Meccanica (2010) 45: 297304

DOI 10.1007/s11012-009-9248-5

S I M U L AT I O N , O P T I M I Z AT I O N & I D E N T I F I C AT I O N

Computational models for mode I composite fracture

failure: the virtual crack closure technique
versus the two-step extension method
J. Bonhomme A. Argelles M.A. Castrillo
J. Via

Received: 24 March 2009 / Accepted: 11 September 2009 / Published online: 29 September 2009
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract This paper deals with the numerical de-
termination of the energy release rate under mode I
in carbon fibre reinforced composites (CFRC). Two
different models are reviewed: the virtual crack clo-
sure technique (VCCT) and the Two-step extension
method. The Two-step extension method needs two
computational steps in order to calculate the energy
release rate (G). The VCCT method is able to pro-
vide ERR value only from one computational step.
Results were compared with empirical data obtained
from double cantilever beam (DCB) tests carried out
on unidirectional AS4/8552 carbon/epoxy laminates.
This study showed that, in a pure mode I state, results
obtained via the Two-step extension method were in
agreement with a straightforward calculation of the
elastic energy variation in the system. As expected,
J. Bonhomme () A. Argelles M.A. Castrillo
Department of Construction and Manufacturing
Engineering, University of Oviedo, Edificio
Departamental Oeste, 33203 Gijn, Asturias, Spain
e-mail: bonhomme@uniovi.es
A. Argelles
e-mail: antonio@uniovi.es
M.A. Castrillo
e-mail: miguel@uniovi.es
J. Via
Department of Materials Science and Metallurgical
Engineering, University of Oviedo, Edificio
Departamental Este, 33203 Gijn, Asturias, Spain
e-mail: jaure@uniovi.es
results obtained from VCCT and Two-step extension
models converge as element length decreases. Regard-
ing the comparison between experimental and numer-
ical results, the study showed that a correction for
testing devices compliance was needed to match both
models.
Keywords Mode I fracture Composite
delamination Virtual crack closure technique
Two-step extension method
1 Introduction
Failure due to delamination is the most frequently ob-
served damage in carbon fibre reinforced plastic struc-
tures (CFRP) as the energy required to extend the
crack between plies is lower than that required for
cracking across them.
Over the last years, an extensive work has been
developed in order to predict the delamination onset
and crack growth by means of analytical methods, ex-
perimental tests and numerical procedures in differ-
ent laminate structures and crack configurations [1, 2].
The understanding of fracture mechanisms could im-
prove the reliability of composite design and optimiza-
tion approaches [3]
There are several methods documented in the liter-
ature for computing the energy release rate by means
of FE models. Among these methods, the virtual crack
298 Meccanica (2010) 45: 297304

closure technique (VCCT) has been the most widely

used to calculate G [47]. To date, only the ABAQUS
code has implemented this technique among the ma-
jor commercial general purpose finite element codes.
Nevertheless, it is possible to programme specific sub-
routines using APDL script in ANSYS and other FEM
commercial packages to perform the calculations.
This paper compares the VCCT model, the Two-
step extension method and a straightforward calcula-
tion of the elastic energy variation in the system for
the calculation of G in mode I. Along this work, em-
pirical data obtained from mode I tests of unidirec-
tional AS4/8552 CFRC have been used as a reference Fig. 1 Step 1 for the VCCT method. DOFs at coincident nodes
are coupled
to compare results.

2 The virtual crack closure technique

This method has been the most widely used for pre-
dicting failure in composite laminates. It has evolved
from the finite crack extension method and the virtual
crack extension method and is based on Irwins crack
closure integral [8]. Firstly, it was formulated by Ry-
bicki and Kanninen [9].
Giving a laminate with an initial crack length (a),
the following hypotheses are assumed in this method
when the crack extends a length a:
The released energy is identical to the energy re-
Fig. 2 Step 2 for the VCCT method. DOFs of the nodes at the
quired to close the crack.
crack front are released and the corresponding forces and dis-
Being a small enough, the stress state at the crack placements are computed
tip does not change significantly.
Figure 1 shows the FEM model. The crack path is
modelled using pairs of coincident nodes with identi- Fy2i : vertical forces at the crack tip
cal coordinates. Coincident nodes initially have all de- v1i : vertical displacements of the released nodes
grees of freedom (DOFs) coupled together in the un-
B: specimen width
loaded model. When the imposed load reaches a criti-
a: crack increment
cal value, the coupled DOFs of the nodes at the crack
n: number of nodes placed along the crack front
tip are released. The nodes are then allowed to move
and the crack extends one element length a (Fig. 2). (number of nodes in a row)
The critical energy release rate (GI c ) is then calcu- For elements with mid-side nodes, as described by
lated in the second step by means of the force at the
Krueger [5], two nodes must be released in order
crack tip and the displacement of the released nodes.
to avoid kinematic incompatibilities. This can be ex-
The above procedure can be analytically described
pressed as:
as follows:

1 
n
1 
n

GI = Fy2i (v1i v1 i ) (1) GI = Fy3i (v1i v1 i ) + Fy4i (v2i v2 i )
2Ba 2Ba
i=1 i=1

where: (2)
Meccanica (2010) 45: 297304 299

3 The two-step extension method placed on the midplane during lamination in order to
produce an artificial delamination to initiate the crack.
As in the VCCT, in this method the crack path is mod- The mechanical properties of the laminate are
elled using pairs of coincident nodes. Now, however, shown in Table 1.
the forces at the crack tip are calculated in the first
step. The imposed displacement in the sample is then
held and the coupled DOFs of the nodes at the crack 6 Experimental procedure
tip are released in the second step. Displacements are
then calculated in this second step. As a result, cal- Double cantilever beam (DCB) specimens were pre-
culation must be done with results from two different pared to carry out mode I fracture tests following
steps. In this case, forces and displacements are calcu- ASTM Standard D 5528-01. The DCB specimen,
lated in the same row of nodes (1 1 ). This procedure shown in Fig. 3, consists of a rectangular sample of
can be analytically described as follows: uniform thickness containing a non-adhesive insert on
the midplane that serves as a delamination initiator.
1 
n
Opening forces are applied to the specimen by means
GI = Fy1i (v1i v1 i ) (3)
2Ba of a pair of hinges bonded to one end of the specimen.
i=1
The applied force (P ) versus the opening displace-
And the corresponding equation for 8-node elements ment () is recorded on a computer. A critical value
is: of P (Pc ) is calculated from this curve as the onset
of the crack growth. This parameter may be calculated
1 
n

GI = Fy1i (v1i v1 i ) + Fy2i (v2i v2 i ) as the point of deviation from linearity (NL), the point
2Ba at which delamination is visually observed (VIS) and
i=1
(4) the point at which the compliance has increased by 5%
or the load has reached a maximum value (5%/max).
A travelling optical microscope (100) was used to
4 The elastic energy variation method measure the crack length during the test.

The delamination process is characterized by means of Table 1 Laminate mechanical properties

the energy release rate (G), which is a measurement of
Property MPa
the energy lost in the test specimen per unit of speci-
men width for an infinitesimal increase in delamina- E11 (Longitudinal elastic modulus) 144,000
tion length. In mathematical form: E22 (Transversal elastic modulus) 10,600
1 dU G12 (Shear elastic modulus) 5,360
G= (5) 11 (Longitudinal tensile strength) 1,703
B da
22 (Transversal tensile strength) 30,8
FEM software allows a direct calculation of the elastic
s (Shear strength) 67,7
energy of the system for a given load state. Therefore,
GI c can be calculated by means of (5) in two compu-
tational steps by computing the change in the elastic
energy of the system before and after the crack exten-
sion.

5 Material and specimen preparation

The material used as a reference in this study was

a Hexcel AS4/8552 6 mm thick unidirectional car-
bon fibre reinforced epoxy laminate. The structure of
the laminate was [0 ]16s . A non-adherent insert was Fig. 3 DCB specimen
300 Meccanica (2010) 45: 297304

Linear elastic behaviour is assumed in the calcula- In the CC method, n is the slope of the log C versus
tion of G used in this test method. log a least squares fit. In this case, the compliance and
Three data reduction methods were used to calcu- the delamination length follow the Berrys approach
late GI c [10]: [10, 11]:
(a) The Modified Beam Theory (MBT) Method: C = ka n (9)
3P On the other hand, A1 can be determined as the slope
GI c = (6)
2B (a + ||) of the least squares fit of a/ h versus C 1/3 [10].
In the DCB test, G value increases and then stabi-
(b) The Compliance Calibration (CC) Method:
lizes. The reason of this behaviour is the formation of
nP fibre bridging between the arms of the sample (Fig. 4).
GI c = (7) This test was carried out on an MTS testing ma-
2Ba
chine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Five sam-
(c) The Modified Compliance Calibration (MCC) ples were tested. Table 2 summarizes the results ob-
Method: tained in the tests.
2
3P 2 C 3
GI c = (8)
2A1 Bh 7 Numerical analysis
where:
A commercial FEM package ANSYS 8.0 was used to
P : load simulate mode I facture tests. Collapsed elements and
: load point displacement standard elements were studied at the crack tip. In or-
B: specimen width der to define the mesh around the crack tip for col-
h: specimen thickness lapsed elements, the ANSYS KSCON command has
a: delamination length
C: compliance
, n, A1 : calibration parameters
 corrects the beam theory for a perfectly built-in
double cantilever beam (rotation may occur at the de-
lamination front). It can be determined experimen-
tally by generating a least squares plot of the cube
root of compliance C 1/3 , as a function of delamina-
tion length a [10]. Fig. 4 Typical fibre bridging developed during mode I tests

Table 2 Mode I energy release rate. Experimental tests

Sample Displacement Max. Load GI c [J/m2 ] GI c [J/m2 ] GI c [J/m2 ]

at Max. Load [mm] [N] (MBT) (CC) (MCC)

1 1.851 138.0 298.2 310.5 292.5

2 2.085 130.7 303.4 317.5 309.8
3 1.865 167.0 347.0 383.9 350.3
4 1.834 123.3 265.5 276.2 253.2
5 1.873 134.1 296.5 309.6 284.7

Mean 1.902 138.6 302.1 319.5 298.1

S.d. 0.104 16.8 29.2 39.4 35.7

S.d.: standard deviation

Meccanica (2010) 45: 297304
been used. In this case, the mean length of the ele-
ments at the crack tip was 0.6 mm (a/a = 0.012).
Nevertheless, different element lengths have been used
at the crack tip to run the problem as showed in Table 4
(from 0.1 to 1 mm).
Results showed that the energy release rate calcu-
lation (GI c ) did not change significantly. Collapsed
elements seems to be more accurate than regular el-
ements to obtain KI C values where results are related
to stress concentrations, but regarding to energy calcu-
lations they do not seem to improve GI c calculations.
Figures 5 and 6 show the mesh around the crack tip
for collapsed and regular elements.
The following element types were tested in differ-
ent runs:
Plane42: 4-node 2D solid element with two degrees
of freedom at each node (translations in the nodal x
and y directions)
Plane82: 8-node 2D solid element with two degrees
of freedom at each node (translations in the nodal x
and y directions)
Fig. 5 2D model with collapsed elements around the crack tip (half model)
Fig. 6 2D model with regular elements at the crack tip
301
Solid95: 20-node 3D solid element with three de-
grees of freedom at each node (translations in the
nodal x, y and z directions)
Solid191: 20-node 3D layered solid element with
three degrees of freedom at each node (translations
in the nodal x, y and z directions)
Following the experimental procedure, the critical
load per unit width was applied to the model. A lin-
ear elastic model was used to simulate the material
behaviour.
Table 3 shows a comparison between numerical and
experimental compliance obtained when the critical
load was applied to the ends of the sample.
As can be seen from these results, all the elements
used to model the loading step gave similar results.
The numerical models gave results that were 25%
stiffer than the experimental tests. Certain factors, in
both the experimental and numerical models, can ex-
plain this mismatch. From the experimental point of
view the measurement of the displacement has been
influenced by the compliance of the testing devices.
302 Meccanica (2010) 45: 297304
Table 3 FEM compliance error (experimental compliance: 0.0135 mm/N)

Geometry Element Material model Compliance (mm/N) Error

2D Plane42 Solid/orthotropic 0.0102 24%

2D Plane82 Solid/orthotropic 0.0103 24%
3D Solid95 Solid/orthotropic 0.0102 25%
3D Solid191 Layered/orthotropic 0.0103 24%

Fig. 7 Inconsistent solution due to kinematic incompatibility

On the other hand, a linear elastic model was chosen
to perform the FE analysis whereas some degree of
non-linearity is always present in the real material near
the failure load. Nevertheless the load-displacement
curves were highly linear up to failure, so the mis-
match between experimental and numerical models
can be mainly attributed to the compliance of the test-
ing devices.
Figure 7 shows the calculation of GI c for 8-node
elements (elements with midside nodes) in which the
crack opening was modelled releasing the nodes one
by one. The kinematic incompatibility predicted by
Krueger [5] is shown as an inconsistent oscillatory
solution that fluctuated depending on the number of
nodes released at each time.
As there were not significant differences between
2D and 3D models in the preliminary runs, it was de-
cided to use 2D models (Plane42 elements in plane
strain) to perform the energy release rate calculations.
The critical load obtained in the experimental tests
was applied to the model. GI c was then calculated
through VCCT, Two-step extension method and by
computing the change in the elastic energy of the sys-
tem before and after the crack extension. The study
was performed for different element lengths. The ob-
tained results are shown in Table 4.
The MBT method was selected as the experimental
reference value because it provided the lowest stan-
dard deviation (Table 2). As can be seen in Table 4,
FEM results were 30% lower than experimental results
for the analyzed sample (the difference oscillated be-
tween 20 to 30% error for other samples), similar to
the difference observed between numerical and exper-
imental compliance in the preliminary calibration runs
Meccanica (2010) 45: 297304 303
Table 4 GI c numerical and experimental results

a (mm) (element length) 0.1 0.125 0.25 0.5 1

a/a 0.0022 0.0027 0.0055 0.0110 0.0220

GI c (VCCT) (J/m2 ) 225.4 225.2 223.8 221.0 215.3
GI c (Two-step extension) (J/m2 ) 226.3 226.3 226.0 225.3 223.8
GI c (U ) (J/m2 ) 226.2 226.2 226.1 225.4 223.8

GI c (exper.) (J/m2 ) (MBT) 302.1

GI c (VCCT): Virtual crack closure technique

GI c (Two-step extension): Two-step extension method
GI c (U ): GI c calculated through the elastic energy change in the system

Fig. 8 GI c versus element length

(Table 3). Another consequence of this stiffness mis-
match, is that numerical results depend on weather we
select the experimental load (Pc ) or displacement (c )
as critical values to input into the FEM model.
On the other hand, it can be seen that the Two-
step extension results are coincident with those de-
rived from the elastic energy decrease in the system,
which can be easily calculated using the ANSYS code.
Figure 8 shows a plot of the calculated GI c values
versus element length. As can be seen, VCCT gives
lower results than the two-step extension method. It
can also be observed in this figure that the VCCT
method is more sensitive to element size than the two-
step extension method. Furthermore, as expected, both
models converge as the element length decreases.
The obtained results in this study, suggested the
need for testing machine compliance calibration to im-
prove the convergence between experimental and nu-
merical models.
In order to determine the testing devices compli-
ance, there were carried out four tests in mode I sam-
ples without a crack in their mid-plane. The tests
304
Table 5 Stiffness of the testing devices (N/mm)
Sample Stiffness (N/mm)
1 391.6
2 389.7
3 343.6
4 337.6
Mean 365.6
S.d. 29.0
S.d.: standard deviation
were carried out at the same speed as in mode I tests
(0.5 mm/min) up to the maximum load found in GI c
tests. Table 5 shows the stiffness of the testing devices.
Corresponding corrections were applied to both ex-
perimental and numerical models, lowering the mis-
match between them below 9%.
8 Conclusions
Finite Element Modelling is a very useful technique
for studying fracture problems from a theoretical point
of view. Experimental and numerical models comple-
ment each other in order to further understand the
crack opening process in CFRC.
In mode I crack opening, the VCCT method fur-
nishes slightly lower results than the two-step exten-
sion method. On the other hand the two-step extension
method gives results that are coincident with the calcu-
lation of the elastic energy change in the system. Both
VCCT and Two-step extension methods converge as
element length decreases.
Finally, it was needed to apply a correction for test-
ing machine compliance in order to match the experi-
mental and numerical models. This correction lowered
Meccanica (2010) 45: 297304
the mismatch between both models from values next to
30% to values less than 10%.
References
1. Carloni C, Piva A, Viola E (2004) Biaxial load effect
on crack initiation for orthotropic materials. Meccanica
39(4):331344. doi:10.1023/B:MECC.0000029363.67419.
80
2. Krueger R (2006) Computational fracture mechanics for
composites. State of the art and challenges, NAFEMS
Nordic seminar: prediction and modelling of failure using
FEA, Copenhagen/Roskilde, Denmark
3. Dehmous H, Welemane H, Karama M, Tahar K (2008) Re-
liability approach for fibre-reinforced composites design.
Int J Simul Multidiscip Des Optim 2:19. doi:10.1051/
smdo:2008001
4. Leski A (2007) Implementation of the virtual crack clo-
sure technique in engineering FE calculations. Finite
Elem Anal Des 43(3):261268. doi:10.1016/j.finel.2006.
10.004
5. Krueger R (2004) Virtual crack closure technique. History,
approach and applications. Appl Mech Rev 57:109143.
doi:10.1115/1.1595677
6. Mikulik Z, Prusty BG, Thomson RS, Kelly DW (2006)
Application of fracture mechanics-based methodologies for
failure predictions in composite structures. Conference on
damage in composite materials, Stuttgart
7. Hellen TK (1975) On the method of virtual crack extension.
Int J Numer Meth Eng 9(1):187207
8. Irwin GR (1958) Fracture I. In: Flge S (ed) Handbuch der
Physik. Springer, New York
9. Rybicki EF, Kanninen MF (1977) Finite element calcu-
lation of stress intensity factors by a modified crack clo-
sure integral. Eng Fract Mech 9(4):931938. doi:10.1016/
0013-7944(77)90013-3
10. Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture
toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix
composites (2001) ASTM D 5528-01, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
11. Berry JP (1963) Determination of fracture surface ener-
gies by the cleavage technique. J Appl Phys 34(1):6268.
doi:10.1063/1.1729091