Dear Thomas, Exactly, I did that already. It seems it is identical, but I would like to see, if your energy variable psi_e is identical to mine. This is quite cumbersome for 500 elements or more to check. I mean the computation in the first steps is anyway independent from the phase-field value due to being in the elastic regime and the body has not been fractured yet. So, I assume it should not be a problem to just check the energy within the first steps. Of course you are right, the moment we reach the fracture toughness G_c cracks will start to grow and we have to separate between crack energy and bulk energy.
I cite your paper ;) The results illustrate the expected behavior: as long as the crack does not grow (up to t = 0.0095 s), there is only an increase in bulk energy. Once the crack starts growing, bulk energy is dissipated into crack energy. By the way Thomas, if you don't remember me, we already met after your GACM 2015 conference presentation and within the GAMM phase-field workshop :) Maybe you remember: Back then you already mentioned that h < epsilon to resolve the transition of the phase-field variable. Nevertheless, this is true for the cracked region, but if you have only elastic case the mesh size will not matter. This is just to allow a correct and accurate resolution and regularization of the phase-field crack region. Kind regards, S. A. Mohseni -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "deal.II User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dealii+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
