2018
DOI: 10.1007/s10704-018-0329-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The steady-state Archard adhesive wear problem revisited based on the phase field approach to fracture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results from Carollo et al [26] are also reported in Figure 4, blue and red crosses respectively denoting small and large particle formation. Authors [26] used a phase-field formulation which differs from ours for the splitting of the elastic strain energy, as well as slightly different boundary conditions.…”
Section: Positive-hydrostatic Modelmentioning
confidence: 65%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The results from Carollo et al [26] are also reported in Figure 4, blue and red crosses respectively denoting small and large particle formation. Authors [26] used a phase-field formulation which differs from ours for the splitting of the elastic strain energy, as well as slightly different boundary conditions.…”
Section: Positive-hydrostatic Modelmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…The results from Carollo et al [26] are also reported in Figure 4, blue and red crosses respectively denoting small and large particle formation. Authors [26] used a phase-field formulation which differs from ours for the splitting of the elastic strain energy, as well as slightly different boundary conditions. The number of available simulations is not large enough for us to properly compare the outcomes of the two studies, however we do notice a certain agreement in the prediction of small particle formation whereas results tend to disagree when large particles are detached.…”
Section: Positive-hydrostatic Modelmentioning
confidence: 65%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Carollo et al [ 71 ] applied the phase field model for fractures to simulate the crack pattern leading to debris formation in a triangular asperity junction model. They found two failure modes: (1) a crack nucleated at the contact boarder (small wear particle), and (2) a crack nucleated at the root of the triangular asperity (large wear particle), depending on the dominant power of the stress-singularity there.…”
Section: Modeling Adhesive Wear At Asperity Levelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular due to the over-complicated geometry and content of concrete at multi-scales, in Figure 8 an example for PF modeling of water-induced failure mechanics in concrete microstructure is presented. In recent years, several brittle [ 259 , 260 , 261 , 262 , 263 , 264 , 265 , 266 , 267 , 268 , 269 , 270 , 271 , 272 , 273 , 274 , 275 , 276 , 277 , 278 , 279 , 280 , 281 , 282 , 283 , 284 , 285 , 286 , 287 , 288 , 289 , 290 , 291 , 292 , 293 , 294 , 295 , 296 ] and ductile [ 149 , 297 , 298 , 299 , 300 , 301 , 302 , 303 , 304 , 305 , 306 , 307 , 308 ...…”
Section: Phase-field Modeling For Fracture Mechanismsmentioning
confidence: 99%