Theoretical and Computational Aspects

of Cohesive Zone Modeling

NAMAS CHANDRA
Department of Mechanical Engineering
FAMU-FSU College of Engineering
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Fl-32310

AMML

What is CZM and why is it important

In the study of solids and design of nano/micro/macro structures,
thermomechanical behavior is modeled through constitutive equations.
Typically is a continuous function of , &, f(, , &) and their history.
Design is limited by a maximum value of a given parameter ( ) at any local point.
What happens beyond that condition is the realm of fracture, damage, and failure
mechanics.
CZM offers an alternative way to view and failure in materials.

Fracture/Damage theories to model failure

Fracture Mechanics Linear solutions leads to singular fieldsdifficult to evaluate
Fracture criteria based on K IC ,G IC ,J IC ,CTOD,...
Non-linear domain- solutions are not
unique
Additional criteria are required for crack
initiation and propagation

Basic breakdown of the principles of

mechanics of continuous media
Damage mechanics can effectively reduce the strength and
stiffness of the material in an average
sense, but cannot create new surface
E%

D 1 , Effective stress =
E
1 D

CZM is an Alternative method to Model Separation

CZM can create new surfaces.
Maintains continuity conditions mathematically,
despite the physical separation.
CZM represents physics of the fracture process at
the atomic scale.
It can also be perceived at the meso- scale as the
effect of energy dissipation mechanisms, energy
dissipated both in the forward and the wake
regions of the crack tip.
Uses fracture energy(obtained from fracture tests)
as a parameter and is devoid of any ad-hoc
criteria for fracture initiation and propagation.
Eliminates singularity of stress and limits it to the
cohesive strength of the the material.
It is an ideal framework to model strength,
stiffness and failure in an integrated manner.
Applications: geomaterials, biomaterials, concrete,
metallics, composites.

Dissipative Micromechanisims Acting in the wake and forward

region of the process zone at the Interfaces of
Monolithic and Heterogeneous Material
W a k e o f c ra c k tip

F ib ril (M M C b rid g in g

max

M ic ro v o id
c o a le s c e n c e

F o rw a rd o f c ra c k tip
P la stic
zone

M e ta llic
C le a v a g e
fr a c tu r e

G r a in b rid g in g

O x id e b rid g in g

N O M A T E R IA L
S E P A R A T IO N

L O C A T IO N O F C O H E S IV E
C R A C K T IP

C O M P L E T E M A T E R IA L
S E P A R A T IO N

E
A

l1

max

, X
sep

l2
W A K E

FO R W A R D

T h ic k n e ss o f
c e ra m ic in te r fa c e
C r a c k M e a n d e rin g
P la s tic w a k e

F ib ril( p o ly m e rs )
b rid g in g

In trin s ic d is s ip a tio n
M A T E R IA L
C R A C K T IP

M A T H E M A T IC A L
C R A C K T IP

C O H E S IV E
C R A C K T IP

P re c ip ita te s
C r a c k D e f le c tio n
C ra c k M e a n d e rin g

C e ra m ic

E x trin s ic d is s ip a tio n
M ic ro c ra c k in g
in itia tio n
M ic ro v o id
g ro w th /c o a le s c e n c e

C o n ta c t W e d g in g
IN A C T IV E P L A S T IC Z O N E
(P la s tic w a k e )

sep
E

D max
D

W A K E

C o n ta c t S u rfa c e
(fric tio n )
P la s tic ity in d u c e d
c ra c k c lo s u re

FO R W A R D

D e la m in a tio n

C o rn e r a to m s

P la s tic W a k e

F a c e c e n tere d
a to m s

FCC

P h ase
tra n s fo rm a tio n

A C T IV E P L A S T IC Z O N E

C y c lic lo a d in d u c e d
c ra c k c lo s u re

E L A S T IC S IN G U L A R IT Y Z O N E

Concept of wake and forward region in the

cohesive process zone

AMML

C o rn e r a to m s

B CC

B o d y c e n te r e d
a to m s

In te r/tra n s g ra n u la r
f r a c tu r e

Active dissipation mechanisims participating at the cohesive process zone

Conceptual
ConceptualFramework
Frameworkof
ofCohesive
CohesiveZone
ZoneModels
Modelsfor
forinterfaces
interfaces

1 is an interface surface separating two domains 1 , 2

(identical/separate constitutive behavior).

After fracture the surface 1 comprise of unseparated surface and
completely separated surface (e.g. * ); all modeled within the concept of CZM.
Such an approach is not possible in conventional mechanics of continuous media.

Development of CZ Models-Historical Review

Figure (a) Variation of Cohesive
traction (b) I - inner region,
II - edge region

Barenblatt (1959) was

first to propose the concept
of Cohesive zone model to
brittle fracture

Molecular force of cohesion acting near the edge of the crack at its surface (region II ).
The intensity of molecular force of cohesion f is found to vary as shown in Fig.a.
The interatomic force is initially zero when the atomic planes are separated by normal
intermolecular distance and increases to high maximum f m ETo / b : E /10 after that
it rapidly reduces to zero with increase in separation distance.
E is Youngs modulus and To is surface tension
(Barenblatt, G.I, (1959), PMM (23) p. 434)

 Dugdale (1960)
independently developed
the concept of cohesive
stress

For Ductile metals (steel)

Cohesive stress in the CZM is equated to yield stress Y
Analyzed for plastic zone size for plates under tension
Length of yielding zone s, theoretical crack length a,
and applied loading T are related in
2 T
s
the form

2
sin
(4 Y)
a
(Dugdale, D.S. (1960), J. Mech.Phys.Solids,8,p.100)

AMML

Phenomenological Models
The theory of CZM is based on sound principles.
However implementation of model for practical problems grew exponentially for
practical problems with use of FEM and advent of fast computing.
Model has been recast as a phenomenological one for a number of systems and
boundary value problems.
The phenomenological models can model the separation process but not the effect of
atomic discreteness.
Hillerborg etal. 1976 Ficticious
crack model; concrete
Bazant etal.1983 crack band
theory; concrete
Morgan etal. 1997 earthquake
rupture propagation; geomaterial
Planas etal,1991, concrete
Eisenmenger,2001, stone fragmentation squeezing" by evanescent
waves; brittle-bio materials
Amruthraj etal.,1995, composites

Grujicic, 1999, fracture behavior of polycrystalline; bicrystals

Costanzo etal;1998, dynamic fr.
Ghosh 2000, Interfacial debonding; composites
Rahulkumar 2000 viscoelastic
fracture; polymers
Liechti 2001Mixed-mode, timedepend. rubber/metal debonding
Ravichander, 2001, fatigue

Tevergaard 1992 particle-matrix

interface debonding
Tvergaard etal 1996 elasticplastic solid :ductile frac.; metals
Brocks 2001crack growth in
sheet metal
Camacho &ortiz;1996,impact
Dollar; 1993Interfacial
debonding ceramic-matrix comp
Lokhandwalla 2000, urinary
stones; biomaterials

Fracture process zone and CZM

CZM essentially models fracture process zone by
a line or a plane ahead of the crack tip subjected
to cohesive traction.

The constitutive behavior is given by

traction-displacement relationship, obtained
by defining potential function of the type
n , t1 , t 2
where n , t1 , t 2 are normal and tangential
displacement jump
The interface tractions are given by

Tn
, Tt1
, Tt 2
n
t1
t 2

Mathematical
crack tip

Material
crack tip

y
x

AMML

AMML

Critical
CriticalIssues
Issuesin
inthe
theapplication
applicationof
ofCZM
CZMto
tointerface
interfacemodels
models

What
Whatisisthe
therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenthe
thephysics/mechanics
physics/mechanicsofofthe
theseparation
separationprocess
processand
and
shape
shapeofofCZM?
CZM?(There
(Thereare
areasasmany
manyshapes/equations
shapes/equationsas
asthere
thereare
arenumber
numberof
ofinterface
interface
problems
problemssolved!)
solved!)
What
Whatisisthe
therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenCZM
CZMand
andfracture
fracturemechanics
mechanicsofofbrittle,
brittle,semi-brittle
semi-brittle
and
andductile
ductilematerials?
materials?
What
is
the
What is therole
roleofofscaling
scalingparameter
parameterininthe
thefidelity
fidelityof
ofCZM
CZMtotomodel
modelinterface
interface
behavior?
behavior?
What
Whatisisthe
thephysical
physicalsignificance
significanceof
of
--Shape
Shapeof
ofthe
thecurve
curveCC
--tmax
tmax and
andinterface
interfacestrength
strength
--Separation
Separationdistance
distancesepsepand
andCOD?
COD?
--Area
Areaunder
underthe
thecurve,
curve,work
workofoffracture,
fracture,fracture
fracturetoughness
toughnessGG (local
(localand
and
global)
global)

Motivation for studying CZM

CZM is an excellent tool with sound theoretical basis and computational
ease. Lacks proper mechanics and physics based analysis and evaluation.
Already widely used in fracture/fragmentation/failure

critical issues addressed here

Scales- What range of CZM parameters
are valid?
MPa or GPa for the traction
J or KJ for cohesive energy
nm or m for separation
displacement

What is the effect of plasticity

in the bounding material on
the fracture processes

Energy- Energy characteristics during

fracture process and how energy
flows in to the cohesive zone.

AMML

Importance of
shape of CZM

Atomistic simulations to extract cohesive properties

Motivation
What is the approximate scale to
examine
fracture in a solid
Atomistic at nm scale or
Grains at m scale or
Continuum at mm scale
Are the stress/strain and energy
quantities computed at one scale be valid
at other scales? (can we even define
stress-strain at atomic scales?)

AMML

Embedded Atom Method Energy Functions

(D.J.Oh and R.A.Johnson, 1989 ,Atomic Simulation of Materials,
Edts:V Vitek and D.J.Srolovitz,p 233)
233

The total internal

energy
Etot
Ei of the crystal
i

where
and

Ei F i

i f rij

1
2

r
j 1

ij

3
2

Internal energy associated with atom i

F i

ij

Embedded Energy of atom i.

Contribution to electron density

of ith atom and jth atom.
f rij Two body central potential
between ith atom and jth atom.

Energy (eV)

j 1

Ei

Al
Mg
Cu

Cutoff Distances
(4.86) (5.44) (6.10)

1
0
1
2
3
4
5

AMML

Atomic Seperation (A)

CONSTRUCTION OF COMPUTATIONAL CRYSTAL

GRAIN STRUCTURE AND COMPUTATIONAL CRYSTAL

CONSTRUCTION OF COMPUTATIONAL CRYSTAL

AMML

Boundary Conditions for GB Sliding

Construct symmetric tilt boundaries (STDB) by rotating a

single crystal (reflection)
Periodic boundary condition in X direction
Restrain few layers in lower crystal
Apply body force on top crystal

AMML

T Curve in Shear direction

A small portion of 9(221) CSL grain bounary before

And after application of tangential force

Shet C, Li H, Chandra N ;Interface models for GB sliding and migration

MATER SCI FORUM 357-3: 577-585 2001

T Curve in Normal direction

A small portion of 9(221) CSL grain boundary before

And after application of normal force

AMML

Results and discussion on atomistic simulation

Summary
complete debonding occurs when the
distance
of separation reaches a value of 2
o
to 3 A .
For 9 bicrystal tangential work of
separation along 2the grain boundary is of
the order 3 J / m and normal 2work of
separation is of the order 2.6 J / m .
For 3 -bicrystal, the work of separation
2
ranges from 1.5 to 3.7 J / m .
Rose et al. (1983) have reported that the
adhesive energy (work of separation)
for
2
J
/
m
aluminum is of the order 0.5
and the
o
separation distance 2 to 3 A
Measured energy to fracture copper
bicrystal with random
grain boundary is
2
J
/
m
of the order 54
and for 11 copper
bicrystal the energy to fracture is more
2
than 8000 J / m

Implications
The numerical value of the cohesive
energy is very low when compared
to the observed experimental results
Atomistic simulation gives only
surface energy ignoring the inelastic
energies due to plasticity and other
micro processes.
2 Wp

It should also be noted that the experimental value of fracture energy

includes the plastic work in addition
to work of separation
(J.R Rice and J. S Wang, 1989)

Table of surface and fracture energies of standard materials

Material

Nomenclature

Aluminium
alloys

2024-T351

35

14900

1.2

2024-T851

25.4

8000

1.2

T21

80

48970

2-4

T68

130

130000

2-4

Medium
Carbon

54

12636

2-4

High strength
alloys

98

41617

18 Ni (300)
maraging

76

25030

4-8

34-240

Titanium
alloys

Steel

Alumina

Al 2O3

SiC ceramics
Polymers

K IC MPam1/ 2

G IC J / m 2

1.2-1.7

particle size

10 m
0.11 to 1.28 m

6.1
PMMA

J / m2

220

Energy balance and effect of plasticity in the

bounding material

AMML

Motivation
It is perceived that CZM represents
the physical separation process.
As seen from atomistics, fracture
process comprises mostly of inelastic
dissipative energies.
There are many inelastic dissipative
process specific to each material
system; some occur within FPZ, and
some in the bounding material.
How the energy flow takes place
under the external loading within the
cohesive zone and neighboring
bounding material near the crack tip?
What is the spatial distribution of
plastic energy?
Is there a link between micromechanics
processes of the material and T curve.

Plasticity vs. other Dissipation Mechanisms

Since bounding material has its own

inelastic constitutive equation, what
is the proportion of energy dissipation
within that domain and fracture region
given by CZM.
Role of plasticity in the bounding
material is clearly unique; and cannot
be assigned to CZM.

AMML

Cohesive zone parameters of a ductile material

Al 2024-T3 alloy
The input energy in the cohesive model
are related to the interfacial stress and
characteristic displacement n as

n max e n

e
max t
2
The input energy n is equated to
material parameter
Based on the measured fracture value J IC
t

n t 8000 J / m 2
max ult 642MPa
n t 4.5 X 10 6 m

AMML

Material model for the bounding material

Elasto-plastic model for Al 2024-T3
Stress strain curve is given by

E
y
where y 320MPa,

1/ n

0.01347,
n 0.217173
E=72 GPa, =0.33,

and fracture parameter

K IC 25MPa m1/ 2

AMML

Geometry and boundary/loading conditions

a = 0.025m, b = 0.1m, h = 0.1m

AMML

Finite element mesh

28189 nodes, 24340 plane strain 4 node elements,

7300 cohesive elements (width of element along the crack plan is ~ 7x107 m

AMML

Global energy distribution

E w Ee E p Ec
E e and E p are confined to bounding material
E c is cohesive energy, a sum total of all dissipative
process confined to FPZ and cannot be recovered
during elastic unloading and reloading.

Purely elastic analysis

The conventional fracture mechanics uses the concept
of strain energy release rate
U
GJ
a
Using CZM, this fracture energy
G J 8000J / m 2 is dissipated and no plastic
dissipation occurs, such that

E w Ee Ec

AMML

Global energy distribution (continued)

Analysis with elasto-plastic material model
Two dissipative process
8000J / m 2

Plasticity within
Bounding material

Micro-separation
Process in FPZ
Implications

Issues
Fracture energy obtained from experimental results is sum total of all
dissipative processes in the material for
initiating and propagating fracture.
Should this energy be dissipated
entirely in cohesive zone?
Should be split into two
identifiable dissipation processes?

Leaves no energy for plastic work in the

bounding material
In what ratio it should be divided?
Division is non-trivial since plastic
dissipation depends on geometry, loading
and other parameters as
max

, n,S
i ,i 1,2,..

Ep Ep

where Si represents other factors arising from

the shape of the traction-displacement relations

AMML

What are the key CZM parameters that govern the energetics?

max in cohesive zone dictates the stress level achievable in the bounding
material.
Yield in the bounding material depends on its yield strength y and its post
yield (hardening characteristics.
Thus max y plays a crucial role in determining plasticity in the bounding
material, shape of the fracture process zone and energy distribution.
(other parameters like shape may also be important)

Global energy distribution (continued)

Recoverable elastic work E e 95 to
98% of external work

Cumulative Cohesive Energy

3
2.5

1.5

1
1

0.5
0

20

40

u / n

60

80

max y 1 to 1.5 : Elastic

behavior
max y 1.5 :

plasticity occurs.
max y
Plasticity increases with

Cumulative Plastic Work

3.5

Energy/(y n 1.0E2)

Plastic dissipation depends on max y

Variation of cohesive energy and plastic energy for

various max y ratios
(1) max y 1 (2) max y 1.5
(3) max y 2.0 (4) max y 2.5

AMML

Relation between plastic work and cohesive work

max y 1.5 (very small scale plasticity),

plastic energy ~ 15% of total dissipation.

max y 2.0 plastic work increases

considerably, ~100 to 200% as that of

cohesive energy.
For large scale plasticity problems the
amount of total dissipation (plastic and
2
cohesive) is much higher than 8000J / m .
Plastic dissipation very sensitive to max y
ratio beyond 2 till 3
Crack cannot propagate beyond max y 3
and completely elastic below max y 1.5

Cohesive Energy/( y n 1.0E2)

Plasticity induced at the initial stages

of the crack growth
plasticity ceases during crack
propagation.
Very small error is induced by ignoring
plasticity.

max y
max y = 2.0

2.5

max y = 2.5

1.5

0.5

Plastic Energy/( y n 1.0E2)

Variation of Normal Traction along the interface

The length of cohesive zone is also
max by
y
affected
ratio.
There is a direct correlation
between the shape of the tractiondisplacement curve and the normal
traction distribution along the
cohesive zone.
For lower max y ratios the
traction-separation curve flattens, this
tend to increase the overall cohesive
zone length.

AMML

Local/spatial Energy Distribution

A set of patch of elements (each having app. 50
elements) were selected in the bounding material.
m
The patches are approximately squares
(130
). They are spaced equally from each
other.

Adjoining these patches, patches of cohesive

elements are considered to record the cohesive
energies.

AMML

Variation of Cohesive Energy

The cohesive energy in the patch increases
up to point C (corresponding to max in
Figure ) after which the crack tip is
presumed to advance.
The energy consumed by the cohesive
elements at this stage is approximately 1/7
of the total cohesive energy for the present
CZM.
Once the point C is crossed, the patch of
elements fall into the wake region.
The rate of cohesive zone energy
absorption depends on the slope of the T
curve and the rate at which elastic
unloading and plastic dissipation takes place
in the adjoining material.
The curves flattens out once the entire
cohesive energy is dissipated within a given
zone.

Tn

max

max

sep

The variation of Cohesive Energy in the Wake and Forward

region as the crack propagates. The numbers indicate the
Cohesive Element Patch numbers Falling Just Below the
binding element patches

Variation of Elastic Energy

Considerable elastic energy is built up till
the peak of T curve is reached after
which the crack tip advances.
After passing C, the cohesive elements near
the crack tip are separated and the elements
in this patch becomes a part of the wake.
At this stage, the values of normal traction
reduces following the downward slope of
T curve following which the stress in the
patch reduces accompanied by reduction in
elastic strain energy.
The reduction in elastic strain energy is
used up in dissipating cohesive energy to
those cohesive elements adjoining this patch.
The initial crack tip is inherently sharp
leading to high levels of stress fields due to
which higher energy for patch 1
Crack tip blunts for advancing crack tip
leading to a lower levels of stress, resulting in
reduced energy level in other patches.

Tn

max

max

sep

Variation of Elastic Energy in Various Patch of

Elements as a Function of Crack Extension. The
numbers indicate Patch numbers starting from Initial
Crack Tip

Variation of Plastic Work ( max y 2.0)

plastic energy accumulates considerably
along with elastic energy, when the local
stresses bounding material exceeds the yield y
After reaching peak point C on T curve
traction reduces and plastic deformation
ceases. Accumulated plastic work is
dissipative in nature, it remains constant after
debonding.
All the energy transfer in the wake region
occurs from elastic strain energy to the
cohesive zone
The accumulated plastic work decreases up
to patch 4 from that of 1 as a consequence of
reduction of the initial sharpness of the crack.
Mechanical work is increased to propagate
the crack, during which the E c and E e does
not increase resulting in increased plastic
work. That increase in plastic work causes the
increase in the stored work in patches 4 and
beyond

Tn

max

max

sep

Variation of dissipated plastic energy in various

patched as a function of crack extension. The number
indicate patch numbers starting from initial crack tip.

Variation of Plastic Work ( max y 1.5)

max y 1, there is no plastic
dissipation.
max y 1.5

plastic work is induced only

in the first patch of element

No plastic dissipation during crack

growth place in the forward region

Tn

max

max

Initial sharp crack tip profile induces

high levels of stress and hence plasticity
in bounding material.

sep

During crack propagation, tip blunts

resulting reduced level of stresses
leading to reduced elastic energies and
no plasticity condition.
Variation of Plastic work and Elastic work in various patch
of elements along the interface for the case of max y 1.5 .
The numbers indicates the energy in various patch of

AMML
elements starting from the crack tip.

Contour plot of yield locus around the cohesive

crack tip at the various stages of crack growth.

AMML

Schematic of crack
initiation and
propagation
process in a ductile
material

Conclusion
CZM provides an effective methodology to study and simulate fracture in solids.
Cohesive Zone Theory and Model allow us to investigate in a much more
fundamental manner the processes that take place as the crack propagates in a
number of inelastic systems. Fracture or damage mechanics cannot be used in
these cases.
Form and parameters of CZM are clearly linked to the micromechanics.
Our study aims to provide the modelers some guideline in choosing appropriate
CZM for their specific material system.
max y ratio affects length of fracture process zone length. For smaller max y
ratio the length of fracture process zone is longer when compared with that of
higher ratio.
Amount of fracture energy dissipated in the wake region, depend on shape of
the model. For example, in the present model approximately 6/7th of total
dissipation takes place in the wake
Plastic work depends on the shape of the crack tip in addition to max y ratio.

Conclusion(contd.)
The CZM allows the energy to flow in to the fracture process zone, where a
part of it is spent in the forward region and rest in the wake region.
The part of cohesive energy spent as extrinsic dissipation in the forward region
is used up in advancing the crack tip.
The part of energy spent as intrinsic dissipation in the wake region is required
to complete the gradual separation process.
In case of elastic material the entire fracture energy given by the J IC of the
material, and is dissipated in the fracture process zone by the cohesive
elements, as cohesive energy.
In case of small scale yielding material, a small amount of plastic dissipation
(of the order 15%) is incurred, mostly at the crack initiation stage.
During the crack growth stage, because of reduced stress field, plastic
dissipation is negligible in the forward region.

AMML