Cohesive zone models

towards a robust implementation of irreversible behaviour

Rene Kregting
23rd February 2005
MT05.11
Supervision:
dr.ir. O. van der Sluis (Philips Applied Technologies)
dr.ir. R.H.J. Peerlings
prof.dr.ir. M.G.D. Geers
Contents
1 Introduction 2
2 Cohesive zone models 4
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 General theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 MSC.Marc user subroutines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Implementation issues 10
3.1 Numerical integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 History dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.1 Uncoupled irreversibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.2 Coupled irreversibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4 Benchmark test 20
5 Conclusions and recommendations 24
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A Derivation of tangent stinesses 28
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Deformation and fracture are complex processes, which exhibit the interactions between the
dierent phases in the material and between micro- and macrocracks, which may initiate and
propagate simultaneously. Philips Applied Technologies and more specically the process
modelling group (PPM) investigates failure behaviour of ceramic matrix composites for
optimization purposes. These composites consist of a ceramic matrix with metal inclusions.
For this reason, these composites can exhibit a combination of brittle and ductile behaviour.
Fracture in these heterogeneous materials consists of dierent stages: initiation of voids
and microcracks in random sites throughout the body, the subsequent growth, interaction,
clustering, coalescence. This leads to the formation of initial macrocracks, their growth and,
nally, propagation of one of the cracks up to complete failure. Initial stresses, present in
the composite due to processing, have a large inuence on the resulting behaviour of the
composite, (van der Sluis, 2004).
Over the last decades several numerical methods have been developed to simulate failure
mechanisms in materials. The Finite Element Method (FEM) provides a way to predict the
failure behaviour of materials, in order to optimize the microstructure of these composites.
For this purpose, appropriate continuum mechanical failure models have to be used to
describe microstructural failure mechanisms. Several failure models are available to this end.
Fracture mechanics, continuum damage mechanics and XFEM are possible methods to
simulate failure behaviour in materials. The scale at which fracture occurs is equal to
the scale at which the microstructure is evaluated, therefore fracture will to be simulated
explicitly. Also, fracture can occur at physical interfaces. A method like continuum damage
mechanics is therefore not very suitable. Since the behaviour can be quasi-brittle, the use
of fracture mechanics is also not recommended. A dierent technique to simulate crack
initiation and crack growth is the use of so-called cohesive laws implemented in nite
elements. The basis for cohesive zone models can be traced back to the works of Dugdale
(1960) and Barenblatt (1962). The implementation of these cohesive zone models is rather
straightforward in commercially available nite element packages. Calculations on crack
initiation and crack growth are possible for both ductile and brittle materials. However,
there are still a number of issues that need to be solved before this approach can be used for
realistic simulations.
2
This report focusses on a few numerical issues which still aect the behaviour of cohesive
zones. The goal is to develop a robust cohesive zone implementation which includes history
dependent behaviour. An implementation in MSC.Marc which has already been developed by
Marco van den Bosch (2004) will be used as the starting point. Also, previous research has
shown that spurious oscillations of computed stresses can occur under certain circumstances
which may lead to undesirable results. The occurrence of these oscillations will be discussed, as
well as some remedies. Finally a benchmark test will be simulated to determine if the resulting
cohesive zone behaviour (including history dependent behaviour) is robust. The benchmark
test will also be used to verify the computed stresses .
3
Chapter 2
Cohesive zone models
2.1 Introduction
The viewpoint from which cohesive zone models originate regards fracture as a gradual phe-
nomenon in which separation takes place across an extended crack tip, or cohesive zone,
and is resisted by cohesive tractions (Ortiz and Pandol, 1999). Thus cohesive zone elements
do not represent any physical material, but describe the cohesive forces which occur when
material elements (such as grains) are being pulled apart. Therefore cohesive zone elements
are placed between continuum (bulk) elements, as shown in Figure 2.1.
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
C
oh
esive
zon
e
elem
en
ts
B
ulk
elem
ents
B
ulk
elem
ents

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 2.1: Application of cohesive zone elements along bulk element boundaries
When damage growth occurs these cohesive zone elements open in order to simulate crack
initiation or crack growth. Since the crack path can only follow these elements, the direction
of crack propagation strongly depends on the presence (or absence) of cohesive zone elements,
implying the crack path is mesh dependent. However, rening the mesh reduces this problem.
In two dimensions, tractions can occur in the normal and the shear direction. The description
of the failure behaviour is dened by traction-separation laws. These relations describe the
tractions as a function of separations and determine the constitutive behaviour of cohesive
zone models. There is a great variety in traction separation laws (Chandra et al., 2002) but
they all exhibit the same global behaviour. As the cohesive surfaces separate, the traction
rst increases until a maximum is reached, and subsequently the traction decreases to zero,
4
which results in complete (local) separation. This holds for both the normal and the shear
direction. A schematic example of a traction-separation curve is shown in Figure 2.2.
displacement
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

T

PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 2.2: Example of traction-separation
curve
There are a number of factors which play an important role in the resulting failure behaviour.
For instance, the area under the traction separation curve corresponds with the energy needed
for separation (). The initial stiness of the cohesive zone model has a large inuence on
the overall elastic deformation and should be very high in order to obtain realistic results.
It is shown by Chandra et al. (2002) that the form of the traction-separation relations plays
an important role in the macroscopic mechanical response of the system. The cohesive zone
model which is used in the following is the exponential model by Xu and Needleman (1994).
This model provides smooth traction-separation curves and may therefore be more stable
than discontinuous models, such as the bilinear model.
2.2 General theory
The traction vector T acting at the cohesive surface is derived from an interfacial potential
(Xu and Needleman, 1994) with normal and tangential components T
n
and T
t
, respectively:
T =
()
()
(2.1)
with
= (
n
,
t
)
The potential can be written as:
(
n
,
t
) =
n
+
n
exp
_

n
___
1r+

n
_
1 q
r 1

_
q+
_
r q
r 1
_

n
_
exp
_

2
t

2
t
__
(2.2)
5
Where
n
and
t
represent characteristic separations, in such a way that T
n
(
n
) =
max
and
T
t
(
t
/

2) =
max
.
max
and
max
represent the maximum values of the normal traction and
the shear traction respectively. Furthermore, q =
t
/
n
and r =

n
/
n
, where

n
is the
value of
n
when complete shear separation has taken place without resulting in normal
tension (T
n
= 0). q will be taken equal to one and r equal to zero. The resulting equations for
the normal and shear tractions are derived by combining (2.1) and (2.2) with exp(...) = e
(...)
as:
T
n
=

n

n
exp
_

n
__

n
exp
_

2
t

2
t
_
+
1 q
r 1
_
1 exp
_

2
t

2
t
___
r

n

n
__
(2.3)
T
t
= 2
_

2
t
__
q +
_
r q
r 1
_

n
_
exp
_

n
_
exp
_

2
t

2
t
_
(2.4)

n
and
t
are the areas under the normal traction-separation curve and the shear traction
curve respectively. They represent the amount of work needed for complete separation. This
can be seen for q = 1, r = 0, and assuming that T
n
= T
n
(
n
,
t
= 0), T
t
= T
t
(
n
= 0,
t
),
for which case the so-called uncoupled tractions are obtained. Using T
n
(
n
) =
max
and
T
t
(
t
/

2) =
max
the following relations for
n
and
t
can then be obtained:

n
=
max
exp(1)
n
,
t
=
_
exp(1)/2
max

t
(2.5)
The normalized traction curves for uncoupled normal separation and shear separation are
shown in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4. In these gures T
n
/
max
and T
t
/
max
represent the
2 0 2 4 6 8 10
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1

n
/
n
T
n

/

m
a
x
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1

t
/
t

T
t

/

m
a
x
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 2.3: Normal traction curve for the
uncoupled modelling
Figure 2.4: Shear traction curve for the
uncoupled modelling
dimensionless normal and shear tractions.
n
/
n
and
t
/
t
represent the dimensionless
normal and shear openings. The normal traction-separation curve shows that starting from
an opening of zero and increasing the separation also increases the traction until a maximum
value is reached at
n
. After that the cohesive force decreases until the cohesive zone no
longer has any stiness in normal direction. When the cohesive zone is given a separation
displacement in negative direction the traction rapidly becomes more negative in order to
6
prevent penetration. The shear traction separation curve does not show such a behaviour for
negative separations. Separations in negative direction merely lead to shear tractions in the
negative direction, which are opposite to those for a positive
t
.
As was already mentioned, gures 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate the uncoupled relations. Next, the
coupling eect will be illustrated, as for this case, it holds that:
T
n
= T
n
(
n
,
t
) and T
t
= T
t
(
n
,
t
) (2.6)
The relations (2.3) and (2.4) correspond with surfaces, which are shown in gures 2.5 and 2.6.
Figure 2.5 shows that a non-zero value of
t
results in a lower curve for the T
n
(
n
) relation.
On the other hand, Figure 2.6 shows that a non-zero value of
n
results in a lower curve
for the T
t
(
t
) relation. For now, this potential and its derivatives can only be used for two
4
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
4
6
3
2
1
0
1

n
/
n

t
/
t
T
n

/

m
a
x
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
2
0
2
4
6
1
0.5
0
0.5
1

t
/
t

n
/
n
T
t

/

m
a
x
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 2.5: Normal traction surface Figure 2.6: Shear traction surface
dimensions. This can be extended to three dimensions by adding a new tangential traction
to the set of equations. This new traction will be directed perpendicularly to the other two.
However, this will not be discussed here. For information regarding a three dimensional
implementation see Gon calves et al. (2000).
2.3 MSC.Marc user subroutines
The cohesive zone element has been implemented as a user element in the commercial nite
element package MSC.Marc. The user subroutines have been written by van den Bosch et al.
(2004). The cohesive zone element is dened as a four node element with two integration
points, lying on the line A-B. The location of the integration points depends on which
numerical integration scheme is chosen, see Figure 2.7. The denition of the element nodes
is important. The nodes must be assigned in counterclockwise direction, the last node (4)
must be opposite to the rst node (1) and the third node must be opposite to the second node.
7
2
3
1
4
A
B
A B
B
NewtonCotes
Gauss
A
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1 = 0 = +1
ip1 ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 2.7: Cohesive zone element, shown with nodes and length AB and the location of
integration points in the Gauss and Newton-Cotes schemes
The main subroutine is uselem, this subroutine is called by MSC.Marc every time the el-
ement stiness matrix and the internal force column is needed for the calculation. For this
purpose uselem exports the current nodal coordinates and the total nodal displacements to
czbehav. With these quantities czbehav calculates the separations
n
and
t
. First the cur-
rent coordinates are used to calculate the length and the orientation of the center line AB,
see Figure 2.7. Next, the locations of the integration points are determined with respect to
A-B. After that interpolation of the nodal displacements is used to determine
n
and
t
at
the integration points. The element stiness matrix is calculated in uselem using
K
e
=
l
2
_
+1
1
N
T
DNd (2.7)
with D for the uncoupled case
D =
_
_
Tt
t
0
0
Tn
n
_
_
(2.8)
and the internal force column is calculated using
f
e
int
=
l
2
_
+1
1
N
T
Td (2.9)
8
with
T =
_
T
t
T
n
_
(2.10)
D is the consistent tangent stiness matrix, l is the length (width) of the element and N
is the matrix of shape functions. T is the column of calculated tractions. The tractions are
calculated according to equations (2.3) and (2.4).
The following subroutines are used by MSC.Marc
uselem : This is the main subroutine, the element stiness matrix and internal forces
are calculated here.
czbehav : The constitutive behaviour of the cohesive zone element is implemented in this
subroutine. It is called by uselem for the actual calculation of the stiness matrix and the
internal force column. This subroutine contains the traction separation characteristics
and stinesses as well as nodal transformations and a declaration of the integration
points.
plotv : This subroutine writes the status of the cohesive zone elements to the marc
postprocessing le, it can also be used to write dierent quantities to le if needed.
elevar : This subroutine writes the openings
n
and
t
and the tractions T
n
and T
t
to a le as well as desired additional quantities.
9
Chapter 3
Implementation issues
3.1 Numerical integration
A high initial stiness of the cohesive zone elements is necessary when trying to obtain a phys-
ically realistic model. When the initial stiness is too low additional deformation will occur,
caused by the decreased overall (bulk) stiness. Therefore the stiness must be suciently
high. However, a high stiness can result in so-called spurious oscillations. This means that
the traction prole exhibits an oscillatory behaviour that has no physical meaning. Research
by Schellekens and de Borst (1993) has shown that these oscillations are caused by the com-
bination of a high traction gradient within one element and a Gauss integration scheme.
This can be illustrated by means of a test case which was also devised by Schellekens and
d
h
L
cohesive zone elements
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
X
Y
Z
1
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.1: Test case set up Figure 3.2: Test case mesh
de Borst (1993), see Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2. The beam has a length L of 25[mm] and
a height h of 5[mm]. An initial crack is inserted at the bottom of the beam with length
d = 1[mm]. The cohesive zones are placed directly above this crack. The bulk material has a
Youngs modulus of 2000[MPa] and a Poissons ratio of 0.3. Five nodes which lie in the middle
directly above the centerline are given a very small displacement downward, unlike the test
case by Schellekens and de Borst (1993) in which a downward pressure was applied. This
10
displacement is kept small since the normal opening of the cohesive zone elements needs to
be kept very small (
n
,
t
) in order to investigate the inuence of the initial stiness. Two
situations are simulated, using cohesive zone elements with a low stiness (
max
= 1 [MPa],

n
=
t
= 0.1[mm]) and with a high stiness (
max
= 1000 [MPa],
n
=
t
= 1E-4[mm]). Pa-
rameters q and r are taken one and zero respectively. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show the computed
normal tractions in the cohesive zones. Figure 3.3 shows no oscillations in the traction prole,
but Figure 3.4 does show oscillations.
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
T
n
[MPa]
h
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
m
]
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
T
n
[MPa]
h
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
m
]
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.3: Traction curve using Gauss in-
tegration and
max
= 1 [MPa]
Figure 3.4: Traction curve using Gauss in-
tegration and
max
= 1000 [MPa]
To plot the traction proles use was made of the integration point values, to avoid possible
inaccuracies due to the extrapolation of integration point values to nodal point values. A
possible way to remove the spurious oscillations is by using a dierent integration scheme
instead of Gauss. Schellekens and de Borst (1993) have shown that the Newton-Cotes
integration scheme does not suer from this problem. This integration scheme has a rst
order accuracy instead of the second order accuracy which is obtained when using the Gauss
scheme. However, if the occurrence of spurious oscillations has a signicant (long term)
eect, it may be wise to nevertheless use the Newton-Cotes scheme instead of the Gauss
scheme. The only parameters that need to be changed in the subroutine are the locations of
the integration points since the weight factors are the same for two point Gauss integration
and Newton-Cotes integration. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 show the results for the same simulation
but using the Newton-Cotes integration scheme. These gures show that the use of the
Newton-Cotes integration scheme does not result in spurious oscillations in the traction
prole.
11
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
T
n
[MPa]
h
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
m
]
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
T
n
[MPa]
h
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
m
]
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.5: Traction curve using Newton-
Cotes integration and
max
= 1 [MPa]
Figure 3.6: Traction curve using Newton-
Cotes integration and
max
= 1000 [MPa]
Another way to avoid the oscillations is to use mesh renement, since this inherently lowers
the traction gradient over one element when applying the same load. The result is shown
in Figure 3.7 using twice the amount of cohesive zones. This gure shows that the spurious
oscillations are not present when mesh renement is used.
4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
T
n
[MPa]
h
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
m
]
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
T
n
[MPa]
h
e
i
g
h
t

[
m
m
]
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.7: Traction prole using a ne
mesh, Gauss integration and
max
= 1000
[MPa]
Figure 3.8: Traction prole using a
ne mesh, Newton-Cotes integration and

max
= 1000 [MPa]
The cause of the spurious oscillations seems to lie in the eigenmodes which an element
has when using Gauss integration as opposed to Newton-Cotes integration (Schellekens and
de Borst, 1993). The dierent eigenmodes (except for the three rigid body modes and the
zero-energy mode which represents extension of the cohesive zone along its length) for the
Newton-Cotes integration scheme are shown in Figure 3.9. These eigenmodes have been ob-
tained by computing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the element stiness matrix. This is
12
3
3. 4.
2. 1.
= 4.6632
= 2.3316 = 2.3316
= 4.6632
4
1
2
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
3
4.
2.
3.
1. = 0.7772 = 1.5544
= 2.3316 = 4.6632
1
4
2
PSfrag replacements


e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.9: Eigenmodes and eigenvalues
with Newton-Cotes integration
Figure 3.10: Eigenmodes and eigenvalues
with Gauss integration
done for a given combination of
n
and
t
, using Gauss integration and Newton-Cotes inte-
gration. The problem lies in the coupling between degrees-of-freedom of the dierent nodes.
This is illustrated by Figure 3.10, which shows the eigenmodes and eigenvalues using a Gauss
integration scheme. When using Gauss integration a single nodal degree-of-freedom can be ac-
tivated in dierent eigenmodes, this is not the case when using the Newton-Cotes integration
scheme. However it is not completely clear why this would result in spurious oscillations. An
alternative explanation, which is also not completely rigorous is that for Gauss integration
there is an interaction between the nodes at the left end of the element and those at the
right end, whereas for the Newton-Cotes integration the openings at both ends can be varied
independently.
3.2 History dependency
The current implementation does not exhibit history dependent behaviour or irreversible be-
haviour. When unloading, the same traction curve is followed as during loading. This is shown
in Figure 3.11. This implies that to achieve unloading one must increase the traction. This is
not realistic since damage is regarded as an irreversible process. It is assumed that in order
to achieve realistic irreversible behaviour, unloading should occur in a linear way to the origin.
To this end, one or more history parameters will be introduced in the model. This can be
done for both the normal and the shear direction or for the both of them in a coupled fashion.
In the following, three dierent forms of history dependency are implemented and tested.
First an uncoupled history dependent model will be implemented and tested. Following
the same framework, coupled history dependent behaviour will be implemented. Finally a
dierent approach will be used to achieve coupled history dependent behaviour.
13
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

n
/
n

T
n

/

m
a
x
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.11: Current implementation, subse-
quent loading and unloading shows reversibil-
ity
3.2.1 Uncoupled irreversibility
To obtain history dependent behaviour a history parameter needs to be introduced. This
parameter is chosen as

i
= max{
i
() | 0 t} with i = n,t (3.1)
and

n
=

n

c
n
,
n
=
_
0 if
n
0

n
if
n
> 0
(3.2)

t
=
|
t
|

c
t
(3.3)

n
is dened as the history parameter for separations in normal direction and
t
for separa-
tions in tangential direction.
c
n
and
c
t
are critical separations in normal and shear direction
respectively. These separations are chosen as the separations where the corresponding
tractions are almost zero. Since the traction curves approach zero very slowly for larger
separations, the exact value of these parameters is not very important.
Damage evolution is already accounted for in the free energy potential . Since the tractions
are derived from this potential, damage evolution is also accounted for in the traction rela-
tions. This damage evolution can be seen in the traction curves as softening behaviour. There
is no need to degrade the tractions with some sort of history dependent damage parameter
14
for continued loading. It is only necessary to determine whether the cohesive zone is loading
or unloading and in what direction this takes place. Since the cohesive zone element should
experience a dierent behaviour for unloading than for loading, the traction-separation equa-
tions should be extended with an unloading mode. This extension is made for the normal and
tangential responses separately and should result in the following behaviour. When loading
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n
n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.12: Flowchart for tangential load-
ing
Figure 3.13: Flowchart for normal loading
takes place, the original relations, (2.3) and (2.4), should be used to calculate the tractions.
When unloading takes place in normal or tangential direction the last calculation on the curve
during the loading process for this direction determines the unloading stiness
n
for normal
direction and
t
for tangential direction. When the element is subsequently loaded, these
unloading relations should then be used until the previous maximum value is again reached,
this is the reload path.

i
=
T
i,max

i,max
with i = n,t (3.4)
The traction-separation relations in case of unloading are hereby simplied to
T
n
=
n

n
T
t
=
t

t
(3.5)
This is illustrated in Figure 3.12 for the tangential direction and in Figure 3.13 for the
normal direction. Note again that the two directions are treated in a completely separate way.
The simulations are displacement controlled. The test case consists of two material elements
with one cohesive zone element in between. The results are obtained by respectively loading,
unloading and after that increased loading, see Figure 3.14. The same has been done for the
shear direction which was respectively loaded, unloaded, loaded in opposite direction, and
unloaded, see Figure 3.15. The results are shown in gures 3.16 and 3.17.
15
2. Normal loading 1. Normal loading/
unloading
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
1.Shear loading/ 2.Shear loading/
unloading unloading
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.14: Prescribed normal displace-
ments
Figure 3.15: Prescribed shear displace-
ments
0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
displacement Y
c
o
m
p

2
2

o
f

s
t
r
e
s
s

max

n
T
max

n,max
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1
x 10
3
6000
4000
2000
0
2000
4000
6000
displacement X
c
o
m
p

1
1

o
f

s
t
r
e
s
s
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.16: Uncoupled irreversibility:
Normal traction curve
Figure 3.17: Uncoupled irreversibility:
Shear traction curve
3.2.2 Coupled irreversibility
Introduction
The previous implementation of history dependent behaviour was done in an uncoupled way,
i.e. the evolution of the history parameter
n
did not have an inuence on the traction be-
haviour in tangential direction and vice versa. This implies that a cohesive zone element which
is loaded in normal direction until it is damaged, and subsequently unloaded, still has the
initial stiness in tangential direction. This is not very realistic for most materials and we
therefore attempt to couple the history dependent traction-separation behaviour. To achieve
the coupling, the complete, coupled traction-separation relations need to be used for loading
and the tangential stiness matrix should also be extended. The original tangent stiness
matrix only contained the diagonal terms. The new consistent tangent stiness matrix D for
16
loading also contains the cross-derivatives:
D =
_
_
Tt
t
Tt
n
Tn
t
Tn
n
_
_
(3.6)
The expressions in D are given in appendix B en equations (A.1)-(A.4).
One eective history parameter
Based on the work of Ortiz and Pandol (1999), irreversible behaviour is implemented using
a single history parameter
max
instead of
n
and
t
. This parameter is dened as

max
= max{
e
() | 0 t} (3.7)
with
e
the eective opening displacement

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n
with = (0, ) (3.8)
Loading takes place when
e
=
max
and

e
0, and unloading (or reloading) when

e
<
max
. When loading occurs, the tractions from equations (2.3) and (2.4) and the
corresponding stinesses are used. For unloading, the following relations for T
n
and T
t
are
used
T
n
=
T
n,max

n,max

n
+
T
n,max

t,max

t
(3.9)
T
t
=
T
t,max

n,max

n
+
T
t,max

t,max

t
(3.10)
The unloading stinesses used in equations (3.9) and (3.10), T
i,max
/
j,max
where i,j = n,t,
are evaluated for the maximum values of
n
and
t
reached during the previous loading.
However, when a cohesive zone element is subjected to mixed mode loading, the tractions
during reloading are not calculated correctly. If this reloading takes place in same other
direction than the unloading, however, these stinesses do not correspond with the undamaged
loading response in this direction. As a consequence, a jump in the tractions may occur at
the transition from the unloading/reloading relations to the loading relations (2.3)-(2.4), see
Figure 3.18. This does not seem very realistic; it seems more realistic that the normal traction
follows the dashed line instead. For this reason, a dierent approach is needed to calculate
the tractions during unloading and reloading.
To calculate the tractions during reloading correctly, the reloading stinesses should be take
into account the new (re-)loading direction and the loading response in this direction. For
this purpose the tractions are interpolated between the origin and the tractions at which the
loading surface
e
=
max
is reached in the new loading direction. This is shown in Figure
3.19. This gure shows the damage surface given by
e
=
max
in the displacement space.
This surface is somewhat similar to the yield surface for plasticity in a stress space. The surface
of
max
can only grow, this occurs when
e
=
max
and

e
> 0. The idea is now that for
a given (
n
,
t
) for which
e
<
max
the tractions are linearly interpolated between the
17
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x 10
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

n
T
n
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.18: Current mixed mode loading
result
Figure 3.19: Damage surface in displace-
ment space
origin and the tractions at which the damage surface will be reached for continued loading in
the same direction (in the
n

t
space). This eectively means that the openings
n
and

t
are rst scaled by a factor
max
/
e
, the tractions associated with these scaled openings
are computed, and these tractions are scaled back by multiplying them by
e
/
max
. The
resulting tractions can thus be written as
T
unl
n
=

e

max
T
n
_

max

n
,

max

t
_
(3.11)
T
unl
t
=

e

max
T
t
_

max

n
,

max

t
_
(3.12)
where T
n
(
n
,
t
) and T
t
(
n
,
t
) are the traction-separation relations used for loading as
given by (2.3) and (2.4). Note that this approach also works properly for nonuniform
n

t
paths, since the intersection with the loading surface is automatically updated for such paths.
This implementation basically works the same as the uncoupled implementation, with
max
as history parameter instead of
i
(i = n or t). Figure 3.20 shows the resulting owchart for this
approach. The tangent stinesses associated with (3.11) and (3.12), which are to be used in
unloading/reloading, are given in Appendix B, equations (A.14)-(A.17). This implementation
has been tested for mixed mode loading, for which the prescribed displacements are shown
in Figure 3.21. The element is rst loaded and unloaded in both normal and shear direction,
with the rate of normal displacement equal to the rate of shear displacement. Subsequently, a
mixed mode load is applied with the rate of shear displacement being larger than the rate of
normal displacement. The resulting tractions are shown in gures 3.22 and 3.23. The traction
jump which is seen in Figure 3.18 is absent, the traction curves appear to have been improved.
18
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

n

t

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Ti
i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
Ti
i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
0 500 1000 1500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
x 10
3
increment []
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]

n
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.20: Flowchart for coupled imple-
mentation using one history parameter
Figure 3.21: Prescribed displacements for
mixed mode loading
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x 10
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

n
T
n
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
0 1 2 3 4 5
x 10
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120

t
T
t
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 3.22: Normal tractions for mixed
mode loading
Figure 3.23: Shear tractions for mixed
mode loading
19
Chapter 4
Benchmark test
In order to obtain quantitative data on the occurring stresses during the delamination
process a benchmark test has been developed by Davies (2002). This benchmark test
involves a double cantilever beam (DCB) which is pulled apart in mode I. The benchmark
problem is shown in Figure 4.1. The ends of the beam are given a displacement u/2 in
the y-direction, while the other end of the beam is entirely xed in x and y direction.
The cohesive zones are placed on the dotted line in this gure. When loading the beam
in this mode the top and bottom parts of the beam are rst bent over the 30[mm]
long initial crack. Subsequently, the cohesive zones start to open, which results in a
decrease of the stiness. When the cohesive zones are all completely opened the beam
starts to bend again, this time over the total length of 100[mm]. The mesh of the nal
result is shown in Figure 4.2. Analytical relations are available to verify the numerical results.
30 mm
100 mm
u/2
3 mm
depth = 30 mm
u/2
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
lcase1
Inc: 100
Time: 1.000e+000
X
Y
Z
1
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 4.1: Benchmark test set up Figure 4.2: Benchmark deformed mesh
The analytical relations are obtained by combining the linear elastic beam theory with linear
elastic fracture mechanics. The results are
P =
3uEI
2a
3
0
for initial bending (4.1)
20
P =

2(bG
Ic
EI)
3/2
2a
3
0
for delamination (4.2)
with
P = vertical force on beam edge
b = beam thickness
G
Ic
= energy release rate for mode I
E = elasticity modulus
I = moment of inertia
a
0
= length of initial crack
The two equations that determine the resulting force-displacement curve are equations (4.1)
and (4.2). Equation (4.1) is derived from classic beam theory and relates the (perpendicular)
displacement (u) to the bending force (P) . A similar relation for the nal state of the
complete opening can be obtained by replacing a
0
by the length of the beam. Equation (4.2)
relates the energy release rate to the forces needed for delamination. This energy release
rate corresponds with
n
and is therefore a parameter in the constitutive behaviour of the
cohesive zone elements. This relation describes the decreasing force when the cohesive zone
elements are opening.
The load P as a function of the displacement u/2 is shown in Figure 4.3. The dashed lines
correspond with the analytical solutions as given above. The numerical solution follows the
analytical relations quite closely. Figure 4.3 shows that the beam regains some stiness
when the opening exceeds 8[mm], this point corresponds with the beam bending purely over
100[mm] (full length). The results obtained by Alfano and Criseld (2001) show a less than
0 5 10 15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
u/2 [mm]
P

[
N
]
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 4.3: Numerical and analytical results for
benchmark test
smooth curve for the delamination part with many oscillations. This may be the result of the
21
use of a bilinear constitutive model. The oscillations were reduced by making the cohesive
zone more ductile, this is achieved by lowering
max
(while keeping the energy G
Ic
the same).
The coupled irreversible implementation should be able to describe the opening and closing
of the beam. However, during the initial phase of the opening, there are areas which are
compressed. This can be seen in Figure 4.4, with the dark grey areas representing a downward
displacement and the light grey areas an upward displacement. These areas consist of multiple
X
Y
Z
1
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 4.4: Areas of compression during the ini-
tial opening
cohesive zone elements. They are not a numerical artifact, but reect a wave-like theoretical
solution, cf. a beam on an elastic foundation. Because the elements are compressed before
they are being pulled apart,
e
= 0 at some point and
max
> 0. This leads to numerical
diculties, the tractions and the stinesses cannot be calculated for
e
= 0. An extra
statement has been added to the unloading implementation to make sure that for
e
0,
the tractions are zero and the stinesses are calculated using the relations for loading. The
results of subsequently opening and closing the double cantilever beam are shown in Figure
4.5. The gure shows that the unloading also takes place in a linear fashion to the origin,
which seems realistic.
22
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
u/2 [mm]
P

[
N
]
PSfrag replacements

e
n
e
t

e
x
e
y
Cohesive zone elements
Bulk elements

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
= eq(2.4)
Tt
t
= eq(B.4)

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
= eq(2.3)
Tn
n
= eq(B.1)

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

n
= 0
T
t
>
n

t
Original loading
T
t
=
n

t
=
|t|

t
c

t
>
t,old
yes
Loading

t
=
t
T
t
Tt
t

t
=
Tt
t
Unloading
no

t
=
t,old
T
t
=
t

t
Tt
t
=
t

n
=
n

n
c

n
>
n,old

n
=
n
T
n
Tn
n

n
=
Tn
n

n
=
n,old
T
n
=
n

n
Tn
n
=
n

t
= 0
T
n
>
t

n
T
n
=
t

n
= 1
= 0
= +1
ip1
ip2
1

3
E-modulus = 2000 [MPa]
h = 10 [mm]
l = 22.5 [mm]
h
notch
= 2 [mm]
= 0.3

0
max

e
<
max
max

max

e
=
max

1
max

n
max

max

e
<
max

e
=
max

0
max

1
max

e
=
_

2
t
+
2
n

e
>
max,old
yes
no
Loading
Unloading
T
n
= eq(2.3)
T
t
= eq(2.4)
T
i

i
= eq(B.1-B.4)
T
n
= eq(3.11)
T
t
= eq(3.12)
T
i

i
= eq(B.16-B.19)
Figure 4.5: Benchmark results for subsequent opening and closing
of the double cantilever beam
23
Chapter 5
Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions
Spurious oscillations: The investigation into the spurious oscillations did not have the
desired depth. It is not yet clear what the exact cause of these oscillations is, other
than it has to do with coupled eigenmodes. However, this behaviour does not need to
be a problem, since it can be avoided by using mesh renement or a Newton-Cotes
integration scheme.
Irreversibility: The uncoupled and the rst attempt at coupled implementation of ir-
reversibility have their shortcomings. The rst implementation exhibits no coupling
between the normal and the tangential direction. This implementation is therefore not
very useful when coupled loads are applied, such as a mixed mode load. Neither is it
very useful when subsequent loading is applied in dierent directions. This model has
been modied to show coupled behaviour, by rigorously coupling the history parameters
to each other. This implementation is able to describe subsequent loading, but it is too
instable to apply a complex load or to apply a load to multiple cohesive zone elements,
such as the benchmark problem. This is due to the extensive use of several criteria
and statements. The nal coupled implementation is able to describe both subsequent
and mixed mode loading, because of the interpolation between the maximum eective
opening and the origin. This results in a model in which the unloading path can vary,
but the tractions and the stinesses can still be calculated.
Benchmark test: The model seems to describe the analytical solution quite well. The
computed force-displacement curve lies very close to the analytical solution. Subse-
quently opening and closing of the beam leads to the desired result, since unloading is
linear to the origin.
Recommendations
There are some issues that still deserve attention regarding the nal implementation, as one
can not yet call the model robust. For instance, it is debatable whether damage should grow
24
for compression as it is assumed here. To avoid this, the eective opening can be made in-
dependent of
n
when the cohesive zone is compressed. Furthermore, a three dimensional
implementation of irreversible behaviour would be useful. This will allow more realistic sim-
ulations than is possible at the moment. Regarding a three dimensional implementation, it
is even more important that the model is able to describe irreversible behaviour in a robust
way, since the mesh becomes increasingly complex. Finally, it may be useful to investigate to
possibility to develop dierent constitutive relations. Since the current model already exhibits
damage evolution, and therefore damage can not be described directly, it may be worthwhile
to try to develop a model which is not based on the Xu and Needleman model. Such a model
could use an energy potential to describe the elastic response alongside another potential
which describes damage growth, similar to continuum damage mechanics. Furthermore, the
inuence of the element size may be investigated, the element width should be less than one
tenth of the characteristic opening, according to Tomar et al. (2004).
25
Bibliography
Alfano, G. and Criseld, M.A. (2001). Finite element interface models for the delamina-
tion analysis of laminated composites: mechanical and computational issues. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 50, 17011736.
Barenblatt, G. (1962). The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture.
Advances in Applied Mechanics, 7, 55129.
van den Bosch, M.J., Schreurs, P.J.G. and Geers, M.G.D. (2004). Background and implemen-
tation of a cohesive zone element. Internal report.
Chandra, N., Li, H., Shet, C. and Ghonem, H. (2002). Some issues in the application of
cohesive zone models for metal-ceramic interfaces. International Journal of Solids and
Structures, 39, 28272855.
Davies, G.A.O. (2002). Benchmarks for composite delamination. NAFEMS publication
R0084.
Dugdale, D. (1960). Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. Journal of the Mechanics and
Physics of Solids, 8, 100104.
Gon calves, J., de Moura, M., de Castro, P. and Marques, A. (2000). Interface element includ-
ing point-to-surface constraints for three-dimensional problems with damage propagation.
Engineering Computations, 17, 2847.
Ortiz, M. and Pandol, A. (1999). Finite-deformation irreversible cohesive elements for three-
dimensional crack-propagation analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 44, 12671282.
Schellekens, J.C.J. and de Borst, R. (1993). On the numerical integration of interface elements.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 36, 4366.
van der Sluis, O. (2004). Continuum mechanical failure models a literature overview. Philips
CFT, CTB591-04-2422, Internal Philips report.
Tomar, V., Zhai, J. and Zhou, M. (2004). Bounds for element size in a variable stiness
cohesive nite element model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
61, 18941920.
Xu, X. and Needleman, A. (1994). Numerical simulations of fast crack growth in brittle solids.
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 42, 13971434.
26
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Olaf van der Sluis from Philips Applied Technologies (or PAT, formerly
known as Philips CFT) for his supervision and for helping me out with the project many
times during my internship there. Furthermore I would like to thank Ron Peerlings from the
university for his supervision and critical comment during my internship and for afterwards
helping me with the nishing touch on the nal implementation.
27
Appendix A
Derivation of tangent stinesses
loading stinesses
The tangents for loading follow by straightforward dierentiation of equations (2.3) and (2.4)
as
T
n

n
=

n

n
exp
_

n
_
_
_
1

2
n
_
exp
_

2
t

2
t
_
+
+
1 q
r 1
_
1 exp
_

2
t

2
t
__
_

n
+

n

2
n

n
__
(A.1)
T
n

t
=

n

n
exp
_

n
_
_
2

2
t
exp
_

2
t

2
t
_
+
+ 2
1 q
r 1

2
t
exp
_

2
t

2
t
__
r

n

n
_
_
(A.2)
T
t

n
= 2

2
t

t
exp
_

n
_
exp
_

2
t

2
n
_
_
r q
r 1
_
1

n

n
_
q
_
(A.3)
T
t

t
= 2

2
t
exp
_

n
_
_
q +
r q
r 1

n
__
1
2
2
t

2
t
_
exp
_

2
t

2
t
_
(A.4)
28
coupled stinesses for unloading
To obtain the stinesses in case of unloading using the coupled implementation with scaling
the following unloading tractions are used
T
unl
n
=

e

max
T
n
(

n
,

t
) (A.5)
T
unl
t
=

e

max
T
t
(

n
,

t
) (A.6)
with

n
=

max

n
(A.7)

t
=

max

t
(A.8)
T
unl
n
and T
unl
t
are the unloading tractions in the normal and tangential direction respectively.
The variation of
e
is needed for the dierentiation of T
unl
n
and T
unl
t
and can be derived as

2
e
=
2
n
+
2

2
t
(A.9)
2
e

e
= 2
n

n
+ 2
2

t
(A.10)

e
=

n

n
+
2

t

t
(A.11)
The variation of the traction in normal direction, T
unl
n
, can be derived as
T
unl
n
=
1

max

e
T
n
+

e

max
T
n

n
_

max

n


max

2
e

e
_
+
+

e

max
T
n

t
_

max

t


max

2
e

e
_
=
_
1

max
T
n


n

e
T
n

e
T
n

t
_

e
+
T
n

n
+
T
n

t
=
_
1

max
T
n


n

e
T
n

e
T
n

t
__

n
+
2

t

t
_
+
+
T
n

n
+
T
n

t
=
_

n

max

e
T
n
+
2

2
t

2
e
T
n

2
e
T
n

t
_

n
+
+
_

2

t

max

e
T
n
+

2
n

2
e
T
n

2
e
T
n

n
_

t
(A.12)
29
The variation of the traction in shear direction:
T
unl
t
=
1

max

e
T
t
+

e

max
T
t

n
_

max

n


max

2
e

e
_
+
+

e

max
T
t

t
_

max

t


max

2
e

e
_
=
_
1

max
T
t


n

e
T
t

e
T
t

t
__

n
+
2

t

t
_
+
+
T
t

n
+
T
t

t
=
_

n

max

e
T
t
+
2

2
t

2
e
T
t

2
e
T
t

t
_

n
+
+
_

2

t

max

e
T
t
+

2
n

2
e
T
t

2
e
T
t

n
_

t
(A.13)
The tangent stinesses for unloading then become
T
unl
n

n
=

n

max

e
T
n
+
2

2
t

2
e
T
n

2
e
T
n

t
(A.14)
T
unl
n

t
=
2

t

max

e
T
n
+

2
n

2
e
T
n

2
e
T
n

n
(A.15)
T
unl
t

n
=

n

max

e
T
t
+
2

2
t

2
e
T
t

2
e
T
t

t
(A.16)
T
unl
t

t
=
2

t

max

e
T
t
+

2
n

2
e
T
t

2
e
T
t

n
(A.17)
30