Integrity Integrity
Procedia 52 (2024)
00 (2023) 455–471
000–000 465
11
K E = lim 2 rEr ( r ,0 ) (32)

r →0
with boundary conditions at  = 0 :
KE
t= r= 0, Er = . (33)
2 r
On the crack faces,  =  , traction and higher-order traction are zero and Er = 0 Ǥ
For insulating crack they defined the intensity factor KD as
K D = lim 2 rD ( r ,0 ) , (34)

r →0
with boundary conditions at  = 0 :
KD
t= r= 0, D = . (35)
2 r
where =D 0 E + P is the component of the electric displacement.

Mao and Purohit (Mao & Purohit, 2015) considered mixed modes when pure mechanical Modes I and II are
combined with electrical modes D and E. They showed that the boundary conditions for the individual modes must
be compatible so that the respective combination of the mechanical mode and the electrical mode is admissible. For
example, in a flexoelectric solid, Mode I (pure insulating crack) cannot be mixed with Mode D. Similarly, Mode II
(pure conductive crack) cannot be mixed with Mode E under the current framework. On the other hand, since the
Mode I solution does not exclude the possibility of non-zero KE, a crack in which Mode I pure conducting conditions
are mixed with Mode E is admissible. Then, the boundary condition is different from that of the Mode I pure
conducting case specified in Eqs. (21) and (22). Namely, the electrical boundary conditions for a conductive crack
read
KE
( r,  ) 0, E=
Er= r ( r ,0 ) (36)
2 r
Asymptotic form of the electric potential then is given as
1
 1 1 f  1 3 1 
 ( r , )
= r2 C1 cos  + D1sin  −  5 A1 cos  + ( 3l12 + 5 ) A3 cos  + A4 cos    , (37)
 2 2 2 a 2 2 2 
and the components of the asymptotic electric field follow from Eqs. (2)3 and (37) as
1  1 1 f  1 3 1 
Er ( r , )
= C cos  + D1 sin  −
1/2  1  5 A1 cos  + ( 3l12 + 5 ) A3 cos  + A4 cos    ,
2r  2 2 2 a 2 2 2 
(38)
1  1 1 f  1 3 1 
E ( r , ) =
− 1/2 C1 sin  − D1 cos  − 5 A1 sin 2  + 3 ( 3l12 + 5 ) A3 sin 2  + A4 sin 2    .
4r  2 2 2 a  
From the boundary condition (36)1 one gets

12
466 T. Profant et al/ Structural
T. Profant IntegrityStructural
et al. / Procedia ProcediaIntegrity
00 (2023)52000–000
(2024) 455–471
1
Er ( r ,  ) = 1/2  D1 =0  D1 =0 (39)
2r
and from the boundary condition (36)2 it follows
1  f  KE
Er ( r =
, 0) C −
1/2  1
5 A1 + ( 3l12 + 5 ) A3 + A4=
  (40)
2r  2 a  ( 2 r )1/2
After substituting expression for the amplitude factors 𝐴𝐴1,…,4 from Eq. (25) one arrives at
1 −2
1 
fK1

 5 12 2 + 7 − 5 − (
2 ( 3l12 + 5 ) 2 2 +  − 1 1 ) 
K
2
r

C1 −
2 aEl0 ( 2 )
1/2 6( ) l12 ( 8 − 1) − 8 + 9 6
( 
)
+ 12 2 +  − 1   = E 1/2
  ( 2 r )
(41)
   

from which the constant C1 can be expressed as
KE fK1

 5 12 2 + 7 − 5 − (
2 ( 3l12 + 5 ) 2 2 + − 1 1 ) 
=C1
( 2 ) 1/2
+−
2 aEl0 ( 2 )
1/2 6 ( )
l12 ( 8 − 1) − 8 + 9 6
(
+ 12 2 + − 1 
 ) (42)
 
It is convenient to introduce a non-dimensional constant 𝐾𝐾4𝐼𝐼 instead of KE, see also (Mao & Purohit, 2015) , which
is a linear combination of C11, C12 (see Eq. (28)) and KE. It is defined as
r
K 4I = lim D ( r ,  ) , (43)
r→ 0  l
D ( r ,  )
where = 0 E ( r,  ) + P ( r,  ) and the asymptotic form of the electric polarization is
1  1 1 1 5f  1
=P 1/ 2 C1 sin  − D1 cos  +  5 f1 +9 f 2 −  A1 sin 2 
2ar  2 2 2  a 
(44)
1  f   3 1 f  1 
+ 3 ( 3l12 +5 )  f1 −  + (13l12 +27 ) f 2  A3 sin  +  f1 − 3 f 2 −  A4 sin   .
2  a   2 2  a  2 
Substituting (38)2 and (44) into (43) while considering D1 = 0, the expression for C1 in Eq. (42), a relation
connecting 𝐾𝐾4𝐼𝐼 and KE is obtained. Formally, considering the definition of C11, C12, this relation can be written as:
2l  1 − 2
=KE I 2 I 
 C12 − K 4 + 2 − 2  K 4 −  C12  .
 
( ) (45)
2𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 1 − 2𝜈𝜈 2 𝐼𝐼
𝐾𝐾𝐸𝐸 = √ [𝛼𝛼𝐶𝐶12 − 𝐾𝐾4𝐼𝐼 + (𝛽𝛽 𝐾𝐾4 − 𝛽𝛽𝐶𝐶12 )]
𝜖𝜖 2 − 2𝜈𝜈
The J–integral for Mode I (pure conductive crack) mixed with Mode E (I&E) then reads
T. Profant
T. Profant et al /etStructural
al. / Procedia Structural
Integrity Integrity
Procedia 52 (2024)
00 (2023) 455–471
000–000 467
13
 
 l  5 − 4 − ( 7 − 6 ) 
2
2
J1I & E  ( 3C11 − 2C12 )2 + 8C122 − 8 ( 2 −  2 − 2 + 2 2 )( K4I )  (46)
16 (1 − )  1− 2 


Observe that for the mixed modes flexoelectricity reduces the energy release rate in comparison with the SGE crack.
4. Numerical results and discussion
We will employ the presented matched asymptotic analysis to estimate the contributions of direct flexoelectric
effects and strain gradient effects for various combinations of flexoelectric material properties to the expected
reduction of the energy release rate. The classical Griffith criterion for the crack to advance is
J1 = Gc (47)
J-integral expressions in (27) and (46) depend on flexoelectric parameters and the near tip parameters Cij, which,
however, are related via matched asymptotic analysis to the classical far field stress intensity factors (SIF), cf. Eqs.
(30). Thus, it is possible to examine an influence of the flexoelectricity through values of far field SIF.
We start with a dependence of the J–integral J1I & E on the non-dimensional electric field intensity factor K E E K I
for several values of the non-dimensional flexoelectric parameter α and β =0, see Fig. 5. The factor E is included
for dimensional reasons. Also J–integral J1I & E is normalized with respect to its counterparts from the classical
elasticity K I2 E . It should be noted that there is a good qualitative agreement with results obtained using FEM in
(Sladek et al, 2017a).
Fig. 5. The 𝐽𝐽𝐼𝐼&𝐸𝐸 -integral as a function of the normalized ratio of the electric field intensity factor and the classical far field SIF for several values
of the parameter α. The remaining parameters are 𝜖𝜖⁄𝜖𝜖0 = 1000, 𝑙𝑙0 ⁄𝑙𝑙 = 0.75, 𝜈𝜈 = 0.3, and 𝛽𝛽 = 0.
Fig. 6 shows the variation of the J–integral J1I & E with the non-dimensional electric field intensity factor for several
values of the non-dimensional flexoelectric parameter β and α =0.
468
14 T. Profant
T. Profant et al. / Procedia
et al/ Structural IntegrityStructural
ProcediaIntegrity
00 (2023)52000–000
(2024) 455–471
Fig. 6. The 𝐽𝐽𝐼𝐼&𝐸𝐸 -integral as a function of the normalized ratio of the electric field intensity factor and the classical far field SIF for several values
of the parameter 𝛽𝛽. The remaining parameters are 𝜖𝜖⁄𝜖𝜖0 = 1000, 𝑙𝑙0 ⁄𝑙𝑙 = 0.75, 𝜈𝜈 = 0.3, and 𝛼𝛼 = 0.
Both figures indicate that for larger KE we need to supply more energy in order to achieve the critical energy release
rate Gc.
Next, we will quantify the effect of flexoelectricity on the critical load for crack growth compared to the case where
the material obeys only the gradient theory of elasticity. Special case KE = 0 is considered for this purpose. The
classical Griffith criterion for the crack to advance (47) is applied and the critical energy release rate Gc is considered
constant, i.e. it does not depend on flexoelectric material properties. Remind that the J - integral od SGE is given by
 l 
J1I
=  ( 5 − 4 )( 3C11 − 2C12 )2 + 8C122  .
16 (1 − ) 
(48)
Hence, from the criterion (47) it follows
&E
J1,I crit
=1
J1,I crit
(49)
Observe that the matched asymptotic analysis gives the expressions for Cij in Eq. (30), which linearly depend on the
far field SIF. Hence, one can write 𝐶𝐶11 = 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼 𝐶𝐶̃11 , C12 = K I C̃12 , where 𝐶𝐶̃11 , 𝐶𝐶̃12 stand for the rest of the expressions in
𝑓𝑓
(30). Denote by 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼 the SIF in the flexoelectric case and by 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠 the SIF, when material is governed only by SGE. Also
note that for KE = 0 it follows from (45)
 1 − 2 
C12   − 
I  2 − 2 
K4 = ,
1 − 2 2
1− 
2 − 2 (50)
̃4𝐼𝐼 . Eq. (49) can be rewritten as

which means that 𝐾𝐾4𝐼𝐼 can also be put in the form 𝐾𝐾4𝐼𝐼 = 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼 𝐾𝐾
5 − 4 − ( 7 − 6 )  2
(3C11 − 2C12 ) + 8C122 − 8 ( 2 −  2 − 2 + 2 2 )( K 4I )
2 2
2
 K If,crit 
1− 2
  = 1,
 
( 5 − 4 ) ( 3C11 − 2C12 ) + 8C122
2
 K Is,crit 
(51)
𝑓𝑓
from which the critical ratio 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 s
⁄𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 can be expressed as
( 5 − 4 ) ( 3C11 − 2C12 )
2
K If,crit + 8C12
2
= .
K Is,crit 5 − 4 − ( 7 − 6 )  2
( )( )
2
( )
2
3C11 − 2C12 + 8C122 − 8 2 −  2 − 2 + 2 2 K 4I
1− 2 (52)
𝑓𝑓
The critical ratio 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 s
⁄𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 is plotted in Fig.7 and in Fig. 8 for various combinations of the flexoelectric parameters.
𝑓𝑓
It can be seen that except for marginal values 𝛽𝛽 = ±2 is the critical ratio 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 s
⁄𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 greater than 1. Apparently,
flexoelectricity tends to reduce the energy release rate. Hence, with the same Gc it requires more loading/energy to
achieve the minimum condition for the crack to advance if the material is flexoelectric versus when it is not. The
“toughening” effect of the flexoelectricity is particularly strong for 𝛽𝛽 = −1 and 𝛼𝛼 = 0.5 , or for 𝛼𝛼 = −0.5 and 𝛽𝛽 =1.
1
𝑓𝑓
Fig. 7. Variation of 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼 ⁄𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠 with the flexoelectric parameter 𝛼𝛼 for several values of the parameter 𝛽𝛽. The remaining parameters are 𝜖𝜖⁄𝜖𝜖0 = 1000,
𝑙𝑙0 ⁄𝑙𝑙 = 0.75, 𝜈𝜈 = 0.3.
𝑓𝑓
Fig. 8. Variation of 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼 ⁄𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠 with the flexoelectric parameter 𝛽𝛽 for several values of the parameter 𝛼𝛼. The remaining parameters are 𝜖𝜖⁄𝜖𝜖0 = 1000,
𝑙𝑙0 ⁄𝑙𝑙 = 0.75, 𝜈𝜈 = 0.3.
5. Conclusions
The paper offers a novel method to estimate the minimum condition for the crack to advance in dielectric material
obeying the direct flexoelectric laws by matching the inner and outer asymptotic solution of the fracture problem. It
is assumed that the inner asymptotics is only valid within a region around the crack tip that is on the order of the
flexoelectric length scale or the strain gradient elasticity (SGE) length scale. On the other hand, the outer asymptotic
solution suppresses the influence of the strain gradients and the polarization of the material and it coincides with the
asymptotic solution from the classical linear elastic fracture mechanics. It makes possible to estimate the amplitude
factors of the inner asymptotic solution as functions of the stress intensity factors 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼 and 𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and thus avoid demanding
numerical calculations using FEM. Moreover, analytical expressions were obtained which allow to easily analyze an
influence of various parameters. The classical Griffith postulate regarding a critical energy release rate Gc was applied.
The contributions of direct flexoelectric effects and strain gradient effects for various combinations of flexoelectric
material properties to the expected reduction of the energy release rate were estimated. The criterion for the crack to
advance was analyze for the conductive crack boundary conditions under mixed mode when pure mechanical Mode I
is combined with electrical mode E. Subsequently, it would be desirable to extend the analysis for other cases of
boundary conditions.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the supports by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science,
Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences VEGA-1/0327/21.
References
Abdollahi, A., Peco, C., Millán, D., Arroyo, M., Catalan, G., et al, 2015. Fracture toughening and toughness asymmetry induced by
flexoelectricity. Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys, 92(9), p.094101.
Baskaran, S., He, X., Chen, Q., Fu, J.Y., 2011. Experimental studies on the direct flexoelectric effect in α -phase polyvinylidene fluoride
films. Appl Phys Lett, 98(24), p.242901.
Cady, W.Guyton., 2018. Piezoelectricity : an Introduction to the Theory and Applications of Electromechanical Phenomena in Crystals. ,
p.451.
Catalan, G., Lubk, A., Vlooswijk, A.H.G., Snoeck, E., Magen, C., et al, 2011. Flexoelectric rotation of polarization in ferroelectric thin
films. Nature Materials 2011 10:12, 10(12), p.963–967.
Dumitricǎ, T., Landis, C.M., Yakobson, B.I., 2002. Curvature-induced polarization in carbon nanoshells. Chem Phys Lett, 360(1–2),
p.182–188.
Gourgiotis, P.A., Georgiadis, H.G., 2009. Plane-strain crack problems in microstructured solids governed by dipolar gradient elasticity. J
Mech Phys Solids, 57(11), p.1898–1920.
Hong, J., Catalan, G., Scott, J.F., Artacho, E., 2010. The flexoelectricity of barium and strontium titanates from first principles. Journal of
Physics: Condensed Matter, 22(11), p.112201.
Hong, J., Vanderbilt, D., 2011. First-principles theory of frozen-ion flexoelectricity. Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys, 84(18),
p.180101.
Joseph, R.P., Zhang, C., Wang, B.L., Samali, B., 2018. Fracture analysis of flexoelectric double cantilever beams based on the strain
gradient theory. Compos Struct, 202, p.1322–1329.
Kalinin, S. V., Meunier, V., 2008. Electronic flexoelectricity in low-dimensional systems. Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys, 77(3),
p.033403.
Kotoul, M., Ševeček, O., Profant, T., 2010. Analysis of multiple cracks in thin coating on orthotropic substrate under mechanical and
residual stresses. Eng Fract Mech, 77(2), p.229–248.
Kotoul, M., Skalka, P., Profant, T., Friák, M., Řehák, P., et al, 2019. Ab initio aided strain gradient elasticity theory in prediction of
nanocomponent fracture. Mechanics of Materials, 136.
Kotoul, M., Skalka, P., Profant, T., Řehák, P., Šesták, P., et al, 2020. A novel multiscale approach to brittle fracture of nano/micro-sized
components. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct, 43(8).
Leguillon, D., Lacroix, C., Martin, E., 2001. Crack deflection by an interface - Asymptotics of the residual thermal stresses. Int J Solids
Struct, 38(42–43), p.7423–7445.
Leguillon, D., Lacroix, C., Martin, E., 2000. Interface debonding ahead of a primary crack. J Mech Phys Solids, 48(10), p.2137–2161.
Majdoub, M.S., Sharma, P., Çaǧin, T., 2008a. Dramatic enhancement in energy harvesting for a narrow range of dimensions in
piezoelectric nanostructures. Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys, 78(12), p.121407.
Majdoub, M.S., Sharma, P., Cagin, T., 2008b. Enhanced size-dependent piezoelectricity and elasticity in nanostructures due to the
flexoelectric effect. Phys Rev B, 77(12), p.125424.
Mao, S., Purohit, P.K., 2015. Defects in flexoelectric solids. J Mech Phys Solids, 84, p.95–115.
Mao, S., Purohit, P.K., 2014. Insights into flexoelectric solids from strain-gradient elasticity. Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions
ASME, 81(8).
Mao, S., Purohit, P.K., Aravas, N., 2016. Mixed finite-element formulations in piezoelectricity and flexoelectricity. Proceedings of the
Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 472(2190).
Maranganti, R., Sharma, N.D., Sharma, P., 2006. Electromechanical coupling in nonpiezoelectric materials due to nanoscale nonlocal size
effects: Green’s function solutions and embedded inclusions. Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys, 74(1), p.014110.
Maranganti, R., Sharma, P., 2009. Atomistic determination of flexoelectric properties of crystalline dielectrics. Phys Rev B Condens
Matter Mater Phys, 80(5), p.054109.
Martin, E., Leguillon, D., Lacroix, C., 2001. A revisited criterion for crack deflection at an interface in a brittle bimaterial. Compos Sci
Technol, 61(12), p.1671–1679.
Martin, R.M., 1972. Piezoelectricity. Phys Rev B, 5(4), p.1607.
Mindlin, R.D., 1968. Polarization gradient in elastic dielectrics. Int J Solids Struct, 4(6), p.637–642.
Newnham, R.E., 2004. Properties of Materials: Anisotropy, Symmetry, Structure.
Ponomareva, I., Tagantsev, A.K., Bellaiche, L., 2012. Finite-temperature flexoelectricity in ferroelectric thin films from first principles.
Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys, 85(10), p.104101.
Profant, T., Sládek, J., Sládek, V., Kotoul, M., 2023. Assessment of amplitude factors of asymptotic expansion at crack tip in flexoelectric
solid under mode I and II loadings. Int J Solids Struct, 269, p.112194.
Resta, R., 2010. Towards a bulk theory of flexoelectricity. Phys Rev Lett, 105(12), p.127601.
Sharma, N.D., Landis, C.M., Sharma, P., 2010. Piezoelectric thin-film superlattices without using piezoelectric materials. J Appl Phys,
108(2), p.24304.
Shu, L., Liang, R., Rao, Z., Fei, L., Ke, S., et al, 2019. Flexoelectric materials and their related applications: A focused review. Journal of
Advanced Ceramics, 8(2), p.153–173.
Sladek, J., Sladek, V., Stanak, P., Zhang, C., Tan, C.L., 2017a. Fracture mechanics analysis of size-dependent piezoelectric solids. Int J
Solids Struct, 113–114, p.1–9.
Sladek, J., Sladek, V., Wünsche, M., Tan, C.L., 2017b. Crack analysis of size-dependent piezoelectric solids under a thermal load. Eng
Fract Mech, 182, p.187–201.
Sladek, J., Sladek, V., Wünsche, M., Zhang, C., 2018. Effects of electric field and strain gradients on cracks in piezoelectric solids.
European Journal of Mechanics - A/Solids, 71, p.187–198.
Stengel, M., 2016. Unified ab initio formulation of flexoelectricity and strain-gradient elasticity. Phys Rev B, 93(24), p.245107.
Tagantsev, A.K., 1986. Piezoelectricity and flexoelectricity in crystalline dielectrics. Phys Rev B, 34(8), p.5883.
Tagantsev, A.K. (Alexander K., Yudin, P. V., Flexoelectricity in solids : from theory to applications. , p.396.
Toupin, R.A., 1962. Elastic materials with couple-stresses. Arch Ration Mech Anal, 11(1), p.385–414.
Vu-Quoc, L., Tran, V.-X., 2006. Singularity analysis and fracture energy-release rate for composites: Piecewise homogeneous-anisotropic
materials. John H. Argyris Memorial Issue. Part I, 195(37–40), p.5162–5197.
Wang, B., Gu, Y., Zhang, S., Chen, L.Q., 2019. Flexoelectricity in solids: Progress, challenges, and perspectives. Prog Mater Sci, 106.
Yan, Z., Jiang, L., 2013. Size-dependent bending and vibration behaviour of piezoelectric nanobeams due to flexoelectricity. J Phys D
Appl Phys, 46(35), p.355502.

Contributions of The Direct Flexoelectric Effects and Strain Gradient Effects To Fracture Criteria of Flexoelectric Solids

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contributions of The Direct Flexoelectric Effects and Strain Gradient Effects To Fracture Criteria of Flexoelectric Solids

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Fracture, Damage and Structural Health Monitoring

𝑎𝑎−1 = 𝜖𝜖 − 𝜖𝜖0 . (4)

The governing equations admit the following boundary conditions

∇2 (𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝑓𝑓∇ ⋅ 𝒖𝒖) = 0, (7)

(  +  ) (1 − l122 )  ( u) +  (1 − l222 ) 2 u =0, (8)

where l1 and l2 are given by

3. Some comments on matched asymptotic expansion method

t out = 0, for r   x0 and   =  ,

and for the case of the antisymmetric mode II

t=0, for r  0 and  =

K E = lim 2 rEr ( r ,0 ) (32)

with boundary conditions at  = 0 :

K D = lim 2 rD ( r ,0 ) , (34)

with boundary conditions at  = 0 :

where =D 0 E + P is the component of the electric displacement.

Asymptotic form of the electric potential then is given as

From the boundary condition (36)1 one gets

and from the boundary condition (36)2 it follows

from which the constant C1 can be expressed as

4. Numerical results and discussion

Hence, from the criterion (47) it follows

̃4𝐼𝐼 . Eq. (49) can be rewritten as

You might also like