Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314

www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech

Modeling of delamination using a discretized cohesive zone and

damage formulation
Rikard Borg*, Larsgunnar Nilsson, Kjell Simonsson
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Division of Solid Mechanics, Linköping Institute of Technology, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

Received 27 November 2001; received in revised form 25 February 2002; accepted 26 March 2002

Abstract
Delamination initiation and growth are analyzed by using a discrete cohesive crack model. The delamination is constrained to
grow along a tied interface. The model is derived by postulating the existence of a maximum load surface which limits the adhesive
forces in the process zone of the crack. The size of this maximum load surface is made dependent on the amount of dissipated crack
opening work, such that the maximum load surface shrinks to zero as a predefined amount of work is consumed. A damage for-
mulation is used to reduce the adhesive forces. Mode I, II and III loading or any combined loading is possible. An analytical
solution is obtained for a single mode opening and the implications of this result on the governing equations is discussed. The
delamination model is implemented in the finite element code LS-DYNA and simulation results are shown to be in agreement with
experimental results.
# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Carbon Fibers; C. Laminates; C. Delamination; C. Crack

1. Introduction mechanics is the natural foundation for a mathematical

Fiber composite materials are today used in a variety
of applications. They can be found in aircraft structures
as well as in sport equipment. Most fiber composite
materials have good static and fatigue strengths espe-
cially when considering their specific weights. They are,
however, sensitive to impact events and their vulner-
ability is further accentuated by the fact that low velo-
city impacts might induce critical damage within the
material while leaving no visible evidence on the surface.
Several different modes of damage can be found in an
impacted laminate. In modeling of reinforced compo-
sites it is common to account for fiber and matrix rela-
ted damage using a constitutive relation for each
lamina. Many such models have been proposed in the
literature and a brief review is given in Borg [1]. Addi-
tional damage in terms of delaminations, i.e. the
debonding of adjacent lamina, is usually accounted for
as cracks. As the number of these cracks is modest and
their locations predictable, the method of fracture
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-13-285743; fax: +46-13-
282717.
E-mail address: rikbo@ikp.liu.se (R. Borg).
0266-3538/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0266-3538(02)00070-2
description of these events.
A crack in a material under arbitrary loading can
grow in any direction. A delamination is a crack grow-
ing in the interface between two bodies, possibly of dif-
ferent materials. Thus a key feature for a delamination
is that its path of propagation is restricted to a well
defined surface.
During the years, several methods have been used for
analyzing the initiation and propagation of delamina-
tions. The approaches ranges from simple tie–break
interfaces based on stress criteria to advanced moving
mesh techniques using the critical energy release rate as
the threshold for growth. One of the more appealing
techniques found in the literature is the use of a
cohesive crack model. It is easily implemented in an
existing Finite Element (FE) code and it does not
rely on the existence of a pre-crack, as opposed to
methods using KC, GC etc., as thresholds for crack
growth.
The history of the cohesive crack model goes back to
Dugdale [2] who used it to estimate the size of the plas-
tic zone at notches. The cohesive zone model has been
further refined by others where Barenblatt [3] and Hil-
lerborg et al. [4] made significant contributions. Since
1300 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314
then many authors have considered crack and delami-
nation growing in one single mode, cf. Refs. [5–9].
Mixed mode I and mode II growth has also been
studied by several authors, see e.g. Refs. [10–15]. How-
ever, there is no direct correlation between the softening
behavior and the critical energy release rates, GIC
and GIIC. In the work by Crisfield et al. [16] this coupling
exists. Critical energy release rates for mode I and mode
II opening are used in a damage based cohesive zone
model to analyze mixed mode crack growth. Also
Jansson et al. [17] uses the critical energy release rate in
a damage and plasticity based model for the interface.
Mixed mode II and III growth is studied by Wisnom
and Chang [18] using nonlinear springs to model the
interface.
Foulk et al. [15] considers a cohesive zone model for a
general mixed mode case. In that work the energy
release rates are not used explicitly but the amount of
dissipated energy can be adjusted through other input
parameters. Sprenger et al. [19] uses a similar approach
where a single critical energy release rate is used in a
failure criteria. Allix et al. [20] has a general mixed mode
damage formulation. It is not stated explicitly as a
cohesive zone model but has all of its characteristics.
In Borg et al [21] a general cohesive zone model is
presented which accounts for different critical energy
release rates in all three crack opening modes. This is
realized by postulating the existence of a maximum load
surface. This surface controls the reduction of the
adhesive stresses in the interface such that the correct
energy release rates are obtained.
The present work includes an extension of the model
by Borg et al. [21], from here on denoted ‘‘the old
model’’. The main contribution in the present work is a
damage formulation which leads to a simpler and more
robust implementation. The special case of mode I
crack opening is also studied in more details.
The delamination model has been implemented in the
FE code LS-DYNA [22] using explicit time integration.
The reason for choosing an explicit FE solver was two-
folded. Firstly, an explicit solver is well suited to simu-
late short duration events, such as low velocity impacts,
for which this delamination model is developed. Sec-
ondly, potential pitfalls such as snap-back and snap-
through need no special treatment in a dynamic
approach, as opposed to static approaches for which
path following algorithms will be needed.
The governing equations are derived in Section 2
leading to a set of equations similar to those found in
classical plasticity. The equation governing the damage
evolution is further discussed in Section 3. The imple-
mentation is described in Section 4 and some limitations
of the governing equations are discussed in Section 5.
Finally, in Section 6 simulation results obtained with
the current model are compared with experimental
results.
1.1. Notation
The index notation is not fully adopted. Latin indices
take on the numbers 1, 2, 3 but the summation conven-
tion is not used. If summation is needed, it is written out
explicitly.
2. Problem formulation
As the delamination grows in an interface between
two bodies it would be natural to implement the cohe-
sive zone model as a boundary condition between two
bodies. A less formal approach, taken in this work, is to
neglect the presence of the interface when the FE for-
mulation is derived. This results in separate bodies that
does not interact with each other. The proper interac-
tion is then enforced by calculating and adding contact
forces based on the current geometry of the bodies and
the deformation history of the interface.
2.1. Governing equations
Several methods for implementing interfaces exists.
Here a simple linear penalty formulation will form the
basis for the cohesive zone model. This type of penalty
interface can be interpreted as tying coincident nodes
with three orthogonal springs. However, no spring ele-
ments are added to the FE model, only the forces the
springs exert on it. A local corotational coordinate sys-
tem is placed in the plane of the delamination at the tip
of the crack, see Fig. 1. All properties related to the
delamination model are given with respect to this coor-
dinate system.
The initial response in the springs is linear, and the
force displacement relations can be written
Pi ¼ ki Di ð1Þ
where Pi are penalty forces, Di are relative displace-
ments for the coincident nodes, and ki are the penalty
stiffnesses (of the fictitious springs). A positive displace-
ment Di represents opening of the crack, and a positive
force strives to close the crack.
As the coincident nodes are forced apart the adhesive
forces will eventually reach a maximum level and then
start to decrease. This reduction of the adhesive forces
can be accomplished by replacing Eq. (1) with a damage
formulation
Pi ¼ ð1  !i Þki Di ð2Þ
where ki are the initial stiffnesses and where !i 2 ½0; 1
are damage variables. The value !i ¼ 0 corresponds to
undamaged adhesive properties in direction i, while
 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314
Fig. 1. Orientation of the corotational coordinate system.
wi ¼ 1 corresponds to a complete loss of adhesive
properties in the same direction.
Contact has to be preserved in the e1 direction, see
Fig. 1. Thus damage cannot affect the force P1 when
D1 < 0. This can be accomplished by modifying P1 in
Eq. (2). Without the index notation all three forces are
now written as
P1 ¼ ð1  !1 Þk1 hD1 iþ þk1 hD1 i
P2 ¼ ð1  !2 Þk2 D2
P3 ¼ ð1  !3 Þk3 D3
where
1 1
hD1 iþ ¼ ðD1 þ jD1 jÞ and hD1 i ¼ ðD1  jD1 jÞ
2 2
It is assumed that the rate of the damage variables can
be written
: :
!i ¼ lAi
: The surface defined by F=0 is denoted the maximum
where l 5 0 is a damage multiplier and where Ai deter-
mines the direction of damage growth. Furthermore,
damage can only increase, not decrease. Thus, for each
of the fictitious springs the following must hold
: the state g=1 is reached. Then, by Eq. (7), it is required
!i 5 0
Let the function f ðPi Þ 2 ½0; 1 define a normalized
measure of the forces Pi such that f=0 for an unloaded
interface and f=1 for a fully loaded undamaged inter-
face. The definition of f is to hold regardless of the
loading direction, and the scalar value of f is used to
determine when damage starts to grow.
Energy is consumed when damage grows. The
amount of dissipated energy is defined as:
ðt
: P i Di
G i ¼ Pi Di dt 0 
0 2
1301
which is simply the applied work minus the currently
stored elastic energy. As long as the contact force
response is linear, the work done by the contact forces
are equal to the stored elastic energy. Thus G i will
remain zero until the maximum load level is reached.
Observe the difference between G i , which is in units
‘‘energy per node’’, and the energy release rate G, which
is in units ‘‘energy per area’’.
Let the function gðG i Þ 2 ½0; 1 define a normalized
measure of the amount of dissipated energy G i . When
g=0 no energy has been dissipated while g=1 implies
that all energy has been dissipated.
In order to control when and how damage grows, an
elastic region is defined by the function F.
  
F ¼ fðPi Þ ¼ 1  g G i ð7Þ
The relation between the elastic region and the
damage multiplier is similar to the plasticity theory.
When F < 0 the responses in the fictitious springs are
linear,
: thus forcing the damage growth to be zero, i.e
l ¼ 0. Damage is only allowed to grow when F=0 and
ð3Þ the state F > 0 is not admissible. These requirements can
be summarized by the following expression
: :
F 4 0; l 5 0; Fl ¼ 0 ð8Þ
which is also known as the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker,
KKT, conditions. Furthermore, when F=0, the time
derivative of Eq. (8) gives
::
Fl ¼ 0 ð9Þ
ð4Þ
also known as the consistency- or the loading-condition.
load surface.
A consequence of Eq. (7) is that g=0 allows for a
fully loaded interface before damage grows. If the load-
ing is increased further damage starts to growth until
ð5Þ that f=0, i.e. an unloaded (untied) interface.
The constitutive equations are summarized in Box 1.
What remains to be specified is the direction of damage
growth, i.e. Ai, as well as expressions for the functions f
and g. This will be the topic for Sections 3 and 5,
respectively.
3. Damage growth
In the literature there exists several proposals on how
to determine the direction in which a crack will grow.
ð6Þ Wu [23] proposes that crack growth takes place in the
direction that gives the largest energy release rate.
1302 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314

In the present formulation it is not necessary to solution at time tnþ1 . Iterations within one time incre-
determine in what direction the crack will grow, since it ment are denoted with a left superscript r on the vari-
is known. It is controlled by the interface geometry. able at hand, rxn . The discrete counterparts of the
However, it is not known in what mode the crack governing equations read
growth will take place. Using the ideas put forward by  
Wu [23] may have been a good way to determine crack Pinþ1 ¼ 1  !nþ1 i ki Dinþ1
: nþ1 :
growth mode but, as shown in the Appendix, this leads !i ¼ lnþ1
to an erroneous result.     
F nþ1 ¼ f Pinþ1  1  g G nþ1 i ð12Þ
Instead the generality of the proposed model is : nþ1 :
nþ1 nþ1 nþ1
reduced and a simpler isotropic damage model is tacitly F 40 l 50 F l ¼0
assumed. Ð tnþ1 : 0 Pinþ1 Dinþ1
nþ1
Gi ¼ 0 Pi D i dt 
2
: :
!i ¼ l ð10Þ

It is to be noted that the solution procedure for the

Allix et al. [20] also use an isotropic damage for-
mulation, but they formulate a damage evolution equa-
tion which is different from the one used in the present
model.
discretized problem relies on the KKT conditions rather
than the consistency condition.
The first step in the algorithm is to check if the
response is elastic. This is accomplished by computing a
first trial state assuming zero damage growth.

4. Implementation !ti ¼ !ni

  ð13Þ
Pit ¼ 1  !ti ki Dinþ1
A standard spatial discretization of the continuum
into finite elements leads to the following semi-discrete
equations
If this trial state is within the elastic region, i.e.
Mu€ ¼ fext  fint ð11Þ F t 4 0, then this trial state satisfies the governing equa-
tions, and is thus the actual solution.
where the contact forces are included in the external
load vector fext. Using the central difference method to !nþ1
i ¼ !ti
solve Eq. (11), leads to an explicit formulation where fext ð14Þ
Pinþ1 ¼ Pit
is computed using the updated geometry.
By xn we mean the approximate solution at time tn,
i.e. xn xðtn Þ where tn ¼ nt. The same holds for xnþ1 However, if this first trial state is not within the elastic
at time tn+1 while xt is reserved for a plausible, ‘‘trial’’, region, damage has increased and a backward Euler
scheme is used to update the damage
: :
!nþ1
i ¼ !ni þ t!nþ1
i ¼ !ni þ tlnþ1 ð15Þ

Box 1. Summary of constitutive equations :

This means that lnþ1 is needed to determine the new
state. Note that with this formulation
: the elastic trial
state is equivalent to setting lt ¼ 0.
P1 ¼ ð1  !1 Þk1 hD1 iþ þk1 hD1 i A second trial state can be established by using a
P2 ¼ ð1  !2 Þk2 D2 ‘‘continuous damage growth’’ hypothesis:
P3 ¼ ð1  !3 Þk3 D3 During continuous damage growth over several time-
: : steps it is plausible that the damage growth is :about the
:
! i ¼ l Ai same in two consecutive timesteps, i.e. lnþ1 ln .
F ¼ fðPiÞ  ð1  gðG i ÞÞ Leading to an improved trial state.
: : ::
F 4 0 l 5 0 Fl ¼ 0 ) Fl ¼ 0 : :
ðt lt ¼ ln
: Pi Di
G i ¼ Pi Di dt0  :
0 2 !ti ¼ !ni þ tlt ð16Þ
 
Pit ¼ 1  !ti ki Dinþ1
 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314 1303
 
Now, if F t  < tholF then this is a valid solution. If 5. Model characterization
not the solution is improved further by a corrector step.
This third step is derived by assuming that the func- 5.1. Choosing f and g
tion F n+1: can be expressed as a Taylor series in
terms
:t of lnþ1 with respect to the previous trial state Motivated by the results in the old model, see Borg et
l al. [21], simple power law expressions are used for f and
:  g.
F nþ1 ¼ F lnþ1 ¼ In the expression for f, the forces are normalized
 :  
 : t  @F  : nþ1 : t 2 using critical forces, PiC, that reflect the load carrying
 : :
Fl nþ1 ¼l t þ l nþ1
l 
: : : þO l l capacity of the interface in each direction.
@lnþ1 l nþ1 ¼l t
¼0  1   1
hP1 iþ jP2 j 2 jP3 j 3 0
ð17Þ f¼ þ þ ð19Þ
P1C P2C P3C

where
( Here 0 , 1 , 2 and 3 are positive material para-
@F X 3
@f meters. Note that only the positive part of the normal
: ¼ tki D nþ1 þ
nþ1 i
@l nþ1 @P force, P1C is accounted for. This is a simple way of
i¼1 i
:  nþ1 2 ! ) treating compressive contact and it implies that the
@g tDi  n :  D elastic region is independent of P1 when P1 < 0. The
3Di þ 2tDi þ i

@Gi nþ1 6 2 forces P2 and P3 corresponds to modus II and III crack
: growth. They can take on both positive and negative
Dinþ1 ¼ Din þ tDi ð17Þ values and as i may be any positive number, the abso-
lute value of these forces are used. It is to be noted that
: the dependence of friction is not accounted for in the
Knowing lt and ignoring higher order terms : it is present setting. Friction can be accounted for by incor-
possible to obtain a better approximation for lnþ1 . The porating a Coulomb frictional law into f.
corrector step is repeated until a converged solution is The dissipated work in the contact is normalized
achieved similar to f
 2

F nþ1 ¼ Fl:nþ1 ¼rþ1 l: ¼ ! 1 ! 2 ! 3 3 10
G 1 G 2 G 3

 : @F 
  :  g¼4 þ þ 5 ð20Þ
Fl:nþ1 ¼r l: þ rl :  þO l2 ¼ 0 ð18Þ G 1C G 2C G 3C
: :
@lnþ1 l nþ1 ¼r l

where
: : : Box 2. Elastic predictor
r
l ¼rþ1 l r l 8 8
>
> < gnþ1 ¼1
<
(1) 1  gn < tholg ?
yes ! pnþ1 ¼0
: i
The fourth step in the algorithm is a ‘‘back door’’ >
> DONE
:
designed to force the iterations to stop when the damage  t no ! 2:
parameter is getting close to unity. Thus, even before !i ¼ !ni
(2)
calculating the elastic trial state the outcome of the Pti ¼ ð1  !ti Þki Dnþ1
i
previous timestep is checked. If the adhesive forces are
close to failure they will be considered failed. This fail- (3) Ft ¼ FðPti ; Dnþ1
i Þ
ure is defined by gðG ni Þ > tholg , where tholg is close to 8 8 nþ1
>
> >
> g ¼ gn
unity. > >
>
> > !
< i
nþ1
¼ !ti
The complete algorithm is summarized in Boxes 2 and >
<
yes ! Pnþ1 ¼ Pti
3. Note that the force calculations in Boxes 2 and 3 are (4) Ft < 0 >
> :i
represented in their simplified version given in Eq. >
> > lnþ1
> ¼0
>
> :
(2) while Eq. (3) is used in the implemented algo- >
> DONE
:
rithm in order to obtain the proper contact inter- no ! BOX3
action.
1304 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314

where 0 , 1 2 and 3 are positive material parameters.
Other possible expressions for g found in the literature
are summarized in Greenhalgh et al. [24], all of which
may not lend themselves to the normalized form nee-
iC , Critical Stresses
ded in the definition of the current delamination
model.
With the functions f and g chosen the model is com-
pletely defined. The following user input is needed.
 0 ; i ; Material parameters for the function f
 0 ; i , Material parameters for the function g
 PiC , Critical forces
 G iC ; Amount of dissipated energy in mode I, II
and mode III crack opening, respectively
 ki ; Spring stiffnesses
Note that some of the input to the model are in terms
of nodal related units. When implemented in a FE pro-
gram the this type of input most conveniently given in
area related units instead:
 PiC !
 G iC ! GiC , Critical energy release rates in mode
I, II and mode III crack opening, respectively.
 ki ! kA i , Stiffnesses per unit area
The choice of the functions f and g must be made with
caution. Not only must each of them reflect experi-
mental results but, as will be shown in this section, they
must also be consistent to each other.
5.2. Single mode response
Considering the case of a prescribed monotonically
increasing displacement in mode I crack opening, the
response is initially elastic, but when P reaches PC

Box 3. Corrector steps

(1) r¼0

r
: :
(2) l ¼ ln

r
:
(3) !i ¼ !ni þ tr l

(4) r
Pi ¼ ð1 r !i Þki Dnþ1
i

(5) r
F ¼ Fðr Pi ; Dnþ1
i Þ

8 8 nþ1
>
> >
> g ¼ gðr Pi ; Dnþ1
i Þ
>
> >
> !nþ1
>
> < i ¼r !i
<
yes ! Pnþ1 ¼r P i
(6) jr Fj < tholF ? >
>
i
: nþ1 :
>
> >
> l ¼r l
>
> :
>
> DONE
:
no ! 7:
8 : r
>
>
r
l ¼ r F=ð@ð :FÞÞ
>
> @l :
>
< rþ1 !i ¼r !i þ tr l; rþ1 !i ¼ minð1; maxð0; rþ1 !i ÞÞ
(7) rþ1
Pi ¼ ð1 rþ1 !i Þki Dnþ1
>
> : r : r :
>
> rþ1
l ¼ l þ l
>
:
r¼rþ1

(8) ! 5:
 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314 1305

damage will start to grow. Damage growth continues Note how the choice 0 ¼ 1 to a great extent sim-
until a zero force is reached. Under these conditions plifies this expression.
damage is a function of the prescribed displacement, With the initial condition D(P=PC)= PkC the solution
! ¼ !ðDÞ, and consequently the adhesive force must of Eq. (23), obtained by the mathematical software
also be a function of the displacement, P ¼ PðDÞ. Maple [25], is
In order to obtain an analytical solution for the adhe- !
sive force, the parameters for the function g are chosen as 1  2G C  2G C 1
D¼ þ P P ð24Þ
0 ¼ 1 . The governing equations for mode I crack k   2 PC 2   2 P C
opening, excluding the initial elastic phase, are then

P ¼ PðDÞ    As can be seen, the solution is given on implicit form,

F ¼ fðPÞ  1  g G i.e. with the displacement given as a function of the
  force. Choosing a set of input parameters the responses
P 1
f¼ ; ¼ for certain values of  can be found in Fig. 2.
PC 0
 ð21Þ A bilinear force displacement response is retained by
G 1
g¼ ; ¼ ¼1 setting  ¼ 1, which is easily identified in Eq. (24) as  ¼ 1
G C 0
: : cancels out the last nonlinear term. This is a common
F¼0 D>0 simplification used by others, cf. [5,13,16,26].
Ð t : 0 PD
G ¼ 0 PD dt  For  > 1 the result of the analytical solution is more
2
dubious. Here the displacement reaches a maximum and
then decreases during continuous damage growth! Such
Using the definition of dissipated
: energy, Eq. (6), and a behavior contradicts the initial assumption of elastic
the consistency condition, F ¼ 0, yields: unloading. Clearly the solutions obtained with  > 1 is
unphysical.
: df : dg 1  : :  Using  ¼ 0:7 a more plausible response is obtained
F¼ Pþ PD  PD ¼ 0 ð22Þ
dP dG 2 where the force gradually approaches zero for an infi-
nite displacement. This could be a useful model but
The derivatives of f and g are easily obtained from decreasing  furthermore again causes the model to
Eq.
: (21).
: By : also making use : of the relation misbehave, see  ¼ 0:01 in Fig. 2.
dP
P ¼ dD D  P 0 D, it follows that D can be eliminated, The results discussed so far only relate to the choice
and that the consistency condition can be rewritten as k=2, PC=1 and G C ¼ 2, respectively, but it can be
shown that these results holds for other choices as well.
P 1 0 1 The same data as above was used as input to the
 P þ ðP  P 0 DÞ ¼ 0 ð23Þ
PC 2G C complete 3D algorithm described in Section 4 to check

Fig. 2. The shape of the softening curve for different , analytical solution using k=2, PC=1, G C =2 and =1.
1306 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314

Fig. 3. The shape of the softening curve for different  values, numerical solution using k=2, PC=1, G C ¼ 2 and ¼ 1.

the performance of the numerical scheme and its imple- recorded. Now only D3 is set to zero while D1 and D2
mentation. A comparison of the results in Figs. 3 and 2 are monotonically increased.
shows no unexpected disagreements. Defining ¼ arctanðD2 =D1 Þ as a measure of mode
mixity, where ¼ 0 corresponds to pure mode I load-
5.3. Mixed mode response ing. Several simulations with constant but different
are performed for each of the setups. The force–dis-
Opposed to the single mode response there is no ana- placement relation P1 =D1 for setups 1 and 4 are recor-
lytical solution available for the mixed mode case. Thus ded and presented in Figs. 4 and 5. The linear response
it is not possible to give a mathematical proof regarding in Fig. 2 ( ¼ 1) remains linear for all used, see Fig. 4.
the validity of the model behavior subjected to mixed The unphysical behavior using  ¼ 4 presists in the
mode loading. Instead numerical simulations are used mixed mode response for all used, see Fig. 5. Clearly
to examine the model response. the findings for the single mode response appears to
In order to compare the mixed mode response with hold for the mixed mode response as well. Results for
the single mode response similar setups are studied, see the setups 2, 3, 5 and 6 are not presented but agree with
Table 1. Identical data is used for all three opening this conclusion.
modes. The only difference between the examined setups
are the 0 and i value. Setups 1–3 are comparable to 5.4. Conclusion
single mode loading with  ¼ 1 while setups 4–6 are
comparable to single mode loading using  ¼ 4. Based on the findings in the first part of this section a
The simulations of the mixed mode response are per- reliable choice of parameters for f and g in single mode
formed similar to the simulation of the single mode response is  ¼ 1 and ¼ 1. Then the well known
response. Prescribed displacement histories are input to bilinear response is retained. Other shapes for the soft-
the implemented algorithm and the output forces are ening portion of the response can be obtained by using
 < 1, but for really small values of  the response
makes the model useless. The choice  > 1 also gives an
unphysical response. Although not proved analytically
Table 1
Setup, mixed mode case
the same conclusions appears to hold for the mixed
mode response as well.
Setup 0 i 0 i ki PiC GiC The basic conclusion to be drawn is that certain
1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 choices of parameters in f and g may lead to completely
2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 unphysical responses! If one set of f and g has this flaw
3 6 6 2 2 2 1 2 it is reasonable to assume that others have it too. Thus,
4 0.5 2 2 2 2 1 2 if an analytical solution is unavailable for a specific set
5 0.75 3 2 2 2 1 2
6 1.5 6 2 2 2 1 2
of f and g, extensive numerical testing of the imple-
mented algorithm is mandatory.
 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314 1307

6. Results Beam (DCB) for mode I loading, End-Notch Flexural

The model is validated by comparing results from
simulations with experimental mixed mode results
obtained by Asp [27] and Juntti et al. [28].
As both the experimental setup and the FE models
have been described in other papers, see [21,27,28], there
will only be a brief discussion of the test specimen and
material data.
6.1. The setup
A schematic sketch of the experimental rig is shown in
Fig. 6. It is designed to perform mode I, mode II and
mixed mode loading using the same apparatus. These
three experiments are also known as Double Cantilever
(ENF) for mode II loading and Mixed Mode Bending
(MMB) for a mixed mode loading of the test specimen.
The specification for the test specimen is given in
Table 2.
Eight noded brick elements were used in the FE
model. The interface at the initial crack was defined as a
sliding interface while the reminder of the potential
crack path was tied together with the delamination
model discussed in this paper. Loads and boundary
conditions were applied by suppressing and loading
selected nodal degrees of freedom for the DCB and
ENF models, respectively. However, in order to obtain
the correct load distribution in the MMB model, the
whole loading apparatus was included in the FE
model.

Fig. 4. Numerical simulation of mixed mode response, setup 1.

Fig. 5. Numerical simulation of mixed mode response, setup 4.

1308 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314

Fig. 6. Experimental setup; prescribed dosplacement I gives mode I (DCB), II gives mode II (ENF) and x gives mixed mode opening (MMB). a0 Is
the initial crack length.

A refined mesh was used in the region where the crack parameters 0 , i will effect the simulation but due to
was expected to propagate. The mesh was only refined the limited amount of experimental results they are
in the direction of crack growth, not in the width direc- chosen to be equal, i.e. 0 ¼ i .
tion. The FE model used in the simulation of the DCB Juntti et al. [28] reported the critical energy release
experiment is shown in Fig. 7. rate GC as a function of GII/G. These experimental data
The experiments are quasi static in nature with a are plotted in Fig. 8. A least square fit of Eq. (20) with
velocity of the prescribed displacements in the order of respect to the experimental data gave 0 ¼ i ¼ 1:23.
mm/min. If this load rate had been used in the simula- The delamination experiments were designed to study
tions, the timestep limitations inherent to the explicit and record mode I and mode II crack growth, although
FE formulation would have rendered unacceptable mode III crack growth may be present on a local scale.
long computing time. Instead the load rate was However, the amount of mode III crack growth in an
increased such that the simulations terminated within a ENF test specimen of similar design was reported in
reasonable time limits, while at the same time the Schön et al. [29], to be small. The effect of any mode III
amount of kinetic energy in the model was kept small crack growth, in the current simulation is therefore
with respect to the total energy. Mass scaling was not assumed to be small. No experimental data was avail-
used. able for mode III crack growth but by adopting the
In Borg [21] it was reported that the response of the assumption above, it was decided to use identical data
delamination model was insensitive to the critical stress. both for mode II and mode III input.
Thus the response should also be insensitive as to how The initial stiffness in the interface was selected based
the material parameters 0 , i are chosen and we set on the geometry and stiffness of the test specimen. Cri-
them all equal to 2. On the other hand, the material tical stresses for the interface were selected based on the
results in the old model, see Borg et al. [21]. Input to the
delamination model is summarized in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 2
Test specimen data
6.2. Simulations and results
Specification
Material: HTA/6376C The performance of the delamination model was
Layup: [012//(5/04)s]a
Geometry: 150203.1 (mm)
investigated by comparing results from the simulations
Initial crack length: 35 (mm) with experimental data. Two types of data were exam-
GIC: 259 (N/m) ined; the crack extensions as functions of prescribed
GIIC: 1008 (N/m) displacements, and the loading forces as functions of
Elastic constants prescribed displacements.
E11=146 GPa G12=5.25 GPa v12=0.3 The amount of crack growth in the experiments was
E12=10.5 GPa G13=5.25 GPa v13=0.3 determined by visual inspection. In the cohesive zone
E33=10.5 GPa G23=3.48 GPa v23=0.51
model used in the simulations there is no information
a
‘‘//’’ is the location in the stacking sequence where the initial crack on the exact location of the crack tip. Instead, the loca-
is located. tions where the normalized dissipated work g, see Eq.
 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314 1309

(20), takes on the values 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 were used as
indicators for the location of the delamination front.
Computing crack extension along the test specimen
involves averaging data in the width direction. This
averaging acts as a filter and smooths this result com-
iC ¼ 20  106 Pa was used here. As
ponent. The other result component, the force displace-
ment relation, is filtered explicitly using an SAE 1000
Hz high band filter included in the FE post processor
LS-POST [30].
Figs. 9 and 10 show the results for the DCB setup.
The critical stresses
can be seen in Fig. 9 the model predicts the onset of

Fig. 7. FE model of DCB experiment.

Fig. 8. Experimental results: critical energy release rate as a function of the degree of mixed mode.
1310 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314

Table 3 crack growth well while the subsequent growth is

Input data used in the delamination model underestimated. As the crack approaches the region
Mode GC (N/m)
c (N/m2) kA (
N=m
) with larger elements the growth slows down. Looking at
m2
the force displacement relation in Fig. 10 it can be seen
I 259 20, 40106 Pa 3.01012 that the initial elastic loading is very well represented in
II,III 1008 20, 40106 Pa 3.01012
the simulation, except for the last 0.5 mm of loading
where a softening response in the simulation gives a
peak load at a slightly larger displacement than in the
Table 4 experiment. This may be caused by a relatively large
Parameters cohesive zone in combination with the absence of pre-
cracking in the simulation. Without pre-cracking the
Parameter Value
initial cohesive zone will be truncated, i.e. it will not
0 ; i 2.0 extend into the portion of the crack that is initially
0 ; i 1.23 open. As a result some of the cohesive forces acting to
close the crack will be omitted and the response will not

Fig. 9. Crack length as a function of applied displacement for the DCB setup.

Fig. 10. Force displacement relation for the DCB setup.

 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314 1311

be as stiff as in the experiments. This may also be the loading in the experiment has been shifted to the right in
explanation for the deviation found in Fig. 9. Fig. 12. This may be due to loosely fitted joints or some
The results for the ENF setup are shown in Figs. 11 similar problems in the experimental setup.
and 12. The critical stresses
iC ¼ 40  106 Pa was used The results for the MMB setup are shown in Figs. 13
here. With
iC ¼ 20  106 Pa the cohesive zone was too and 14. The critical stresses
iC ¼ 40  106 Pa was used
large. As can be seen from the crack growth recorded in here. In this experiment the crack initially grows a small
the experiment, this is an almost transient phenomena distance and is then arrested. This unstable behavior is
where the crack grows 15 mm in one single jump. Time probably due to some imperfection in the test specimen
scaling is used in the simulation causing the inertia of and should not be expected in a simulation. Similar to
the test specimen in the FE-model to increase, leading to the ENF setup the rapid crack growth in the simulation
a slower response than in reality, which is obvious both is smoother than in the experiment but the maximum
in Fig. 11 and in Fig. 12. However the onset of crack force and crack onset are well predicted.
growth is predicted quite well, cf Fig. 11. Also the initial The simulation results presented here are very similar
elastic loading as well as the maximum load is also pre- to the results presented in Borg et al. [21] which were
dicted with good agreement with the experiment, cf. based on a similar delamination model but with a dif-
Fig. 12. Note that the curve associated with the elastic ferent formulation.

Fig. 11. Crack length as a function of applied displacement for the ENF setup.

Fig. 12. Force displacement relation for the ENF setup.

1312 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314

7. Discussion and conclusions
The aim of this work has been to develop a mathe-
matical model for simulating delamination under simple
and combined loading. The main ideas in the old model,
see Borg et al. [21] are retained in the present work,
where in the latter the governing equations are based on
a damage formulation.
In the damage formulation context, the governing
equations take on a form similar to that of classical
plasticity. An attempt has been made to derive a
damage growth law by using the hypothesis of max-
imum energy release rate, but the so obtained formula-
tion was found non-realistic. This should be interpreted
in the way that the present model and the hypothesis of
maximum energy release rate are not quite compatible.
For simplicity, a simple isotropic damage growth law
was instead suggested.
A vital part of the governing equations are the two
functions f and g. Numerical and analytical studies for
single and mixed mode loading reveal that these func-
tions must be carefully chosen. It is not sufficient to
study them individually, since their interaction may yet
yield an unphysical behavior. Unless analytical solu-
tions are available, extensive numerical testing is
advised to validate the model.
The simulations of DCB, ENF and MMB experi-
ments all show good agreement with experimental

Fig. 13. Crack length as a function of applied displacement for MMB setup.

Fig. 14. Force displacement relation for the MMB setup.

 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314 1313

results. It is concluded that the current model is capable : 3 :

X
of simulating delaminations subjected to mode I, mode G ¼ G i ðA:2Þ
i¼1
II and combined loading.

By Eq. (A.1) the total dissipation can be rewritten as a

Acknowledgements scalar product between the damage growth rate and a
known vector a.
We thank L. Asp at the Aeronautical Research Insti- :
:
tute of Sweden (FFA) for supplying material data and G ¼ ! a ðA:3Þ
experimental results, and the Swedish National Aero-
nautical Research Program (NFFP) for founding this :
:
research. Clearly G is large if the projection of ! on a is large.
As
: : damage grows the consistency condition states that
lF ¼ 0. Using the chain rule to expand the time deriva-
Appendix tive of F, see Eq. (7), together with Eqs. (2) and (A.1)
:
gives the following limitation on !
This Appendix will show that using the ideas in Wu : :
[23] in order to determine the crack growth mode leads F ¼ C  ! b ¼ 0 ðA:4Þ
to an erroneous result.
The key assumption in Wu is that the crack growth where
direction maximizes the rate at which energy is dis-
sipated. In the present model we adopt this idea but P3 @f :
C¼ ð1  !i Þki Di
tries instead to determine in what mode the delamina- i¼1 @Pi
tion grows. This is done by directly addressing the @f @g Di
: bi ¼ ki Di 
damage rates ! i . For simplicity the contact formulation @Pi @G i 2
of Eq. (3) is temporarily abandoned in favor of the
shorter and simpler expressions in Eq. (2).
:
Using the time derivative of G i , defined in Eq. (6) A final restriction on ! is given by Eq. (5) stating that
together with Eq. (2) we obtain the following expression the damage growth rate must be positive in all its com-
for the energy dissipated by the contact forces: ponents. Thus, the damage growth yielding the max-
: imum rate of dissipation is given by:
: ki
G i ¼ !i Di2 ðA:1Þ    :
2 : : C  ! b ¼ 0
! ¼ ARG max : ða! Þ subject to : ðA:5Þ
! !i 5 0

The total dissipation is the sum of the dissipation in
each of the contact force components.
Now, let us study a hypothetical two dimensional
situation. The consistency condition requires that the
:
projection of ! on the vector b to be constant, i.e. that
:
‘‘allowable !’’ are given by a line perpendicular to the
vector b, see Fig. A1. In general the vectors a and b are
:
not parallel. Thus, the further ‘‘away’’ ! is moved from
b towards and past a, the larger its projection will be on
a. As the damage growth rate must be positive in all its

Fig. A1. Determination of the damage growth rate. Fig. A2. Force response during load in 2D.
1314 R. Borg et al. / Composites Science and Technology 62 (2002) 1299–1314
:
components the optimal direction of ! is eventually
determined by one of the unit vectors.
It is thus concluded that damage will only grow in one
deformation mode at a time. When the first deformation
mode has been exhausted damage will start to grow in a
second deformation mode etc. This will continue until
all springs have failed. Plotting the forces P1 and P2
during such loading would give the qualitative response
shown as Path A in Fig. A2.
The exact material behavior at the tip of a crack is
complex. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that
the same volume of matter transfers both normal and
tangential loads. Thus, if the material has failed com-
pletely in say the normal direction, it should no longer
be able to transfer any loads in the tangential direction.
Following this argumentation, the behavior of the pre-
sent model, being derived so far, is regarded as unrea-
listic.
Instead the simplest possible assumption, isotropic
damage, is adopted. Thus damage growth is equal in all
force components at all times:
: :
!i ¼ l ðA:6Þ
For a proportional displacement driven loading, the
initial increase and subsequent decrease of adhesive
forces will then take place along the same path, see Path
B in Fig. A2. It is finally to be noted that, even though
the dissipation maximization approach was abandoned,
Eq. (A.6) is directly seen to be in agreement with the
second principle of thermodynamics [see Eqs. (A.1) and
(A.2)].
References
[1] Borg R. An orthotropic material model with damage. Licentiate
thesis, LIU-TEK-LIC-1998: 38. Linköping: Linköping Uni-
versity; 1998.
[2] Dugdale DS. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. Journal of
the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1960;8:100–4.
[3] Barenblatt GI. The mathematical theory of equillibrium cracks in
brittle fracture. Advances in Applied Mechanics 1962;7:55–129.
[4] Hillerborg A, Modéer M, Petersson P-E. Analysis of crack for-
mation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture
mechanics and finite elements. Cement and Concrete Research
1976;6:773–82.
[5] Andersson H, Bergkvist H. Analysis of a non-linear crack
model. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1970;
18(1):1–28.
[6] Nilsson, L., Oldenburg, M. Nonlinear wave propagation in plas-
tic fracturing materials—a constitutive modelling and finite ele-
ment analysis. In: Nigual U, Engelbrecht J, editors. Nonlinear
deformation waves. Berlin: Springer; 1983.
[7] Tin-Loi F, Li H. Numerical simulations of quasibrittle fracture
processes using the discrete cohesive crack model. International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences 2000;42(2):367–79.
[8] Cui W, Wisnom MR. A combined stress-based and fracture-
mechanics-based model for predicting delamination in compo-
sites. Composites 1993;24(6):467–74.
[9] Wisnom MR. Modelling the effect of cracks on interlaminar
shear strength. Composites Part A 1996;27(1):17–24.
[10] Needleman A. A continuum model for void nucleation by
inclusion debonding. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1987;54:
525–31.
[11] Tvergaard V. Effect of fiber debonding in a whisker-reinforced
metal. Materials Science and Engineering, A125, A125 1990:203–
15.
[12] Needleman A. Numerical modeling of crack growth under
dynamic loading conditions. Computational Mechanics 1997;
19(6):463–9.
[13] Bolzon G. Hybride finite element approach to quasi-brittle frac-
ture. Computers and Structures 1996;60(5):733–41.
[14] Allen DH, Lo DC, Zocher MA. Modelling of damage evolution
in laminated viscoelastic composites. Internaltional Journal of
Damage Mechanics 1997;6(1):5–22.
[15] Foulk JW, Allen DH, Helms KLE. Formulation of a three-
dimensional cohesive zone model for application to a finite ele-
ments algorithm. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 2000;183(1–2):51–67.
[16] Crisfield M, Mi Y, Davies GAO, Hellweg HB. Finite element
methods and the progressive failure-modelling of composites
structures. In: Owen DRJ, Onate E, Hinton E, editors. Compu-
tational plasticity. Barcelona; 1997. p. 239–54.
[17] Jansson N, Larsson R, Toll S. Finite element modelling of dela-
mination progression under mixed mode loadings. In: Fiber
reinforced composites 2000, composites for the millenium. New-
castle: 2000.
[18] Wisnom MR, Chang FK. Modelling of splitting and delamina-
tion in notched cross-ply laminates. Composites Science and
Technology 2000;60(15):2849–56.
[19] Sprenger W, Gruttmann F, Wagner W. Delamination growth
analysis in laminated structures with continuum-based 3d-shell
elements and a viscoplastic softening model. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2000;183(1–2):123–39.
[20] Allix O, Lévêque D, Perret L. Identification and forecast of
delamination in composite laminates by an interlaminar interface
model. Composites Science and Technology 1998;58(5):671–8.
[21] Borg R, Nilsson L, Simonsson K. Simulation of delamination in
fiber composites by the use of a discrete cohesive-failure model.
Composites Science and Technology 2001;61(5):667–77.
[22] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA theoreticla manual. Livermore: Liver-
more Software Technology Corporation; 1998.
[23] Wu CH. Fracture under combined loads by maximum energy
release rate criterion. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1978;45:553–
8.
[24] Greenhalgh G, Asp L, Singh S. Delamination resistance, failure
criteria and fracture morphology of 0 /0 , 0 /5 and 0 /90 ply
interfaces in CFRP. In: 5th International Conference on Defor-
mation & Fracture of Composites, London, 1999.
[25] Char BW, Geddes KO, Gonnet GH, Leong BL, Monogan MB,
Watt SM. First leaves: a tutorial introduction to Maple V. New
York: Springer-Verlag; 1993.
[26] Ottosen NS, Olsson KG. Hardening/softening plastic analysis of
adhesive joints. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1988;114(1):
97–116.
[27] Asp LE. The effects of moisture and temperature on the inter-
laminar delamination toughness of a carbon/epoxy composite.
Composites Science and Technology 1998;58(6):967–77.
[28] Juntti M, Asp LE, Olsson R. Assessment of evaluation methods
for the mixed-mode bending test. Journal of Composites Tech-
nology and Research 1999;21(1):37–48.
[29] Schön J, Nyman T, Blom A, Ansell H. Numerical and experi-
mental investigation of a composite enf-specimen. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 2000;65:405–33.
[30] LS-POST, a new post-processor from LS-DYNA. Livermore:
Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 1999.