# Different types of fracture problems

Fracture mechanics began during the First World War when Griffith showed by energy balance and experimentation that the extremely low strength of glass in comparison with theoretical values was due to cracks in the glass (see Wikipedia ). Griffith find a crack size that weakens the strength of glass by considering the fracture in solids as a physical process which requires energy to create additional crack surface. Griffith theory can be said to deal with fracture initiation problem, as it evaluates danger crack size.

Brittle fractures have also occurred in metals at low temperatures such as the fracture of the Liberty in the 1950s due to welds with low fracture toughness.
So we need crack arrest design[11.1.2 Fracture Control Design, Sumi], which stops brittle cracks within the local structure and prevents catastrophic failure of the entire structure. Crack arrest can be designed by placing materials with high fracture toughness in the direction of crack growth, or by locating structures, such as rivets, that eliminate stess intensity factor. For crack arrest design, it is necessary to predict the crack growth path, which is called the crack path problem, and is a mathematically difficult problem due to the discontinuity of the stress intensity factor and energy release rate at the kinked cracks (see e.g.[7.Crack Paths in Brittle Solids, Sumi]).

Fatigue fracture is phenomena in which microcracks with repeated loading in a material lead to crack growth and finally to failure of the material. The simplistic thinking is that crack grow by large loading and stop with rapid decrease, resulting in the crack sizes to increase and then to break. Unfortunately, fatigue fracture appears to be more complex phenomena (see e.g.[p.25, Bu04], [5.Fatigue Crack Propagation, Sumi]).

## Various fracture problems

Note for further study.

Surface crack:
Let $\Omega$ be a domain without crack, and $\Sigma$ the crack surface assuming the part of the surface $\Pi$. In surface crack problem, $\partial \Sigma \cap \partial \Omega \not =\emptyset$. In internal crack problems $\partial \Sigma \cap \partial \Omega =\emptyset$, stress-free on $\Sigma$ generally, but in surface crack problem, surface force on $\Sigma$ can occur, as in pressure vessels (see e.g., [Kn15, Oh86])
Paris law in fatigue fracture:
See [p.26, Bu04], [(5.5), Sumi].
Fatigue Crack Paths:
In fatigue fracture, this is necessary because the cracks grow little by little (see e.g., [Fatigue Crack Paths, Sumi]).
LBB:
In 3D fracture, there is the leak-before-break (LBB) c concept that a crack would grow through the wall, resulting in a leak, before the crack grow to unstable size. This is 3D fatigue crack path (shape) problem.
Non penetration condition:
Conditions to avoid overlapping crack surfaces appearing in linear fracture mechanics, which are researched by A. Khludnev et al. (e,g., [K-K99], [Ko06]).

# Definitions for mathematisation

$\Omega$:
Domain without crack. The boundary $\partial \Omega$ has Lipschitz property, that is expressed the graph of Lipschitz continuous function.
$\Sigma$:
The crack. that is discontinuous surface of the displacement. It considers the main crack in a fracture phenomenon.
$\Omega _{\Sigma }$:
$\Omega _{\Sigma }=\Omega \setminus \Sigma$.
$\Pi$:
Virtual surface on which cracks will grow. $\Omega =\Omega ^+\cup (\Pi \cap \Omega )\cup \Omega ^-$, and $\Sigma \subset \Pi$. Here $\Omega ^{±}$ has the boundary $\partial \Omega ^{±}$ has Lipschitz property.
$(\sigma , \epsilon , u )$ :
$\sigma =(\sigma _{ij}), \varepsilon =(\varepsilon _{ij}), u=(u_1,…, u_d)$ are stress tensor, strain tensor, displacement vector, respectively.
Infinitesimal deformation:
$\epsilon _{ij}=(\partial _j u_i+\partial _i u_j)/2$. In linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), infinitesimal deformation is assumed. If the size of the plastic zone near the crack tip is sufficiently small (Small Scale Yielding), LEFM is applicable with some modification. Cannot be assumed for ductile fracture or finite deforming materials. In brittle fracture, LEFM is valid.
Linear elasticity:
$\sigma _{ij}=C_{ijkl}\varepsilon _{kl}$, where $C_{ijkl}$ is called Hooke's tensor. The material is isotropic, $C_{ijkl}=\lambda \delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}+ G(\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}+\delta _{il}\delta _{jk})$, Lame's constants $\lambda ,G$ .
The unit normal vector $\nu$:
is the outward unit normal vector $n^-$ of $\partial \Omega ^-$, that is the normal vector crossing $\Sigma$ from the negative side to the positive side.
$(\sigma ^{±}, \varepsilon ^{±}, u^±)$:
The traces of $(\sigma , \varepsilon , u)$ on $\Sigma$ from the positive side or the negative side. For example, $u|_{\Sigma }^±(x)=\lim _{\epsilon →+0}u(x±\epsilon \nu (x)), x\in \Sigma$.

# Mathematical fracture problems

Initial crack:
Cracks found during production or inspection.
Fracture initiation:
Problem of considering the conditions when the crack will grow. Griffith criterion gives the fracture initiation condition. The engineering environment is that of the moment when the crack grows.
Griffith criterion:
Let $\mathcal{E}_{elast}(\Sigma ( \ell ) ), \mathcal{E}_{ext}(\Sigma ( \ell )), \mathcal{E}_{kin}(\Sigma ( \ell ) )$ be the elastic strain energy , the potential energy of external loads, the kinetic energy, and $\Sigma (\ell )$ the virtual crack growth with crack length $\ell \ge \ell _0$ as the parameter. $\ell _0$ the length of the initial crack. Griffith postulated that $$\mathcal{F}(\Sigma (\ell )):= \mathcal{E}_{elast}(\Sigma (\ell ))+\mathcal{E}_{ext}(\Sigma (\ell ))+\mathcal{E}_{kin}(\Sigma (\ell ))+\mathcal{E}_{\Sigma }(\Sigma (\ell ) )=0$$ where he assumed that $\mathcal{E}_{\Sigma }(\Sigma (\ell ) )=C_F\ell$. If $\mathcal{E}_{kin}(\Sigma (\ell ))=0$, the fracture is called quasistatic fracture. $\mathcal{G}(\Sigma (\ell _0+\cdot )):=-\frac{\partial }{\partial \ell }(\mathcal{E}_{elast}(\Sigma (\ell ))+\mathcal{E}_{ext}(\Sigma (\ell )))|_{\ell =\ell _0}$ is called the quasistatic energy release rate (ERR). The criterion of fracture initiation is that $\mathcal{G}(\Sigma (\ell _0+\cdot ))=C_F$. Here we notice that $\mathcal{E}_{ext}(\Sigma (\ell )))$ does not change with respect to $\Sigma (\ell )$, that is called the critical load.

Under construction

[A-P06] G. Allaire and O. Pantz, Structural optimization with FreeFem++, Struct. Multidiscip. Opt, 32 (2006), 173--181.
[Al07] G. Allaire, Conception optimale de structures, Springer, 2007.
[Az94] H. Azegami, Solution to domain optimization problems, Trans. Japan Soc. Mech. Engrs. Series A, 60, No.574 (1994), 1479--1486. (in Japanese)
[A-W96] H. Azegami and Z. Wu, Domain optimization analysis in linear elastic problems: Approach using traction method, JSME Inter. J. Series A, 39 (1996), 272--278.
[Az17] H. Azegami. Solution of shape optimization problem and its application to product design, Mathematical Analysis of Continuum Mechanics and Industrial Applications, Springer, 2017, 83--98.
[B-S04] M.P. Bends{\o }e and O. Sigmund, Topology optimization: theory, methods, and applications, Springer, 2004.
[Bu04] H.D. Bui, Fracture mechanics -- Inverse problems and solutions, Springer, 2006.
[Ch67] G.P. Cherepanov, On crack propagation in continuous media, Prikl. Math. Mekh., 31 (1967), 476--493.
[Cir88] P.G. Ciarlet, Mathematical elasticity: Three-dimensional elasticity, North-Holland, 1988.
[Co85] R. Correa and A. Seeger, Directional derivative of a minimax function. Nonlinear Anal., 9(1985), 13--22.
[D-Z88] M.C. Delfour and J.-P. Zolésio, Shape sensitivity analysis via min max differentiability, SIAM J. Control and Optim., 26(1988), 834--862.
[D-D81] Ph. Destuynder and M. Djaoua, Sur une interprétation de l'intégrale de Rice en théorie de la rupture fragile. Math. Meth. in Appl. Sci., 3 (1981), 70--87.
[E-G04] A. Em and J.-L. Guermond, Theory and practice of finite elements, Springer, 2004.
[Es56] J.D. Eshelby, The Continuum theory of lattice defects, Solid State Physics, 3 (1956), 79--144.
[F-O78] D. Fujiwara and S. Ozawa, The Hadamard variational formula for the Green functions of some normal elliptic boundary value problems, Proc. Japan Acad., 54 (1978), 215--220.
[G-S52] P.R. Garabedian and M. Schiffer, Convexity of domain functionals, J.Anal.Math., 2 (1952), 281--368.
[Gr21] A.A. Griffith, The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Series A 221 (1921), 163--198.
[Gr24] A.A. Griffith, The theory of rupture, Proc. 1st.Intern. Congr. Appl. Mech., Delft (1924) 55--63.
[Gr85] P. Grisvard, Elliptic problems in nonsmooth domains, Pitman, 1985.
[Gr92] P. Grisvard, Singularities in boundary value problems, Springer, 1992.
[Had68] J. Hadamard, Mémoire sur un problème d'analyse relatif à l'équilibre des plaques élastiques encastrées, Mémoire des savants étragers, 33 (1907), 515--629.
[Hau86] E.J. Haug, K.K. Choi and V. Komkov, Design sensitivity analysis of structural systems, Academic Press, 1986.
[ffempp] F. Hecht, New development in freefem++. J. Numer. Math. 20 (2012), 251--265. 65Y15, (FreeFem++ URL:http://www.freefem.org) %\url
[Kato] T. Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators, Springer, 1980.
[K-W06] M. Kimura. and I. Wakano, New mathematical approach to the energy release rate in crack extension, Trans. Japan Soc. Indust. Appl. Math., 16(2006) 345--358. (in Japanese) \bibitem {K-W11} M. Kimura and I. Wakano, Shape derivative of potential energy and energy release rate in rracture mechanics, J. Math-for-industry, 3A (2011), 21--31.
[Kne05] D. Knees, Regularity results for quasilinear elliptic systems of power-law growth in nonsmooth domains: boundary, transmission and crack problems. PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart, 2005. http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2005/2191/. \bibitem |Kn15 John Knott, Brittle fracture in structural steels: perspectives at different size-scales, , Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci., 28(2015) ,
[K-K99] A. M. Khludnev and V. A. Kovtunenk, Analysis of Cracks in Solids, Wit Pr/Computational Mechanics, 1999.
[Ko06] V.A. Kovtunenko, Primal-dual methods of shape sensitivity analysis for curvilinear cracks with nonpenetration, IMA Jour. Appl. Math. 71 (2006), 635--657.
[K-O18] V.A. Kovtunenko and K. Ohtsuka, Shape differentiability of Lagrangians and application to stokes problem, SIAM J. Control Optim. 56 (2018), 3668--3684.
[M-P01] B. Mohammadi and O. Pironneau, Applied shape optimization for fluids. Oxford University Press, 2001.
[Na94] S.Nazarov and B.A.Plamenevsky, Elliptic problems in domains with piecewise smooth boundaries, de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics 13. Walter de Gruyter \& Co., 1994.
[Nec67] J. Nečas, Direct methods in the theory of elliptic equations, Springer, 2012. Translated from Méthodes directes en théorie des équations elliptiques, 1967, Masson''.
[Noe18] E. Noether, Invariante variationsprobleme, göttinger nachrichten, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse (1918), 235--257.
[N-S13] A.A. Novotny and J. Sokolowski, Topological derivatives in shape optimization, Springer, 2013.
[Oh81] K. Ohtsuka, Generalized J-integral and three dimensional fracture mechanics I, Hiroshima Math. J., 11(1981), 21--52. Full paper in Euclid Project.
[Oh85] K. Ohtsuka, Generalized J-integral and its applications. I. -- Basic theory, Japan J. Appl. Math., 2 (1985), 329--350. Full paper in Euclid Project.
[Oh86] K. Ohtsuka, Generalized J-integral and three-dimensional fracture mechanics II --Surface crack problems--, Hiroshima Math. J., 16(1986), 327--352.
[O-K00] K. Ohtsuka and A. Khludnev, Generalized J-integral method for sensitivity analysis of static shape design, Control \& Cybernetics, 29 (2000), 513--533.
[Oh02] K. Ohtsuka, Comparison of criteria on the direction of crack extension, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 149 (2002), 335--339.
[Oh02-2] K. Ohtsuka, Theoretical and numerical analysis on 3-dimensional brittle fracture, Mathematical Modeling and Numerical Simulation in Continuum Mechanics, Springer, 2002, 233--251.
[Oh09] K. Ohtsuka, Criterion for stable/unstable quasi-static crack extension by extended griffith energy balance theory, Theor. Appl. Mech. Japan, 57 (2009), 25--32.
[Oh12] K. Ohtsuka, Shape optimization for partial differential equations/system with mixed boundary conditions, RIMS K\^oky\^uroku 1791 (2012), 172--181.
[OT-K12] K. Ohtsuka and M. Kimura, Differentiability of potential energies with a parameter and shape sensitivity analysis for nonlinear case: the p-Poisson problem, Japan J. Indust. Appl. Math., 29 (2012), 23--35.
[Oh14] K. Ohtsuka and T. Takaishi, Finite element anaysis using mathematical programming language FreeFem++, Kyoritsu Shuppan, 2014. (in Japanese)
[Oh17] K. Ohtsuka, Shape optimization by GJ-integral: Localization method for composite material, Mathematical Analysis of Continuum Mechanics and Industrial Applications, Springer, 2017, 73--109.
[Oh18] K. Ohtsuka, Shape optimization by Generalized J-integral in Poisson's equation with a mixed boundary condition, Mathematical Analysis of Continuum Mechanics and Industrial Applications II, Springer, 2018, 73--83.
[Pr10] A.N. Pressley, Elementary differential geometry, Springer, 2010.
[Ri68] J.R. Rice, A path-independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks, J. Appl. Mech., 35(1968), 379--386.
[Ri68-2] J.R. Rice, Mathematical analysis in the mechanics of fracture, Fracture Volume II, Academic Press, 1968, 191--311. %
[Pi84] O. Pironneau, Optimal shape design for elliptic systems, %Springer-Verlag, 1984.
[Sa99] J.A. Samareh, A survey of shape parameterization techniques, NASA Report CP-1999-209136 (1999), 333--343.
[Sc91] B.-W. Schulze, Pseudo-differential operators on manifolds with singularities, North-Holland, 1991.
[Sok92] J. Sokolowski and J.-P. Zolesio, Introduction to shape optimization, Springer, 1992.
[St14] K. Sturm, On shape optimization with non-linear partial differential equations, Doctoral thesis, Technische Universiltät of Berlin, 2014. https://d-nb.info/106856959X/34
[Sumi] Y. Sumi, Mathematical and computational analyses of cracking formation, Springer, 2014.
[Zei/2B] E. Zeidler. Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications II/B, Springer, 1990. %
[Z-S73] %O.C. Zienkiewicz and J.S. Campbell, Shape optimization and sequential %linear programming, Optimum Structural Design, Wiley, 1973, 109--126. \