Abstract
A phase-field model is presented for modeling the fracture of piezoelectric ceramics. The implementation of several different crack face boundary conditions, including conducting, permeable, and insulating or impermeable, as well as energetically consistent is described. The approach to the latter involves a finite deformation framework for piezoelectricity. In addition, a new function that governs material degradation is proposed to eliminate the presence of high phase-field values in the vicinity of large electric fields. The new function is found to lead to improved brittle material behavior as well. Results are presented that demonstrate the capability of the model to capture complicated phenemona that arise in piezoelectric fracture, including crack retardation, acceleration, and turning.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Abdollahi A, Arias I (2012) Phase-field modeling of crack propagation in piezoelectric and ferroelectric materials with different electromechanical crack conditions. J Mech Phys Solids 60(12):2100–2126. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2012.06.014
Arias I, Serebrinsky S, Ortiz M (2006) A phenomenological cohesive model of ferroelectric fatigue. Acta Mater 54:975–984. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2005.10.035
Borden MJ, Verhoosel CV, Scott MA, Hughes TJR, Landis CM (2012) A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture. Comp Methods Appl Mech Eng 217:77–95. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2012.01.008
Bourdin B, Francfort GA, Marigo J-J (2000) Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 48(4):797–826. doi:10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00028-9
Carka D, Landis CM (2011) The analysis of crack tip fields in ferroelastic materials. Smart Mater Struct 20(9):094005. doi10.1088/0964-1726/20/9/094005
Cherepanov G (1979) Mechanics of brittle fracture. McGraw-Hill, New York
Deeg WF (1980) The analysis of dislocation, crack, and inclusion problems in piezoelectric solids. PhD thesis, Stanford University
Dunn ML (1994) The effects of crack face boundary conditions on the fracture mechanics of piezoelectric solids. Eng Fract Mech 48(1):25–39. doi:10.1016/0013-7944(94)90140-6
Francfort GA, Marigo J-J (1998) Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. J Mech Phys Solids 46(8):1319–1342. doi:10.1016/S0022-5096(98)00034-9
Gao H, Zhang TY, Tong P (1997) Local and global energy release rates for an electrically yielded crack in a piezoelectric ceramic. J Mech Phys Solids 45(4):491–510. doi:10.1016/S0022-5096(96)00108-1
Griffith AA (1921) The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A(221):163–198
Gurtin ME (1996) Generalized ginzburg-landau and cahn-hilliard equations based on a microforce balance. Physica D(92):178–192. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(95)00173-5
Hakim V, Karma A (2009) Laws of crack motion and phase-field models of fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 57(2):342–368. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2008.10.012
Hao T-H, Shen Z-Y (1994) A new electric boundary condition of electric fracture mechanics and its applications. Eng Fract Mech 47:793–802. doi:10.1016/0013-7944(94)90059-0
Heyer V, Schneider GA, Balke H, Drescher J, Bahr H-A (1998) A fracture criterion for conducting cracks in homogeneously poled piezoelectric PZT-PIC 151 ceramics. Acta Mater 46(18):6615–6622. doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(98)00272-9
Janski L, Kuna M (2011) Adaptive finite element modeling of stationary and propagating cracks in piezoelectric structures. Arch Mech 63(5–6):599–619
Kreher WS (2002) Influence of domain switching zones on the fracture toughness of ferroelectrics. J Mech Phys Solids 50:1029–1050. doi:10.1016/S0022-5096(01)00110-7
Krueger R (2004) Virtual crack closure technique: history, approach, and applications. Appl Mech Rev 57(2):109–143. doi:10.1115/1.1595677
Kuhn C, Müller R (2010) A continuum phase field model for fracture. Eng Fract Mech 77(18):3625–3634. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2010.08.009
Kumar S, Singh RN (1997a) Energy release rate and crack propagation in piezoelectric materials. Part I: mechanical/electrical load. Acta Mater 45(2):849–857. doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(96)00175-9
Kumar SN, Singh RN (1997b) Energy release rate and crack propagation in piezoelectric materials. Part II: combined mechanical and electrical loads. Acta Mater 45(2):859–868. doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(96)00176-0
Kumar S, Singh RN (1996) Crack propagation in piezoelectric materials under combined mechanical and electrical loadings. Acta Mater 44(1):173–200. doi:10.1016/1359-6454(95)00175-3
Kuna M (2010) Fracture mechanics of piezoelectric materials—where are we right now? Eng Fract Mech 77(2):309–326. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.03.016
Landis CM (2002) A new finite-element formulation for electromechanical boundary value problems. Int J Numer Meth Eng 55:613–628. doi:10.1002/nme.518
Landis CM (2004) Energetically consistent boundary conditions for electromechanical fracture. Int J Solids Struct 41(22–23):6291–6315. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.05.062
Li W, McMeeking RM, Landis CM (2008) On the crack face boundary conditions in electromechanical fracture and an experimental protocol for determining energy release rates. Europ J Mech A Solids 27(3):285–301. doi:10.1016/j.euromechsol.2007.08.007
Linder C, Rosato D, Miehe C (2011) New finite elements with embedded strong discontinuities for the modeling of failure in electromechanical coupled solids. Comp Methods Appl Mech Eng 200(1–4):141–161. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2010.07.021
McMeeking RM (1999) Crack tip energy release rate for a piezoelectric compact tension specimen. Eng Fract Mech 64(2):217–244. doi:10.1016/S0013-7944(99)00068-5
McMeeking RM (2001) Towards a fracture mechanics for brittle piezoelectric and dielectric materials. Int J Fract 108(1):25–41. doi:10.1023/A:1007652001977
McMeeking RM (2004) The energy release rate for a griffith crack in a piezoelectric material. Eng Fract Mech 71(7–8):1149–1163. doi:10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00135-8
Miehe C, Welschinger F, Hofacker M (2010) A phase field model of electromechanical fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 58(10):1716–1740. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2010.06.013
Moes N, Dolbow J, Belytschko T (1999) A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng 46:131–150. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19990910)46:1<131::AID-NME726>3.0.CO;2-J
Pak YE (1992) Linear electro-elastic fracture mechanics of piezoelectric materials. Int J Fract 54:79–100. doi:10.1007/BF00040857
Park SB, Sun CT (1995a) Effect of electric field on fracture of piezoelectric ceramics. Int J Fract 70:203–216. doi:10.1007/BF00012935
Park S, Sun C-T (1995b) Fracture criteria for piezoelectric ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 78(6):1475–1480. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1995.tb08840.x
Parton VZ (1976) A fracture mechanics of piezoelectric materials. Acta Astronaut 3:671–683
Schneider GA, Felten F, McMeeking RM (2003) The electrical potential difference across cracks in pzt measured by kelvin probe microscopy and the implications for fracture. Acta Mater 51(8):2235–2241. doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(03)00027-2
Semenova AS, Kessler H, Liskowsky A, Balke H (2006) On a vector potential formulation for 3d electromechanical finite element analysis. Comm Numer Methods Eng 22:357–375. doi:10.1002/cnm.818
Sheng J, Landis CM (2007) Toughening due to domain switching in single crystal ferroelastic materials. Int J Fract 143:161–175. doi:10.1007/s10704-007-9056-7
Shindo Y, Murakami H, Horiguchi K, Narita F (2002) Evaluation of electric fracture properties of piezoelectric ceramics using the finite element and single-edge precracked-beam methods. J Am Ceram Soc 85:1243–1248. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.2002.tb00252.x
Sosa HA, Pak YE (1990) Three-dimensional eigenfunction analysis of a crack in a piezoelectric material. Int J Solids Struct 26(1):1–15. doi:10.1016/0020-7683(90)90090-I
Suo Z, Kuo C-M, Barnett DM, Willis JR (1992) Fracture mechanics for piezoelectric ceramics. J Mech Phys Solids 40(4):739–765. doi:10.1016/0022-5096(92)90002-J
Verhoosel CV, Scott MA, de Borst R, Hughes TJR (2011) An isogeometric approach to cohesive zone modeling. Int J Numer Meth Eng 87:336–360. doi:10.1002/nme.3061
Wang JH, Singh RN (1997) Crack propagation in piezoelectric ceramics: Effects of applied electric fields. J Appl Phys 81:7471–7479. doi:10.1063/1.365290
Xu B-X, Schrade D, Gross D, Müller R (2010) Fracture simulation of ferroelectrics based on the phase field continuum and a damage variable. Int J Fract 166:163–172. doi:10.1007/s10704-010-9520-7
Zhang TY, Gao CF (2004) Fracture behaviors of piezoelectric materials. Theor Appl Fract Mech 41(1—-3):339–379. doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2003.11.019
Zhang TY, Qian CF, Tong P (1998) Linear electro-elastic analysis of a cavity or a crack in a piezoelectric material. Int J Solids Struct 35(17):2121–2149. doi:10.1016/S0020-7683(97)00168-6
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by a grant from the Army Research Office (W911NF-10-1-0216).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
Here we demonstrate the transformations between energy functions. Consider a Helmholtz free energy for conducting crack-face boundary conditions of the form,
Next, consider a full Legendre transformation on the electrical and mechanical terms to define the Gibbs free energy as,
The variation of the Gibbs free energy is,
Next, assume the Gibbs free energy can be written in the form,
Now, the variation of the Gibbs free energy is written as,
However, enforcing the equality of the two forms of \(\delta g\) for arbitrary variations of the stress and electric field yields,
This allows us to write a reduced form for \(\delta g\) as,
Finally, this reduced equality must hold for arbitrary variations of \(\delta \mu \) and \(\delta \mu _{,i}\) yielding,
The final set of relationships can be collected in the following forms.
The first set of equations implies that, without any effect on the derived micro-force quantities, we can take \(\psi ^{\mu }=g^{\mu }\). The next sets of equations imply that the \({\bar{\varepsilon }_{ij}}({\bar{\sigma }_{ij}},{\bar{E}_i})\) and \({\bar{D}_{ij}}({\bar{\sigma }_{ij}},{\bar{E}_i})\) constitutive relationships are the inverse of the \({\bar{\sigma }_{ij}}({\bar{\varepsilon }_{ij}},{\bar{D}_i})\) and \({\bar{E}_i}({\bar{\varepsilon }_{ij}},{\bar{D}_i})\) form. For a general nonlinear constitutive relationship, such an inverse may not be possible to obtain. However, for linear piezoelectric materials the inversion is well-known. Hence, the Helmholtz and Gibbs from energies for a material with conducting cracks are written as,
The electrical enthalpy, is then just a partial Legendre transformation on the electrical terms, and a partial inversion of the constitutive relationships, and is written as,
Note that the relationships between the various forms of the elastic, piezoelectric, and dielectric coefficients are well-known, and once one set has been determined the others can be computed via simple linear algebraic manipulations.
Appendix B
Here we compare our approach for the construction of the phase-field electrical enthalpy for permeable crack face boundary conditions to another appearing in the literature. To greatly simplify the demonstration we resort to a simple one-dimensional model with homogeneous fields. For this case, the electrical enthalpy, \(h\), of a linear piezoelectric material is given as,
Here \(c^E\) is the elastic stiffness at constant electric field, \(E\), \(e\) is the piezoelectric coefficient, and \(\kappa ^{\varepsilon }\) is the dielectric permittivity at constant strain, \(\varepsilon \). For the construction of the phase-field free energy we will use the degradation function \(f(\mu )=\mu \), which leads to the phase-field free energy,
This is in contrast to that used by Abdollahi and Arias (2012) (AA) who proposed to degrade all energy terms including strain in with the same functional form,
The solutions to the phase-field order parameter for each of these cases is,
and
Within the regions identified as cracks the strain becomes singular and the limiting forms for the order parameters become,
These results can now be applied within the stress and electric displacement relationships as,
Notice that the electric displacement is now related to the electric field by the dielectric permittivity at constant stress \(\sigma \), \({\kappa ^\sigma } = {\kappa ^\varepsilon } + {e^2}/{c^E}\), which is exactly the behavior that should be recovered near a permeable crack. In contrast, the stress and electric displacement from the enthalpy form used by AA are,
which does not recover the desired behavior near permeable cracks. This may be viewed as a small correction, but the question persists for nonlinear material models. Our approach offers a concrete procedure for transforming any electromechanical energy functional into one suitable for applications within the phase-field fracture framework.
Appendix C
Here we present the finite element calculation for the potential drop across two electrodes for two-dimensional geometries using the vector potential formulation for conducting cracks. The unit vector s is chosen such that \(\mathbf{{n}} \times \mathbf{{s}} = {\mathbf{{e}}_z}\), where \({\mathbf{{e}}_z}\) is the unit vector normal to the two-dimensional plane containing the structure. The electrical virtual work statement can be written as,
Here, \(\delta \varphi ^I\) represent arbitrary variations of the nodal vector potential at the \(I^{\text {th}}\) node, and \(F^I\) is the associated work-conjugate nodal electrical “force” quantity. This formula reveals two features of the nodal electrical forces for the vector potential formulation. First, if we consider any node \(I\) on an electrode that is not on any termination point of that electrode, and taking \(\delta \varphi ^I = 1\) and all other \(\delta {\varphi ^{J \ne I}} = 0\), the formula indicates that \(F^I=0\). So, on a bounding surface, the force-free condition corresponds to a constant electric potential, i.e. an electroded surface. Then, if we take \(\delta \varphi = 1\) on the surface between points \(A\) and \(C\) and zero elsewhere, the formula shows that \({\phi ^{CD}} - {\phi ^{AB}} = \sum \nolimits _{A \rightarrow C} {{F^I}} \), where the summation is on the nodes that lie between points \(A\) and \(C\) on the surface. The same formula can be obtained by taking \(\delta \varphi = 1\) on the surface between points \(B\) and \(D\) and zero elsewhere, in which case the right-hand-side changes to summing the forces between nodes \(B\) and \(D\). In either case, this formula demonstrates that the potential drop between two electrodes can be computed by summing the forces along the boundary connecting two adjacent termination points. Finally the total charge residing between any two points, \(A\) and \(B\), on an electrode can also be computed in a straightforward manner using,
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilson, Z.A., Borden, M.J. & Landis, C.M. A phase-field model for fracture in piezoelectric ceramics. Int J Fract 183, 135–153 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-013-9881-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-013-9881-9