Anda di halaman 1dari 11

Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

A new cohesive zone model for mixed mode interface


fracture in bimaterials
Yuval Freed *, Leslie Banks-Sills
The Dreszer Fracture Mechanics Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering, The Fleischman Faculty of Engineering, Tel Aviv University, 69978 Ramat Aviv, Israel

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 16 December 2007
Received in revised form 14 April 2008
Accepted 28 April 2008
Available online 6 May 2008
Keywords:
Cohesive zone modeling
Constitutive modeling
Finite element analysis
Interface fracture
Mixed mode fracture

a b s t r a c t
A new two-dimensional cohesive zone model which is suitable for the prediction of mixed
mode interface fracture in bimaterials is presented. The model accounts for the well known
fact that the interfacial fracture toughness is not a constant, but a function of the mode
mixity. Within the framework of this model, the cohesive energy and the cohesive strength
are not chosen to be constant, but rather functions of the mode mixity. A polynomial cohesive zone model is derived in light of analytical and experimental observations of interface
cracks. The validity of the new cohesive law is examined by analyzing double cantilever
beam and Brazilian disk specimens. The methodology to determine the parameters of
the model is outlined and a failure criterion for a pair of ceramic clays is suggested.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Interfaces have been investigated in several ways in the past. One possibility is to assume that the two materials are perfectly bonded. With this approach, a conservative integral may be employed to obtain the stress intensity factors and the
corresponding energy release rate (see for example [1]). However, if the crack advances quasi-statically, the interface may
be simulated as a very thin continuum region with graded properties [2], as a narrow strip of springs [37] or using a cohesive zone model. The latter approach was rst proposed by Barenblatt [8,9] and Dugdale [10] as an alternative approach to
singular crack tip behavior. With this concept, the stresses ahead of the crack tip are bounded, and a tractionseparation law
is used to describe the fracture process.
Because of its versatility, cohesive zone models are increasingly applied in many engineering elds. For instance, cohesive
zone models have been used to study crack tip plasticity [11], creep under static and fatigue loading [12], adhesive bonded
joints [13], crack bridging [14], and interface cracks in bimaterials [15]. As discussed by Li and Chandra [11], a great advantage of cohesive zone models is that they are able to represent several micromechanical mechanisms in the vicinity of the
crack tip. In addition, they can be easily implemented in a numerical framework. For a detailed review on the applications of
cohesive zone models, the reader is directed to Chandra et al. [16].
There are several cohesive zone models that deal with mixed mode deformation and interface cracks. In general, these
laws are written separately for each mode and then coupled together, either by dening coupling parameters or by using
an effective displacement. As an example of the former approach, the cohesive law presented by Xu and Needleman [17],
which was implemented to investigate particlematrix decohesion, is governed by two coupling parameters, which relate
the ratio between the energy release rates of pure modes I and II and the corresponding displacements. However, it was
shown by van den Bosch et al. [18] that this model does not describe realistic mixed mode behavior unless the energy release

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 3 640 5581; fax: +972 3 640 7617.
E-mail address: yuval@eng.tau.ac.il (Y. Freed).
0013-7944/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.04.013

4584

Y. Freed, L. Banks-Sills / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593

rates of both modes are equal. Unfortunately, this assumption is not generally correct. To overcome this problem, a nondimensional effective relative crack displacement was assumed by many investigators to obtain mixed mode interface
behavior (see for instance [1922]). As discussed by Zhang and Paulino [23] and van den Bosch et al. [18], a major difculty
arises when considering an effective relative crack displacement; it results in a constant energy of separation, which is not
realistic in the case of interface cracks. It is well known that the interfacial fracture toughness is not a constant, but a function
of the mode mixity [24,1,25]. To this end, in several investigations a variable interfacial fracture toughness has been incorporated into cohesive zone models (see for example [26,27]). An ellipse-shape criterion was assumed to account for the effect of the mode mixity. Although this failure criterion is widely used by many researchers for different applications of
unidirectional composites, this criterion might not be sufciently accurate for certain cases of mixed mode interface cracks,
especially between dissimilar isotropic materials. To overcome this problem, Hutchinson and Suo [24] introduced a completely different mixed mode failure criterion which was found to be suitable for interface cracks between dissimilar isotropic materials, as well as for laminated composites [28].
The main objective of this study is to introduce a new cohesive zone model which is capable of describing the dependence
of the model parameters upon the mode mixity. Within the scheme of this model, the cohesive energy is not constant, but a
function of the mode mixity. A polynomial cohesive zone model is derived in light of analytical and experimental observations of interface cracks [24,1,29,28,30]. The second objective of this study is to propose a methodology for determining the
model parameters from experimental data. To this end, a failure criterion is obtained according to the new cohesive law.
The present paper is organized as follows. First, several important concepts regarding fracture mechanics of interface
cracks are briey discussed in Section 2. The constitutive equations of the proposed cohesive zone model are described in
Section 3. The corresponding tangent modulus matrix is derived, as well as a numerical scheme of an interface element.
In Section 4, the validity of the new cohesive law is examined. To this end, double cantilever beam and Brazilian disk specimens are analyzed. Finally, a methodology to determine the parameters of the model is outlined.
2. Review of fracture mechanics of interface cracks
In this section, several important concepts of fracture mechanics of interface cracks are briey outlined. An assumption of
small scale plastic and contact zones is invoked. Consequently, the theory of linear elastic fracture mechanics may be employed so that the displacement eld in the vicinity of the crack tip is governed by a complex stress intensity factor
K K 1 iK 2 as [31,32]

ua r; h

rn
o
r
i
2
RKr i u1
a h;  IKr ua h;  ;
2p

where a 1; 2 denotes the upper and lower materials,


pr and h are the crack tip polar coordinates, R and I are the real and
imaginary parts of the quantity in parentheses, i 1;  is the oscillatory parameter, which is given by



1
1b
ln
2p
1b

and b is one of Dundurs parameters [33]. For an interface between two linear elastic, isotropic materials

l1 j2  1  l2 j1  1
;
l1 j2 1 l2 j1 1

where lj and mj ; j 1; 2 are the shear moduli and Poissons ratios of the upper and lower materials, respectively. In Eq. (3),
jj 3  4mj for plane strain conditions and 3  mj =1 mj for generalized plane stress conditions. The expressions u1
a h; 
2
and ua h;  are normalized modes 1 and 2 displacement vectors which depend upon h and .
It may be shown that the crack opening and sliding displacements, dn and ds , respectively, are given by [34]

dn ids

r
r 
C RKr i iIKr i ;
2p

where C  depends upon the material properties of the upper and lower materials. Moreover, by means of the J-integral, it
may be shown that the energy release rate of an interface crack is given in the form

Gi

1 2
K K 22 ;
H 1

where H depends upon material properties and the subscript i represents interface. Once the interface energy release rate Gi
reaches its critical value Gic , the crack propagates an increment. However, the interface toughness is not a single material
parameter but a function of the mode mixity at the interface. Consequently, the critical Grifths energy release rate may
be written as

Gic Gic w;
where w is a mode mixity parameter or phase angle, which is dened as

Y. Freed, L. Banks-Sills / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593

w tan1

"
#
 
 
b i
ds 
K2
1 IK L
 ln b

tan
L
tan1

dn rbL
K1
RK b
L i

4585

p
and b
L is an arbitrary reference length. In Eq. (7), the units of the term K b
L i are MPa m, the ordinary units of stress intensity
factors. Furthermore, at the interface h 0, one may show that Eq. (7) reduces to

tan w

rrh 
r12 

:
rhh rbL r22 rbL

Therefore, w is a measure of the relation between the shear and the normal stress components along the interface at a distance b
L from the crack tip.
An explicit expression of Gic w may be determined from a phenomenological approach. For example, Hutchinson and Suo
[24] suggested two functions that describe the critical interface energy release rate as

Gic w G1c f1 tan2 1  kwg

Gic w G1c 1 1  k tan2 w:

10

and

In both cases, in the limit k 0; G1c denotes the critical energy release rate associated with K 1 and independent of K 2 . From
Eq. (10), for k < 1, the interface toughness is unbounded for the case w ! p=2. As discussed by Hutchinson and Suo [24],
this feature should not be taken literally, but it reects the trend of the phenomenological model. Similar behavior was observed for several interfaces, such as glass/epoxy [1,30], bimaterial ceramic clays [29] and ber reinforced graphite/epoxy
cross-plies [28]. In all cases, the phenomenological toughness criteria was found to be in the form

Gic w G1c 1 tan2 w;

11

which coincides with Eqs. (9) and (10) for k 0.


An illustration of interface toughness criteria of glass/epoxy and ceramic clay interfaces are shown in Fig. 1. These failure
criteria are taken from Banks-Sills et al. [1] for the glass/epoxy interface and from Banks-Sills et al. [29] for the K-142/K-144
ceramic clay interface. Detailed experimental data of the specimens loaded at different angles # and curing temperature
change DT may be found in Ashkenazi [43]. To this end, the mechanical stress intensity factors (which corresponded to
the applied load P for fracture) were determined by means of the nite element method and a conservative integral. The
contribution of the residual curing stresses to the stress intensity factors was evaluated by employing the weight function
technique. After obtaining the mechanical and thermal stress intensity factors, total stress intensity factors were obtained by
superposition. These were employed to determine the critical interface energy release rate in Eq. (5) as a function of mode
mixity or phase angle in Eq. (7) for each individual specimen. These results were plotted for each material pair in Fig. 1.
3. Cohesive zone model
In this section, a new two-dimensional cohesive zone model which is suitable for mixed mode deformation is derived. The
mechanical response of the interface is described by the relation between the tractions and the relative displacements along
the interface. At a given point of the interface, the relative displacement and the corresponding traction are denoted by
d dn ; ds T and t tn ; ts T , respectively. Following Needleman [35], a potential function is postulated such that

/ /ddn ; dt ; wdn ; dt 

Fig. 1. Fracture criteria of (a) glass/epoxy interface and (b) bimaterial ceramic clay composite.

12

4586

Y. Freed, L. Banks-Sills / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593

with a corresponding cohesive law

o/
:
od

13

In addition, a scalar effective opening displacement [20] and a mode mixity phase angle are dened as

q
d2n d2s ;

w tan1

ds
:
dn

14

Rewriting Eq. (13), the cohesive traction is given by

t tn n ts s

o/
o/
n
s;
odn
ods

15

where

o/ o/ od o/ ow o/ dn 1 o/ ds


;
odn od odn ow odn od d d ow d
o/ o/ od o/ ow o/ ds 1 o/ dn

:
ts
ods od ods ow ods od d d ow d

tn

16

Alternatively

1
tn tdn twn ;
d

1
t s tds tws
d

17

with

tdn

o/ dn
;
od d

t wn 

o/ ds
;
ow d

t ds

o/ ds
;
od d

tws

o/ dn
:
ow d

18

Next, two effective parameters are dened

q
o/
;
t dn 2 tds 2
q od
o/
t w twn 2 t ws 2
;
ow

td

19

so that the effective traction is introduced as

1
t td tw :
d

20

From Eq. (19), two constitutive laws are established. The rst one represents the relation between the effective traction t d
and the effective relative displacement d. The second represents the relation between t w and the phase angle w. It may be
noted that tw does not have units of stress. However, the term tw =d contributes to the overall effective traction according
to Eq. (20).
Next, a suitable potential function is established. A simple and convenient function is a polynomial potential function [35]
which has been extended here for mixed modes, namely

" 
3

2

#
27 
1
d
2
d
1
d
t wd
/ /d; w


4 0
4 dc w
3 dc w
2 dc w
for d 6 dc w, where

dc w d1c

q
1 tan2 w;

t 0 w t10

q
1 tan2 w:

21

22

d1c

In Eq. (22),
and t10 are material parameters which denote the effective debonding displacement and maximum effective
traction for mode 1 separation, respectively. In other words, the superscript 1 denotes a deformation case which is associated
with K 1 and independent of K 2 . Note that the potential / is a function of the mode mixity phase angle w. For d P dc w, the
potential function /d; w reaches its critical value Gic w. Substituting Eq. (21) into Eq. (19) results in

td d; w

 "
   2 #
o/d; w 27  d
d
d

t0  1  2  
od
4
dc
dc
dc

23

tw d; w

 2 
 
o/d; w 9 
d
d
4  3  tan w
t0 d 
ow
8
dc
dc

24

and

for d 6 dc and t d tw 0 for d > dc . Once the effective tractions td and t w are determined, the tractions t n and t s may be obtained from Eq. (17).

Y. Freed, L. Banks-Sills / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593

4587

Fig. 2. (a) Traction separation constitutive law. (b) The effect of mode mixity on the generated traction.

A graphic illustration of the relation between the cohesive traction td and the effective relative displacement d is presented
in Fig. 2a. Note that the cohesive traction and the effective relative displacement are normalized with respect to t0 and dc in Eq.
(22). It is understood that they both depend upon the mode mixity phase angle w. One may imagine an innite set of cohesive
zone models with the same polynomial shape but with different values of t 0 and dc . For a specic value of w, the parameters of
the cohesive zone model are adjusted to simulate the effect of mode mixity. In the limit case of w p=2, the relative displacement for separation dc reaches innity, which implies that no separation is expected. This resembles the fracture criteria that
were discussed in Section 2. On the other hand, for w 0, the model reduces to the well known polynomial cohesive zone
model of Needleman [35]. In Fig. 2b, the relation between the traction tw =d and the mode mixity phase angle is illustrated.
As expected, in the limit w ! p=2, the traction is innite; this implies that crack propagation is not possible.
It should be emphasized that the choice of a polynomial potential function is mainly for simplicity. A similar derivation
may be carried out for other smooth potential functions, such as exponential (as in Ortiz and Pandol [20]) or linear. A bilinear cohesive model [21] is not suitable, since for this case a continuous potential function cannot be established.
The critical energy release rate is dened as the energy for separation. Consequently, it may be obtained from the potential function in Eq. (21) as

Gic w /d dc

9 1 1
d t 1 tan2 w G1c 1 tan2 w;
16 c 0

25

which coincides with the well known toughness criterion of interface cracks, which was given in Eq. (11). It may be noted
that use has been made of Eq. (22).
The proposed cohesive zone model depends upon two parameters, namely, the mode 1 cohesive energy, G1c , and the
mode 1 cohesive strength t10 . The effective relative displacement for separation d1c may be obtained from Eq. (25) by substituting w 0.
It may be noted that irreversibility of the model is not considered in the current study. Hence, it is suitable for problems in
which unloading does not occur within the cohesive zone region. An irreversible version of the proposed model may be written in the spirit of Ortiz and Pandol [20].
3.1. Tangent stiffness matrix
The traction components tn and t s may be determined from the relations in Eq. (16). The components of the tangent stiffness matrix are dened as

Dnn

otn
;
odn

Dns

otn
;
ods

Dsn

ot s
;
odn

Dss

ot s
:
ods

26

Substituting Eqs. (16) into Eqs. (26) results in

!


 2




 2
o o/ od o/ ow
dn
ds
dn ds
1 d2n
2dn ds
/;dd
/;d
;
 3 /;w
Dnn

/;ww 2  2/;dw
3
4
odn od odn ow odn
d d
d
d
d
d
!


 2




 2
o o/ od o/ ow
ds
dn
dn ds
1 d2s
2dn ds
Dss
/;dd
/;d
;

/;ww 2 2/;dw
 3  /;w
3
4
ods od ods ow ods
d d
d
d
d
d
!
!








o o/ od o/ ow
dn ds
dn ds
d2n d2s
dn ds
d2n  d2s
Dsn Dns
;
/;dd
 /;ww
/;dw 3  3  /;d
 /;w

odn od ods ow ods


d2
d4
d
d
d3
d4

27
28
29

4588

Y. Freed, L. Banks-Sills / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593

where

 "
   2 #
27  d
d
d
;
t0  1  2  
4
dc
dc
dc
"
 
 2 #
27 t 0
d
d
/;dd
14  3 
;
4 dc
dc
dc
 3 
27  d
dc  d
t0 
tan w;
/;dw
2
dc
d
 2 
 
9
d
d
4  3  d tan w;
/;w t w t 0 
8
dc
dc
 3


9
d

4dc  3d 1  tan2 w :
/;ww t0 
8
dc
/;d t d

30
31
32
33
34

If d > dc , then Dnn Dss Dns Dsn 0.


3.2. Cohesive interface element
The two-dimensional cohesive zone model presented here may be implemented numerically by means of one-dimensional interface elements [21]. The interface element is considered to be of zero thickness h 0 in the undeformed state
and is modeled as a 4-noded linear element, as shown in Fig. 3. At a given point of the interface, the relative displacement
and the corresponding traction are denoted by d dn ; ds T and t tn ; ts T , respectively. The relative displacement vector is
obtained from

dg Bgp;

35

pT1 ; pT2 ; pT3 ; pT4 T ; pj

where p
uj ; vj  , j refers to the global reference system and uj and vj are the displacements in the x and
y-directions, respectively.
The matrix B is given as


B

N1

N2

N1

N2

N1

N2

N1

N2


;

36

where N 1 1  g=2 and N 2 1 g=2 are the linear, one-dimensional shape functions.
To implement the interface element, the internal force vector q is given by

BT t dA

BT t dg;

37

1

where is the length of the interface element in the global reference system. The nite element equation is given in incremental form as

Dt Dp Dq;

38

where

Dt

BT DB dA
A

BT DB dg

39

1

and the components of D are given in Eqs. (27)(29).


It may be noted that off-diagonal terms may appear in the element stiffness matrix Dt . These terms represent the interaction between the different degrees of freedom of the interface element and are the outcome of its continuum nature. However, the off-diagonal terms sometimes result in numerical difculties. To overcome this problem, Xie et al. [36] and Xie and
Waas [37] introduced a discrete cohesive zone model (DCZM) and a suitable element in which the stiffness matrix is sparse.
This results from the fact that in the DCZM elements, the direct nodal displacement values are used in the traction separation

1
=-1

2
=1

h=0

Fig. 3. A 4-noded linear interface element.

4589

Y. Freed, L. Banks-Sills / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593

laws, rather than the interpolated values as in the continuum framework used here. The performance of the DCZM framework in conjunction with the new cohesive zone model should be investigated.
4. Implementation and simulation
In this section, the validity of the cohesive zone model is examined and a methodology for obtaining the parameters of the
model is discussed. To this end, the proposed model was implemented as a user supplied material subroutine in the commercial nite element package ABAQUS [38]. First, a double cantilever beam (DCB) specimen was analyzed. The effect of the
cohesive strength on the behavior of this specimen was examined. Next, mixed mode deformation was simulated by means
of a Brazilian disk specimen and a new failure criterion is suggested.
4.1. Numerical simulation of double cantilever beam specimen
The double cantilever beam specimen, depicted in Fig. 4, is suitable for the prediction of crack propagation in laminated
composites under pure mode I conditions. Since pure mode I conditions are examined in this section, in all of the equations,
the index 1 has been replaced by I. To this end, a total length of L 100 mm, thickness B 20 mm, height 2h 3 mm and an
initial crack length of a0 30 mm were considered. The load was applied to the left ends of the specimen. A unidirectional
ber reinforced laminate consisting of 0 carbon ber/epoxy matrix plies (XAS-913C) with their orientation aligned with the
global x-direction was chosen for study. Its properties are presented in Table 1, where EA ; ET ; mA and mT are the axial and transverse Youngs moduli and Poissons ratios, respectively, and GA is the axial shear modulus. The parameter GIc represents the
cohesive energy for pure mode I deformation.
The nite element mesh consisted of 1440 4-noded isoparametric elements with 2100 nodal points, as well as 99 linear 4noded interface elements with 200 nodal points. Plane stress conditions were assumed. The softening behavior associated
with the cohesive zone model results in a snap-through and a snap-back behavior of the loaddisplacement curve. As discussed by Alfano and Criseld [21], these are often related to a singularity in the tangent stiffness matrix of the nite element
model. Consequently, the arc-length (Riks) method [39] was implemented to avoid these convergence problems.
In Fig. 5, the loaddisplacement response of the DCB specimen is plotted. The dashed line was taken from Xie and Waas
[37] where it was obtained by means of the virtual crack closure technique (VCCT) that represents the linear elastic solution
(see discussion in [36,37]); it is considered here as a reference. The VCCT loaddisplacement curve in Fig. 5 is initially linear
followed by softening behavior. After the crack has propagated some distance, hardening effects are observed. In the analyses
of the cohesive zone model, the cohesive energy was held xed GIc 0:28 N=mm, and the cohesive strengths were taken as
t I0 0:15, 0.3, 0.75 and 1.5 MPa. Convergence difculties were encountered with higher values of tI0 . For all cases, the shape
of the curves is quite similar. The behavior of each curve is initially linear, and after a peak value of the applied load, softening occurs. This is followed by slight hardening near the end of the process. In addition, it seems that the cohesive zone
model overestimates the VCCT solution in the region of the softening behavior. In general, the loaddisplacement curves produce good agreement with the VCCT curve after the crack has propagated some distance (when a > 58 mm and u > 4 mm).
However, the best agreement with the elastic solution at an early stage of propagation (for a < 58 mm and u < 4 mm) is attained for tI0 1:5 MPa. In this region, as the cohesive strength increases, the maximum load increases. Consequently, it may
be concluded that the maximum cohesive strength is the most important parameter to calibrate as it appears that the performance of the model highly depends upon it.

Fig. 4. The geometry of the DCB specimen.

Table 1
Material properties of the carbon ber/epoxy matrix plies (XAS-913C) [21]
Property

EA (GPa)

ET (GPa)

mA

mT

GA (GPa)

GIc (N/mm)

Value

135.3

9.0

0.24

0.46

5.2

0.28

4590

Y. Freed, L. Banks-Sills / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593

Fig. 5. Loaddisplacement behavior and the effect of the cohesive traction.

4.2. Interface fracture toughness of a bimaterial ceramic clay composite and calibration of the cohesive zone strength
In this subsection, the behavior of an interface crack is studied by means of the proposed cohesive zone model. In addition, the objective of this analysis is to establish a simple methodology for obtaining the mode 1 cohesive strength t10 . It may
be noted that there are several studies regarding determination of cohesive law parameters (see for example [4042]).
The Brazilian disk specimen (see Fig. 6) is commonly used for measuring interface fracture toughness since a wide range
of mixed mode values may be easily attained. In Banks-Sills et al. [29], this specimen was used to obtain the interface fracture toughness between two ceramic clays. To this end, K-142 and K-144 ceramic clay materials were chosen for study. Some
mechanical and thermal properties of these materials are listed in Table 2. The nominal radius of the specimens was
R 20 mm, the half-crack length ranged from 5.4 mm 6 a 6 6.4 mm, and the thickness 9.1 mm 6 B 6 10.7 mm. The curing
temperature was 1040 C. Detailed experimental data of the 31 specimens loaded at different angles # and temperature
change DT may be found in Ashkenazi [43, Appendix K]. In Banks-Sills et al. [29], the mechanical stress intensity factors
(which corresponded to the applied load at fracture) were determined by means of the nite element method and a conservative integral. The effect of residual stresses was accounted for by employing the weight function technique to obtain the
contribution to the stress intensity factors. Then, total stress intensity factors were obtained by superposition. These were
employed to determine the critical interface energy release rate as a function of mode mixity for each individual specimen.
A graphic illustration of the interface toughness of the K-142 and K-144 ceramic clay pair is presented in Fig. 1b.
In this study, the experimental data obtained by Ashkenazi [43] was analyzed by means of the proposed cohesive zone
model. To this end, nite element analyses were carried out to determine the cohesive strength of each specimen. Following
the experimental procedure, the crack was expected to initiate from the left crack tip (point A in Fig. 6). The interface between crack tip B and the end of the specimen was specially treated to make it strong. Hence, the interface between the
two ceramic clays in the vicinity of the left crack tip was meshed with 140144 interface elements with 282290 nodal

Fig. 6. The Brazilian disk specimen.

4591

Y. Freed, L. Banks-Sills / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593


Table 2
Material properties of the two ceramic clays [29]
Material

E (GPa)

a (106/C)

K-142
K-144

19.5
23.3

0.29
0.20

6.01
5.38

points (as described in Section 3.2). An additional 6181 bilinear elements and 6450 nodal points were used in the analyses.
Plane strain conditions were assumed. Each mesh was constructed with respect to the individual geometry of each specimen,
as given in Ashkenazi [43]. Note that the initial crack length, specimen thickness, loading angle, critical applied force and
temperature change varied for each specimen. For each specimen, the critical mode 1 energy release rate G1c determined
by Ashkenazi [43] was adopted here. Then, nite element analyses were carried out to obtain the cohesive strength t10 that
results in crack propagation with respect to the individual geometrical properties, loading scheme and applied temperature
change of each specimen.
For each of the 31 experiments, nite element analyses were carried out here. The temperature change resulting from the
difference of the curing and room temperatures was applied to each specimen, while the load was increased monotonically.
A candidate value of t 10 was chosen as the mode 1 cohesive zone strength, together with G1c obtained by Ashkenazi [43]. If the
crack did not begin to propagate at the critical load from the experiment, a higher candidate for t10 was chosen until convergence was reached. Of course, if a lower cohesive strength was required, it was employed. Hence, for each specimen, a mode
1 cohesive strength value was found. Since there are several specimens for each loading angle, an average value was calculated. These are plotted in Fig. 7a. It may be noted that since the ceramics clays are brittle materials, the crack propagated
rapidly once a proper cohesive strength t 10 was attained.
The relation between the cohesive energy G1c and the cohesive strength t 10 is presented in Fig. 7b. In this gure, average
values for each loading angle # of the mode 1 cohesive energy G1c and the cohesive strength t10 are shown. It may be observed
that the cohesive energy varies between 3 and 5 N/m, while two trends may be identied for the cohesive strength: for positive values of loading angle #, the cohesive strength varies between 0.2 and 0.4 MPa, while for negative values of #, it varies
between 0.5 and 0.6 MPa. This phenomenon is also observed in Fig. 7a. A negative loading angle implies that the specimen is
rotated in the plane about the vertical axis. In principle, this is equivalent to crack propagation occurring from the right crack
tip (point B in Fig. 6). Of course, this cannot occur in the experiments, since, as mentioned earlier, the interface in this region
has been roughened. In the experiments, the specimens were rotated to obtain negative values of #. Since the materials relative to the interface differ when the materials are reversed in the specimen, it is reasonable to expect distinct fracture
behavior for # > 0 and # < 0 and it can be concluded that two distinct values of the cohesive strength implies different fracture mechanisms for positive and negative values of #.
Next, a suitable criterion to describe the critical load at fracture as a function of the loading angle is established. First,
calibration of the cohesive zone parameters is needed. As mentioned above, the values of the cohesive energy G1c vary between 3 and 5 N/m with an average value of G1c 3:7 N=m. Since the scatter in the cohesive energy values is rather small
(see Fig. 7b), the average value G1c 3:7 N=m is taken as the cohesive energy parameter. However, since two trends are observed for the cohesive strength t 10 , the cohesive strength was taken as 0.58 MPa for # < 0 and 0.32 MPa for # > 0. These are
the average values of the cohesive strength for negative and positive values of the loading angle #.
By substituting the calibrated values of the cohesive strength t 10 0:58 MPa for # < 0; 0:32 MPa for # > 0 and the cohesive
energy G1c 3:7 N=m in the constitutive equations of the cohesive zone model in Eqs. (22) and (25), predictions of crack
propagation for the ceramic clay interface can be evaluated. To this end, a Brazilian disk specimen with dimensions of
R 20 mm radius, initial crack length a0 6 mm, thickness B 10 mm and temperature change of DT 1010  C was
analyzed. For this choice of cohesive parameters, for loading angles of 15 6 # 6 15 , the applied load was increased

Fig. 7. The relation between the (a) cohesive strength and loading angle and (b) cohesive strength and cohesive energy.

4592

Y. Freed, L. Banks-Sills / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593

Fig. 8. Fracture criterion for the bimaterial ceramic composite interface.

monotonically until crack propagation was attained. These values are shown as open points in Fig. 8. The load at fracture Pc
was normalized with respect to the cohesive strength t 10 , the critical crack length ac which for these specimens was the same
as a0 , and the thickness B. The test results from Ashkenazi [43] are illustrated as solid diamonds. A t through the open points
leads to a new failure criterion for this specimen; this is illustrated as the dashed curve in Fig. 8. Accordingly, for a given
loading angle #, the crack is expected to propagate once the normalized applied load reaches the criterion curve (dashed
curve in Fig. 8) or above it. Reasonable agreement between the test results and the failure criterion may be observed.
5. Summary and conclusions
In this study, a new two-dimensional cohesive zone model which is suitable to simulate the constitutive behavior of
interface cracks in bimaterials is suggested and examined. This model was derived based upon experimental observations,
suggesting that the interface fracture toughness is not constant, but depends upon the mode mixity. To this end, the constitutive equations of the model, as well as the parameters of the model depend upon a mode mixity phase angle w. In other
words, the cohesive model may be described as an innite set of cohesive laws, one for each discrete value of the phase angle
w. For each model, the cohesive energy and cohesive strength are adjusted with respect to the phase angle w to obtain a specic cohesive law for the current phase angle, so that only these two parameters are essential for this model. With this choice
of parameters, the energy for separation Gic is consistent with the commonly used interface fracture toughness criterion.
The effect of the cohesive strength was examined by means of a numerical analysis of a double cantilever beam specimen.
For a given value of cohesive energy, the shapes of the loaddisplacement curves were affected by the choice of the cohesive
strength. In this case, the best t was attained for t I0 1:5 MPa.
Finally, a Brazilian disk specimen was analyzed. The nite element method was employed to calibrate the cohesive
strength of an interface crack between two ceramic clays. By substituting the calibrated values of the cohesive strength t 10
and the cohesive energy G1c into the constitutive scheme of the cohesive zone model, a new failure criterion was determined.
The proposed model may be generalized for three-dimensional analyses. To this end, a suitable three-dimensional fracture criterion was suggested by Banks-Sills et al. [44] for the +45/45 interface of a laminate composite and Konovalov [45]
for a glass/epoxy interface. The proposed framework of this cohesive model may be adjusted to incorporate this fracture
criterion.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Belfer family for their ongoing support.
References
[1] Banks-Sills L, Travitzky N, Ashkenazi D, Eliasi R. A methodology for measuring interface fracture toughness of composite materials. Int J Fract
1999;99(3):14361.
[2] Wang YS, Huang GY, Gross D. On the mechanical modeling of functionally graded interfacial zone with a Grifth crack: plane deformation. Int J Fract
2005;125(12):189205.
[3] Ungsuwarungsri T, Knauss WG. A nonlinear-analysis of an equilibrium craze. 1. Problem formulation and solution. J App Mech 1988;55(1):4451.
[4] Song SJ, Waas A. Mode I fracture in laminates. Engng Fract Mech 1994;49(1):1728.
[5] Song SJ, Waas A. An energy based model for mixed mode failure of laminated composites. AIAA J 1995;33(4):73945.
[6] Wang XD, Meguid SA. Dynamic interaction between a matrix crack and a circular inhomogeneity with a distinct interphase. Int J Solids Struct
1999;36(4):51731.
[7] Chen J, Browne M, Taylor M, Gregson PJ. Application of an interface failure model to predict fatigue crack growth in an implanted metallic femoral
stem. Compos Met Prog Biomed 2004;73(3):24956.

Y. Freed, L. Banks-Sills / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 45834593

4593

[8] Barenblatt GI. The formation of equilibrium cracks during brittle fracture. General ideas and hypotheses. Axially-symmetric cracks. J Appl Math Mech
(PMM) 1959;23(3):62236.
[9] Barenblatt GI. Mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Adv Appl Mech 1962;7:55129.
[10] Dugdale DS. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. J Mech Phys Solids 1960;8(2):1004.
[11] Li H, Chandra N. Analysis of crack growth and crack-tip plasticity in ductile materials using cohesive zone models. Int J Plast 2003;19(6):84982.
[12] Zhang R, Sun Y, Ma J. Understanding thermalmechanical fatigue crack growth: a microscopic mechanical model. Mater Sci Engng A 2005;
398(12):1425.
[13] Liljedahl CDM, Crocombe AD, Wahab MA, Ashcroft IA. Damage modelling of adhesively bonded joints. Int J Fract 2006;141(12):14761.
[14] Wang JL. Cohesive-bridging zone model of FRP-concrete interface debonding. Engng Fract Mech 2007;74(17):264358.
[15] Freed Y, Banks-Sills L, Aboudi J. On the transformation toughening of a crack along an interface between a shape memory alloy and an isotropic
medium [submitted for publication].
[16] Chandra N, Li H, Shel C, Ghonem H. Some issues in the application of cohesive zone models for metalceramic interfaces. Int J Solids Struct
2002;39(10):282755.
[17] Xu XP, Needleman A. Void nucleation by inclusion debonding in a crystal matrix. Model Simul Mater Sci Engng 1993;1(2):11132.
[18] van den Bosch MJ, Schreurs PJG, Geers MGD. An improved description of the exponential Xu and Needleman cohesive zone law for mixed-mode
decohesion. Engng Fract Mech 2006;73(9):122034.
[19] Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW. The inuence of plasticity on mixed mode interface toughness. J Mech Phys Solids 1993;41(6):111935.
[20] Ortiz M, Pandol A. Finite-deformation irreversible cohesive elements for three-dimensional crack-propagation analysis. Int J Numer Meth Engng
1999;44(9):126782.
[21] Alfano G, Criseld MA. Finite element interface models for the delamination analysis of laminated composites: mechanical and computational issues.
Int J Numer Meth Engng 2001;50(7):170136.
[22] Hogberg JL. Mixed mode cohesive law. Int J Fract 2006;141(34):54959.
[23] Zhang ZY, Paulino GH. Cohesive zone modeling of dynamic failure in homogeneous and functionally graded materials. Int J Plast
2005;21(6):1195254.
[24] Hutchinson JW, Suo Z. Mixed mode cracking in layered materials. Adv Appl Mech 1992;29:63191.
[25] Jin ZH, Sun CT. Cohesive zone modeling of interface fracture in elastic bi-materials. Engng Fract Mech 2005;72(12):180517.
[26] Allix O, Corigliano A. Modeling and simulation of crack propagation in mixed-modes interlaminar fracture specimens. Int J Fract 1996;77(2):11140.
[27] Valoroso N, Champaney L. A damage-mechanics-based approach for modelling decohesion in adhesively bonded assemblies. Engng Fract Mech
2006;73(18):2774801.
[28] Banks-Sills L, Boniface V, Eliasi R. Development of a methodology for determination of interface fracture toughness of laminate composites the 0/90
pair. Int J Solids Struct 2005;42(2):66380.
[29] Banks-Sills L, Travitzky N, Ashkenazi D. Interface fracture properties of a bimaterial ceramic composite. Mech Mater 2000;32(12):71122.
[30] Banks-Sills L, Ashkenazi D. A note on fracture criteria for interface fracture. Int J Fract 2000;103(2):17788.
[31] Williams ML. The stresses around a fault or crack in dissimilar media. Bull Seism Soc Am 1959;49(2):199204.
[32] Deng X. General crack-tip elds for stationary and steadily growing interface cracks in anisotropic bimaterials. J Appl Mech 1993;60(1):18396.
[33] Dundurs J. Some properties of elastic stresses in a composite. In: Eringen AC, editor. Recent advances in engineering science, vol. 5. New York: Gordon
and Breach Science Publishers; 1970. p. 20316.
[34] Rice JR, Suo Z, Wang JS. Mechanics and thermodynamics of brittle interfacial failure in bimaterial systems. In: Rhle M, Evans AG, Ashby MF, Hirth JP,
editors. Metalceramic interfaces. New York: Pergamon Press; 1990. p. 26994.
[35] Needleman A. A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. J Appl Mech 1987;54(3):52531.
[36] Xie D, Salvi AG, Sun C, Waas AM, Caliskan A. Discrete cohesive zone model to simulate static fracture in 2D triaxially braided carbon ber composites.
J Compos Mater 2006;40(22):202546.
[37] Xie D, Waas AM. Discrete cohesive zone model for mixed-mode fracture using nite element analysis. Engng Fract Mech 2006;73(13):178396.
[38] ABAQUS Standard, Version 6.7-1, Hibbit. Karlsson & Sorensen Inc.; 2007.
[39] Criseld MA. Non-linear nite element analysis of solids and structures. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 1991.
[40] Pandya KC, Williams JG. Cohesive zone modelling of crack growth in polymers part 1. Experimental measurement of cohesive law. Plast Rubber
Compos 2000;29(9):43946.
[41] Cornec A, Scheider I, Schwalbe KH. On the practical application of the cohesive model. Engng Fract Mech 2003;70(14):196387.
[42] Ivankovic A, Pandya KC, Williams JG. Crack growth predictions in polyethylene using measured traction-separation curves. Engng Fracture Mech
2004;71(46):65768.
[43] Ashkenazi D. Determination of critical interface energy release rates for bonded elastic materials. Ph.D. Thesis. Tel Aviv University; 1999 [in Hebrew].
[44] Banks-Sills L, Freed Y, Eliasi R, Fourman V. Fracture toughness of the +45/45 interface of a laminate composite. Int J Fract 2006;141(12):195210.
[45] Konovalov N. Examination of out-of-plane deformation in 3-D crack problems. M.Sc. Thesis. Tel Aviv University; 2008 [in Hebrew].