AMML

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
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 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.
o
, , f( , , ) c c o c c
o
Fracture Mechanics -
Linear solutions leads to singular fields-
difficult to evaluate
Fracture criteria based on
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

o
Fracture/Damage theories to model failure
IC IC IC
K , G , J , CTOD,...
E
D 1 , Effective stress =
E 1 D
o
= o =

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.

CZM is an Alternative method to Model Separation
AMML

Contact Wedging
Contact Surface
(friction)
Plastic Wake
Plasticity induced
crack closure
Fibril (MMC bridging
Oxide bridging
Plastic
zone
Cleavage
fracture
Wake of crack tip Forward of crack tip
Extrinsic dissipation Intrinsic dissipation
Metallic
Ceramic
Crack Meandering
Thickness of
ceramic interface
Microvoid
coalescence
Plastic wake
Precipitates
Crack Deflection
Crack Meandering
Cyclic load induced
crack closure
Micro cracking
initiation
Micro void
growth/coalescence
Delamination
Corner atoms
BCC
Body centered
atoms
Face centered
atoms
FCC
Corner atoms
Phase
transformation
Grain bridging
Fibril(polymers)
bridging
Inter/trans granular
fracture
Active dissipation mechanisims participating at the cohesive process zone
Dissipative Micromechanisims Acting in the wake and forward
region of the process zone at the Interfaces of
Monolithic and Heterogeneous Material
C
WAKE
FORWARD
sep
o
max
o
D
o
COHESIVE
CRACK TIP
ACTIVE PLASTIC ZONE
INACTIVE PLASTIC ZONE
(Plastic wake)
ELASTIC SINGULARITY ZONE
MATHEMATICAL
CRACK TIP
MATERIAL
CRACK TIP
A
E D
x
y
D
o
max
o
sep
o
max
o
y
o
WAKE FORWARD
LOCATION OF COHESIVE
CRACK TIP
o
o
A
B
D
E
NO MATERIAL
SEPARATION
l
1 l
2
COMPLETE MATERIAL
SEPARATION
C
, X
Concept of wake and forward region in the
cohesive process zone
Conceptual Framework of Cohesive Zone Models for interfaces
is an interface surface separating two domains
(identical/separate constitutive behavior).
After fracture the surface comprise of unseparated surface and
completely separated surface (e.g. ); all modeled within the con-
cept of CZM.
Such an approach is not possible in conventional mechanics of con-
tinuous media.
1
I
1 2
, O O
*
O
1
I
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 after that
it rapidly reduces to zero with increase in separation distance.
E is Youngs modulus and is surface tension





o
T
(Barenblatt, G.I, (1959), PMM (23) p. 434)

m o
f ET / b E/10 =
Figure (a) Variation of Cohesive
traction (b) I - inner region,
II - edge region
Development of CZ Models-Historical Review
Barenblatt (1959) was
first to propose the concept
of Cohesive zone model to
brittle fracture

AMML

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
the form
2
s T
a 4 Y
2 sin ( )
t
=
(Dugdale, D.S. (1960), J. Mech.Phys.Solids,8,p.100)
Dugdale (1960)
independently developed
the concept of cohesive
stress


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.

Phenomenological Models
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 fragm-
entation squeezing" by evanescent
waves; brittle-bio materials
Amruthraj etal.,1995, composites

Grujicic, 1999, fracture beha-
vior of polycrystalline; bicrystals
Costanzo etal;1998, dynamic fr.
Ghosh 2000, Interfacial debo-
nding; composites
Rahulkumar 2000 viscoelastic
fracture; polymers
Liechti 2001Mixed-mode, time-
depend. rubber/metal debonding
Ravichander, 2001, fatigue

Tevergaard 1992 particle-matrix
interface debonding
Tvergaard etal 1996 elastic-
plastic 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

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
, , | = | A A A
n t1 t 2
, , A A A where
are normal and tangential
displacement jump
The interface tractions are given by
n t1 t 2
n t1 t 2
T , T , T
c| c| c|
= = =
cA cA cA
Fracture process zone and CZM
Material
crack tip
Mathematical
crack tip
x
y
AMML
AMML
What is the relationship between the physics/mechanics of the separation process and
shape of CZM? (There are as many shapes/equations as there are number of interface
problems solved!)
What is the relationship between CZM and fracture mechanics of brittle, semi-brittle
and ductile materials?
What is the role of scaling parameter in the fidelity of CZM to model interface
behavior?
What is the physical significance of
- Shape of the curve C
- t
max
and interface strength
- Separation distance o
sep
and COD?
- Area under the curve, work of fracture, fracture toughness G (local and
global)
Critical Issues in the application of CZM to interface models
AMML
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
Importance of
shape of CZM
Motivation for studying CZM
critical issues addressed here
m
Scales- What range of CZM parameters
are valid?
MPa or GPa for the traction
J or KJ for cohesive energy
nm or 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
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 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?)
m
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)
Atomic Seperation (A)
E
n
e
r
g
y
(
e
V
)
2 4 6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Al
Mg
Cu
(5.44)
Cutoff Distances
(4.86)
(6.10)
The total internal energy of the crystal
( ) ( )
( )
1
2
1
1
=
=
=
= +
=

tot i
i
i i ij
j
i ij
j
E E
E F r
f r
|

where
and
Contribution to electron density
of i
th
atom and j
th
atom.
Two body central potential
between i
th
atom and j
th
atom.



( )
i
F
( )

ij
f r

ij
|

i
E
Internal energy associated with atom i
Embedded Energy of atom i.

AMML
GRAINSTRUCTUREANDCOMPUTATIONALCRYSTAL
CONSTRUCTIONOFCOMPUTATIONALCRYSTAL
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
A small portion of CSL grain bounary before
And after application of tangential force
9(221) E
Curve in Shear direction
T o
Shet C, Li H, Chandra N ;Interface models for GB sliding and migration
MATER SCI FORUM 357-3: 577-585 2001


AMML
A small portion of CSL grain boundary before
And after application of normal force
9(221) E
Curve in Normal direction
T o
Summary
complete debonding occurs when the
distance of separation reaches a value of 2
to 3 .
For 9 bicrystal tangential work of
separation along the grain boundary is of
the order 3 and normal work of
separation is of the order 2.6 .
For 3 -bicrystal, the work of separation
ranges from 1.5 to 3.7 .
Rose et al. (1983) have reported that the
adhesive energy (work of separation) for
aluminum is of the order 0.5 and the
separation distance 2 to 3
Measured energy to fracture copper
bicrystal with random grain boundary is
of the order 54 and for 11 copper
bicrystal the energy to fracture is more
than 8000

A
2
J / m
2
J / m
2
J / m
A
2
J / m
2
J / m
2
J / m
Results and discussion on atomistic simulation
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.


It should also be noted that the exper-
imental value of fracture energy
includes the plastic work in addition
to work of separation
(J.R Rice and J. S Wang, 1989)

p
2 W | = I+
Material Nomenclature particle size
Aluminium
alloys
2024-T351 35 14900 1.2
2024-T851 25.4 8000 1.2

Titanium
alloys
T21 80 48970 2-4
T68 130 130000 2-4
Steel Medium
Carbon
54 12636 2-4
High strength
alloys
98 41617
18 Ni (300)
maraging
76 25030
Alumina 4-8 34-240 10
SiC ceramics 6.1 0.11 to 1.28
Polymers PMMA 1.2-1.7 220
1/ 2
IC
K MPam
2
IC
G J / m
2
J / m I
2 3
Al O
m
m
Table of surface and fracture energies of standard materials
AMML
Energy balance and effect of plasticity in the
bounding material
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 curve.

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


The input energy is equated to
material parameter
Based on the measured fracture value


n
o
n max n
e | = o o
t max t
e
2
| = t o
n
|
IC
J
m X
MPa
m J
t n
ult
t n
6
max
2
10 5 . 4
642
/ 8000

= =
= =
= =
o o
o o
| |
Cohesive zone parameters of a ductile material
AMML
E=72 GPa, v=0.33,
1/ 2
IC
K 25MPa m =
Stress strain curve is given by
1/ n
y
y
E
320MPa,
0.01347,
n 0.217173
| |
o o
c = + o
|
o
\ .
o =
o =
=
where
and fracture parameter
Material model for the bounding material
Elasto-plastic model for Al 2024-T3
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 ~ m

7
7x10

AMML
Global energy distribution
are confined to bounding material
w e p c
E E E E = + +
e p
E and E
c
E
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


Using CZM, this fracture energy
is dissipated and no plastic
dissipation occurs, such that


U
G J
a
c
= =
c
2
G J 8000J / m | = = =
w e c
E E E = +
Global energy distribution (continued)
Issues
Fracture energy obtained from experi-
mental 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?
Two dissipative process

2
8000J / m | =
Plasticity within
Bounding material
Micro-separation
Process in FPZ
Analysis with elasto-plastic material model
where represents other factors arising from
the shape of the traction-displacement relations
Implications



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
p p i
y
E E , n,S , i 1, 2,..
| |
o
= =
|
o
\ .
i
S
What are the key CZM parameters that govern the energetics?
in cohesive zone dictates the stress level achievable in the bounding
material.
Yield in the bounding material depends on its yield strength and its post
yield (hardening characteristics.
Thus 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)

max
o
max y
o o
y
o
AMML
Global energy distribution (continued)
u /
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
(
1
.
0
E
-
2
)
0 20 40 60 80
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1
2
3
4
Cumulative Plastic Work
Cumulative Cohesive Energy
2
.
o
.
o
.
y
n
8
o
n
Variation of cohesive energy and plastic energy for
various ratios
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
max y
o o
max y
1 o o =
max y
1.5 o o =
max y
2.0 o o =
max y
2.5 o o =
Recoverable elastic work 95 to
98% of external work

Plastic dissipation depends on

Elastic behavior

plasticity occurs.

Plasticity increases with
e
E =
max y
o o
max y
1 to 1.5: o o s
max y
o o
max y
1.5: o o >
Relation between plastic work and cohesive work
Plastic Energy/( 1.0E-2)
C
o
h
e
s
i
v
e
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
(
1
.
0
E
-
2
)
0 1 2 3 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
o
max
o
max
o
max
o
y
= 1.5
o
o
y
y
= 2.0
= 2.5
2.o .o .
y n
2
.
o
.
o
.
y
n
(very small scale plasticity),
plastic energy ~ 15% of total dissipation.
Plasticity induced at the initial stages
of the crack growth
plasticity ceases during crack
propagation.
Very small error is induced by ignoring
plasticity.
plastic work increases
considerably, ~100 to 200% as that of
cohesive energy.
For large scale plasticity problems the
amount of total dissipation (plastic and
cohesive) is much higher than 8000
Plastic dissipation very sensitive to
ratio beyond 2 till 3
Crack cannot propagate beyond
and completely elastic below
max y
1.5 o o =
max y
2.0 o o >
2
J / m .
max y
1.5 o o s
max y
o o
max y
3 o o >
AMML
Variation of Normal Traction along the interface
x(m)
T
/
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.018
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1
2
3
4
l
2
l
2
l
2
l
2
Curve l o o
max
y 2
1
2
3
4
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1100
( m)
2900
4800
11000
n
(
2
.
o
)
y

The length of cohesive zone is also
affected by ratio.
There is a direct correlation
between the shape of the traction-
displacement curve and the normal
traction distribution along the
cohesive zone.
For lower ratios the
traction-separation curve flattens, this
tend to increase the overall cohesive
zone length.
max y
o o
max y
o o
AMML
Local/spatial Energy Distribution
A set of patch of elements (each having app. 50
elements) were selected in the bounding material.
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.
m
Variation of Cohesive Energy
a/b
C
o
h
e
s
i
v
e
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
(
1
.
0
E
-
7
)
0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3 0.31 0.32
0
200
400
600
800
C C
C C
C
C C C
C
C
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8
9
10
2
.
o
.
o
.
y
n

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
The cohesive energy in the patch increases
up to point C (corresponding to 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
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.
max
o
T o
max
o
max
o
n
T
sep
o
Variation of Elastic Energy
a/b
E
l
a
s
t
i
c
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
(
1
.
0
E
-
8
)
0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2
.
o
.
o
.
y
n
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
9
10

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
Considerable elastic energy is built up till
the peak of 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
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.
T o
T o
max
o
max
o
n
T
sep
o
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
2.0 o o >
max
o
max
o
n
T
sep
o
y
o
T o
c e
E and E
plastic energy accumulates considerably
along with elastic energy, when the local
stresses bounding material exceeds the yield
After reaching peak point C on 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 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

AMML
Variation of Plastic Work ( )
max y
1.5 o o s
a/b
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
(
1
.
0
E
-
8
)
0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3 0.31 0.32
0
25
50
75
100
125
2
.
o
.
o
.
y
n
Plastic Work
Elastic Energy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Variation of Plastic work and Elastic work in various patch
of elements along the interface for the case of .
The numbers indicates the energy in various patch of
elements starting from the crack tip.
max y
1.5 o o s
, there is no plastic dissipation.

plastic work is induced only
in the first patch of element

No plastic dissipation during crack
growth place in the forward region

Initial sharp crack tip profile induces
high levels of stress and hence plasticity
in bounding material.

During crack propagation, tip blunts
resulting reduced level of stresses
leading to reduced elastic energies and
no plasticity condition.
max y
1 o o =
max y
1.5 o o =
max
o
max
o
n
T
sep
o
AMML
Contour plot of yield locus around the cohesive
crack tip at the various stages of crack growth.
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.
ratio affects length of fracture process zone length. For smaller
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 ratio.
max y
o o
max y
o o
max y
o o
AMML
Conclusion(contd.)
IC
J
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 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.