Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 897–903

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Finite element modeling of mode I delamination growth in laminated DCB

specimens with R-curve effects
M. Heidari-Rarani a,b, M.M. Shokrieh a, P.P. Camanho b,⇑
a
Composite Research Laboratory, Center of Excellence in Experimental Solid Mechanics and Dynamics, School of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and
Technology (IUST), Narmak, 16846-13114 Tehran, Iran
b
DEMec, Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper proposes a three-linear cohesive zone model (CZM) to capture the mode I delamination initi-
Received 23 March 2012 ation and propagation behavior of unidirectional DCB specimens under large-scale fiber bridging condi-
Received in revised form 17 September tions (R-curve behavior). This CZM is produced by superposing two bilinear CZMs and the required
2012
parameters are obtained from the experimental R-curve of a DCB specimen only knowing the initiation
Accepted 17 September 2012
Available online 27 September 2012
fracture toughness (Gi), the fiber bridging length (lFPZ) and the steady state toughness (Gss). The proposed
method does not need the measurement of the crack tip opening displacement during the experiments
and, therefore, it eliminates the current difficulties of the traditional CZMs in the simulation of delami-
Keywords:
B. Delamination
nation propagation under large-scale bridging.
B. Fracture toughness Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Finite element analysis (FEA)
R-curve

1. Introduction fracture process is modeled in terms of a local traction–separation

The increased use of composites in various safe-fail structures
resulted in significant efforts to understand the failure mecha-
nisms of these materials, especially the delamination failure mode.
Delamination significantly reduces the global stiffness and the
compressive strength of a structure. Consequently, the analysis of
the onset and propagation of the delamination continues to be
studied by composite researchers.
Most numerical and theoretical analyses of delamination
growth are based on the fracture mechanics approach, and evalu-
ate the energy release rate [1–5]. Among the available methods
in the scientific literature for the investigation of crack propagation
by means of finite element codes, the Virtual Crack Closure Tech-
nique (VCCT) and the cohesive zone model (CZM) are extensively
used. VCCT which was first formulated by Rybicki and Kanninen
[6] is computationally simple and effective method for calculation
of energy release rate in flat laminates with an embedded delami-
nation. However, it is not an appropriate method for the simulation
of delamination growth because it requires complex moving mesh
techniques to advance the crack front when the energy release rate
reaches its critical value.
The CZM method presents fracture as a gradual phenomenon in
which separation takes place across a cohesive zone. In fact, the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 22 508 1716/1753; fax: +351 22 508 1445.
E-mail address: pcamanho@fe.up.pt (P.P. Camanho).
relationship. Applicability of CZM for analyzing the fracture of var-
ious materials under different loading conditions and geometries,
e.g., adhesive joints [7,8] or intralaminar and interlaminar fracture
of laminated composites, is caused that CZM is widely used in the
available commercial finite elements packages. Investigations
show that shape of cohesive law plays an important role in the
simulation of the fracture behavior of different materials. Williams
et al. [9,10], Nairn [11], and Alfano [12] introduced various simpli-
fied forms of traction–separation laws such as linear elastic, rigid
plastic or constant stress, linear softening, triangular or bilinear,
trapezoidal and cubic forms. Among these models, the bilinear
CZM is preferred due to its simplicity (it only needs three indepen-
dent parameters, i.e., penalty stiffness, interface strength and stea-
dy-state fracture toughness, to describe completely the fracture
process) and due to the relatively good accuracy in the prediction
of delamination growth in composites with small fracture process
zone (FPZ) or small-scale bridging. However, many researchers
[13–16] have recently demonstrated that fracture resistance
(R-curve) behavior is prominent in unidirectional glass/epoxy
DCB specimens due to fiber cross-over bridging. Thus, traditional
bilinear CZMs cannot simulate the mode I delamination propaga-
tion well.
In this study, it is first shown that the bilinear CZM does not
capture the mode I delamination propagation of laminated DCB
specimen in the presence of large-scale bridging. Afterwards, a
three-linear CZM obtained from the superposition of two bilinear

1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.051
898 M. Heidari-Rarani et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 897–903
CZMs is introduced for the simulation of fiber bridging phenomena
in laminated composites, where the required parameters are ob-
tained analytically.
2. R-curve behavior of unidirectional laminated composites
The increase of the apparent fracture toughness with crack
extension is usually described by the concept of resistance curves
(R-curves), i.e., the crack growth resistance GR as a function of crack
extension Da. Fig. 1 shows an R-curve schematically. The reason for
the R-curve may be different in various materials. For example, in
the case of ductile solids, the plastic zone ahead of the crack tip is
the main reason. In laminated composites, the increase in tough-
ness is mainly due to the fiber cross-over bridging behind the crack
tip. Actually, the definition of the crack tip is different based on the
fracture mechanics and the cohesive zone model. According to the
fracture mechanics, the crack tip is the point where the bridging
and the fracture process initiate. However, according to the CZM,
crack tip is usually defined as the first point in the wake of damage
zone that is unable to sustain cohesive tractions [15]. The distance
between these two crack tips is defined as the fracture process
zone (FPZ) length, lFPZ (or the length of fiber bridging region in lam-
inated composites). After a fully development of the FPZ, crack
propagation proceeds by a steady state or a self-similar crack
growth involving simultaneous propagation of both crack tips
[11]. Thus, the length of FPZ remains constant and, consequently,
toughness is also constant. Comparing the length of FPZ to the
other dimensions of a specimen (in the case of DCB specimen,
thickness) two categories for the fracture problems of composites:
small-scale bridging and large-scale bridging problems. There is no a
definite criterion for categorizing the fracture of composite lami-
nates in one of the above groups. However, Dávila et al. [15] intro-
duced a dimensionless ratio (g) to interpret the notch sensitivity in
fracture of composites:
8 crack tip, the integral is the energy associated with crack traction
a < g < 5;
> ductile damage ðlarge-scale bridgingÞ
g¼ 0 ; 5 6 g 6 100; quasi-brittle fracture
lFPZ >
: bridging zone and GR is the total energy release rate (equal to the
g > 100; brittle damage ðsmall-scalebridgingÞ
ð1Þ
where a0 and lFPZ are the initial notch length and the fracture pro-
cess zone length, respectively. If the fully developed FPZ is suffi-
ciently small, fracture can be analyzed by conventional fracture
mechanics [16]. However, in problems where the notch sensitivity
g is low, the R-curve effect is important. On the other hand, when
large-scale bridging conditions prevail, the crack growth resistance
is not a material property, but rather a function of both the soften-
ing law and specimen geometry [16–18]. Therefore, complicated
Fracture resistance, GR
Gss
Gi
lFPZ
Crack extension, a
Fig. 1. A schematic shape of R-curve under large-scale fiber bridging.
CZMs may be necessary to capture the correct bridging response.
In the case of laminated composites, lFPZ is of the order of a few mil-
limeters. Hence, R-curve effects are significant.
Some researchers [13,28,29] have also proposed approximate
mathematical expressions for R-curve of materials with strain-
softening behavior. These relations only depend on the three mea-
sured parameters, i.e., the initiation fracture toughness (Gi), the
length of FPZ (lFPZ) and the steady state toughness (Gss). The qua-
dratic form of R-curve as a function of the crack extension
(Da = a  a0) which is obtained from the experimental observa-
tions in Ref. [13], is rewritten as follows:
8      2
GR ðDaÞ < 1 þ 2 GGss  1 lDa þ 1  GGss lDa ; 0  Da  lFPZ
¼ i FPZ i FPZ
Gi :
Gss =Gi ; Da  lFPZ
ð2Þ
In the present study, we address the inverse problem: how to
infer rmax if an R-curve has been experimentally measured.
3. Description of superposed cohesive zone approach
A cohesive zone model or a bridging law is defined as the rela-
tionship between the local bridging stress (rb) and the local crack
opening displacement (d). The common method for extracting the
traction–separation behavior of the cohesive elements for a mate-
rial is based on the application of the path independent J-integral
approach. According to this approach, it is necessary to evaluate
the energy release rate along a path containing the crack face in
the bridged zone and the crack tip:
Z d
GR ¼ Gi þ rb ðdÞdd ð3Þ
0
where Gi is the mode I initiation delamination toughness at the
in the process zone, rb(d) is the crack surface traction as a function
of the crack opening displacement, d is the end-opening of the
steady state delamination toughness, Gss). Differentiating Eq. (3)
with respect to d gives [16]:
@GR
rb ðd Þ ¼ ð4Þ
@d
The intrinsic resistance, Gi, is assumed to be independent of the
damage accumulation and therefore has a constant value. Thus, to
experimentally determine the bridging law, it is necessary to mea-
sure d together with the R-curve. First, GI is plotted versus d and
the best curve fitted on the experimental data gives a relation for
GR–d. Using Eq. (4), the bridging stress versus d will be obtained.
There are two significant difficulties to be addressed in this
method [19]: (1) the stress distribution is significantly influenced
by the fit of the GR–d curve, in particular at the origin. If the fit
function becomes very steep near d = 0, then rb will approach
infinity. Consequently, small differences in the curve fit will have
a large effect on the value of the maximum bridging stress; (2) it
is difficult to determine the exact value of maximum crack open-
ing, dc, due to the asymptotic nature of the cohesive curve. Actu-
ally, the R-curve and the traction–separation relation (Figs. 1 and
2) are not two independent concepts (when d attains d0 the
R-curve reaches its steady-state value Gss and the bridging zone
maintains a self-similar opening profile and a constant length).
However, experimentally characterizations of CZM parameters
are more sensitive than the R-curve parameters. Therefore, the
present study focuses on the simulation of mode I delamination
growth in DCB specimens without using experimentally obtained
CZMs, only using R-curves.
 M. Heidari-Rarani et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 897–903 899

Fig. 2. Superposing of two bilinear CZMs.

L
The linear softening laws (or bilinear CZMs) are the frequently Combining Eqs. (7) and (8) yields the linearized model of lFPN for
used in the literature. These laws are fully defined by an initial the three-linear CZM:
stiffness, Kp, a maximum strength, rc, and a critical energy release
L 2 1m
rate, Gss. It has been shown that the bilinear CZM cannot simulate lFPN ¼ lc ð9Þ
the bridging phenomenon in the case of composite specimens with
3 1n
large-scale bridging [15]. Therefore, cohesive models should be From Eq. (9), the strength ratio (n) will be obtained in terms of
modified so that they represent de-cohesion followed by fiber other known parameters. For the sake of brevity, the procedure of
bridging. Sorensen et al. [19] and Tamuzs et al. [20] used three-part determining n and m is summarized as follows:
cohesive laws. In their investigations, the three-part cohesive laws
are experimentally proposed for DCB specimens, but the way of  Calculate the Gi (or GI-init), Gss (or GIc-prop) and lFPZ from the
obtaining the necessary parameters was not explained. The super- experimental R-curve.
position of two bilinear CZMs, as illustrated in Fig. 2, is proposed to  Assume G1 = Gi and determine the value of G2 from Eq. (5);
capture the correct bridging response. The superposed method G2 = Gss  G1.
may represent different phenomena such as the quasi-brittle ma-  Determine the fracture toughness ratio: m = G1/Gss.
trix fracture characterized by a short critical opening displacement  Use Eq. (9) to obtain the strength ratio:
(dc1) and fiber bridging, characterized by a lower peak stress and a
longer critical opening displacement (dc2) [15]. In fact, the bridging 2 1  m EZ Gss
n¼1 c L ð10Þ
strength does not typically contribute to the peak strength, which 3 lFPN r2c
is associated with the intrinsic fracture process prior to the bridg-
ing process. It is assumed that the two bilinear CZMs peak at the where c = 0.884, Ez and rc are the through-the-thickness Young’s
same displacement jump. The sum of two arbitrary linear softening modulus and tensile strength, respectively. For transversely isotro-
laws describing bridging phenomena would result in a three-linear pic materials, Ez and rc are assumed to be equal to the transverse
softening law. Following Dávila et al. [15], the bilinear softening Young’s modulus (E2) and in-plane transverse tensile strength
law can be described by the proportions rc1 = nrc, rc2 = (1  n)rc, (YT), respectively.
G1 = mGss and G2 = (1  m)Gss with 0 6 n, m 6 1, so that:
 Determine the penalty stiffnesses of the two bilinear CZMs;
Gss ¼ G1 þ G2 and rc ¼ rc1 þ rc2 ð5Þ
Kp1 = nKp and Kp2 = (1  n)Kp.
where n and m are defined as the strength ratio and toughness ratio,  The transition strength (rPo) or the maximum bridging strength
respectively. To determine n and m, the following expression can be can be obtain as follows [15]:
introduced using Eq. (2) for an R-curve that results from the sum of  
two linear softening laws: 1n m
   
rPo ¼ rc ð1  nÞ 1  ð11Þ
n 1m
Da n Da Da ð1  nÞ Da
GNL
R ðDaÞ ¼ nGss 2 þ ð1  nÞGss 2
lc m lc lc ð1  mÞ lc  Obtain the two fracture energies required to define this partic-
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
¼G1 if DaPm
ular model, GLc and GEc [15]:
n lc ¼G2 if DaP1m l
1n c

ð6Þ   
1n m
GLc ¼ Gss 1  ð1  mÞ 1  ð12Þ
where lc ¼ cEz Gss =r2c is the length of FPZ for linear softening. If it is n 1m
assumed that CZM 1 and 2 are ordered such that m=n  ð1  mÞ=  
NL
ð1  nÞ in Eq. (6), the length of FPZ for three-linear CZM ðlFPN Þ is 1n m
GEc ¼ Gss ð1  mÞ 1  ð13Þ
n 1m
1m
LNL
FPZ ¼ lc ð7Þ
1n where GLc and GEc are respectively the area of OAB and OBC triangles
Similarly, if the linear form of R-curve proposed by Suo et al. in the three-linear CZM shown in Fig. 3.
[16] is used and the order of CZM 1 and 2 is assumed the same According to the procedure outlined above, there is a three-part
as before (m=n  ð1  mÞ=ð1  nÞ), the following relation is ob- CZM with (0, d0), (d0, dc1) and (dc1, dc2) regions, as shown in Fig. 3.
tained between length of FPZ in nonlinear and linear form of R- The first and second parts are responsible for the initiation of the
curve: crack propagation. When the stress ahead of the crack tip reaches
rc, the crack tip opening is equal to d0 and the crack starts to prop-
L 2 NL agate. Behind the crack tip, the stress decreases and the displace-
lFPN ¼ l ð8Þ
3 FPN ment increases up to dc1. As previously mentioned, the region
900 M. Heidari-Rarani et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 897–903

Fig. 3. Schematically traction-displacement relation for a composite laminate with large-scale bridging.

between the two displacements dc1 and dc2 is usually called the
fracture process zone [20]. Then, the area under the triangle in
the first part of the separation represents Gi ¼ rmax dc1 =2; the inter-
val dc1 and dc2 is related to the bridging region and the area under
the curve represents the energy dissipation due to the fiber bridg-
ing (Gbr = Gss  Gi). Tamuzs et al. [20] introduced dc1 = 2Gi/rc for the
transient point from the region 2–3, but the exact value of tran-
sient stress is not determined. Using the method previously de-
scribed, the value of transient stress or bridging stress (rPo) is
easily obtained by Eq. (11). Also, the amount of the bridging energy
can be predicted by Eqs. (12) and (13).
The method described in the previous points requires the accu-
rate estimation of the initial penalty stiffness, Kp, and of the max-
imum traction, rc, which are parameters used in the bilinear CZMs.
Initially, before any damage occurs, the DCB specimen follows a
linear-elastic traction–separation behavior [10]. So, a bilinear CZM
acts the same as a linear-elastic CZM in the first part. Thus, the Kp
value can be analytically prescribed from a general linear-elastic
CZM (for a beam on the elastic foundation model [21]) as follows:
rmax ke 2Ez
Kp ¼ ¼ ¼
d0 b h
where h is the half thickness of a DCB specimen which is located on
an elastic foundation with ke tensile stiffness. Regarding the predic-
tion of maximum traction, it should be equal to the transverse ten-
sile strength of a transversely isotropic unidirectional composite
(YT). Sorensen et al. [19] and Camanho et al. [22] assumed that
the rmax is about 40% of the matrix yield strength to mitigate con-
vergence problems. However, experimental results show that the
maximum bridging stress varies between 1.5 and 5 MPa [19,20].
Therefore, several analytical relations were proposed by other
researchers in the literature for calculating maximum traction.
However, it is still not clear which one is suitable to extract rc from
the experimental R-curve of a glass/epoxy composite. Table 1 sum-
marizes the available relations found in the literature.
4. Experimental tests
Specimens made of 24-ply unidirectional E-glass/epoxy lami-
nate were produced by the hand lay-up method. The laminates
were cured at room temperature for 7 days and post-cured at
80 °C for 2 h. The average fiber volume fraction, 48.8%, was ob-
tained from the burn-out test. The material is characterized by
the following elastic constants: E1 = 33.5 GPa, E2 = 10.23 GPa,
G12 = 4.26 GPa, m12 = 0.27 and Efx = 30.54 GPa [13]. Where E1 and
E2 are respectively the longitudinal and transverse Young’s moduli,
G12 is the in-plane shear modulus, m12 is the Poisson ratio, and Efx is
the flexural modulus. A Teflon film with a thickness of 17 lm was
used to create the initial crack. Finally, DCB specimens with a total
length of L = 150 mm, a width of b = 25 mm and initial crack
ð14Þ lengths of a0 = 35 mm were cut from the laminated using diamond
saw. The load was transferred to the specimen using hinges to
avoid extraneous bending moments. A universal testing machine
(Santam STM-150) was used to conduct the tests. The load and
deflection were recorded by the machine with an accuracy of 1%.
The specimens were loaded under displacement control with a
constant speed of 0.75 mm/min. The crack propagation was mea-
sured by taking photos using a 150 mm Canon Macro lens. The val-
ues of P, d and a were measured and stored at any arbitrary
interval. Extensive fiber bridging was observed during the crack

Table 1
Relations for prediction of maximum traction in DCB specimens.

No. Relations Assumptions References

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 Beam on a linear-elastic foundation [10,23]
rmax ¼ 2 EzhGss
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 Elastic–plastic model in the absence of damage [26]
rmax ¼ 2:4 EzhGss
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 Efx Ez Gss Elastic–plastic model in presence of damage [27]a
rmax ¼ 0:76
v G13 h
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 rmax ¼ c ElzFPZGss c = 0.884 Elastic-perfectly plastic model [24]
c = 0.79 [25]
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 4  
5 Ez Gss
Constant stress form of CZM [10]
2 h
rmax ¼ 3 lFPN h
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
6  4  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  Constant stress form of CZM-dividing the total Gss to Gi and Gbr [16]
Ez Gbr Gss =Gi 1
rmax ¼ 23 l h h
p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
FPN Gss =Gi þ1

a
v = D/h, where D is a correction term for crack length according to MBT data reduction method. Efx is the flexural stiffness of DCB arms.
 M. Heidari-Rarani et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 897–903 901

propagation. Fig. 4 shows the enlarged bridging zone in a DCB Table 2

specimen. The modified beam theory (MBT) method was used to Geometrical and fracture properties of UD DCB specimen.

analyze the experimental data and to calculate the interlaminar Geometrical properties
fracture toughness. The typical load–displacement and corre- L = 150 mm, b = 25 mm, a0 = 35 mm, 2 h = 4.2 mm
sponding R-curve of one of the DCB specimens is illustrated in Fracture properties
Fig. 5. Each point on the curves corresponds to a crack increment. Data reduction method: MBT
More details about the experiments can be found in Ref. [13]. The Gss (GIc-prop) = 557 (±20.3) J/m2
Gi (GIc-init) = 98.2 (±0.92) J/m2 (at NL point)
necessary data for the finite element simulation is summarized in lFPZ = 8.6 (±0.57) mm
Table 2. D = 4.75 mm (crack length correction parameter)
g = a0/lFPZ = 4.1 mm

5. Implementation of superposing two linear cohesive models

In this section, the numerical procedure for the simulation of

delamination propagation using the superposed CZM are described
in the commercial finite element package ABAQUS [30]. The 2D fi-
nite element mesh was prepared to simulate a DCB specimen hav-
ing 150  25  4.2 mm overall dimensions and a pre-crack length
of 35 mm (Fig. 6). The 4-node bilinear plane strain (CPE4) elements
were used for the entire model with four elements through half of
the thickness. First, the available zero thickness cohesive elements
(COH2D4) with two integration points in ABAQUS is used to simu-
Fiber bridging late the delamination propagation. Afterwards, a user subroutine
with the superposed cohesive laws was used by means of an ABA-
QUS user element [4]. In the user subroutine, two parallel groups of
Fig. 4. Enlarged bridging zone in unidirectional DCB specimen. two-parameter CZMs are defined. The CZM elements are located
along the crack growth direction from the tip of the initial crack
to the end of the specimen.
70 The numerical analysis is performed under displacement con-
trol employing the line search approach. Therefore, the ends of
60 the beam are given a displacement w/2 (according to Fig. 6a,
w = 20 mm) in the y-direction, while the other end of the beam is
50 entirely fixed in x and y directions. Fig. 6 shows the finite element
model with cohesive elements and boundary conditions. When
Load, N

40
loading the beam in this mode the top and bottom parts of the
30 beam are first bent over the 35 mm long the initial crack. Subse-
quently, the cohesive zones start to open, which results in a de-
20 crease of the stiffness. When the cohesive zones are all
completely opened, the specimen would be opened as well and
10 the simulation should be stopped.

0
0 5 10 15 20 6. Results and discussion
Displacement, mm
The value of the notch sensitivity parameter calculated in Ta-
(a) Load-displacement curve ble 2 is lower than 5 for the unidirectional glass/epoxy DCB speci-
mens that were tested. Therefore, this is a fracture problem under
700 large-scale bridging and R-curve effects are important. Using Eq.
(10), Kp is obtained approximately 104 N/mm3. The values of max-
600
imum traction with different analytical relations in Table 1 are
500
compared and shown in Table 3. Experimental results in Refs.
[19,20] show that flexible glass fiber DCB specimens provide small
400 bridging strength and large opening displacement. However, some
GI, J/m2

of the relations overestimate rmax resulting in values higher than

300 the transverse tensile strength (50 MPa). Eqs. (5) and (6) (in Ta-
ble 1) provide approximately acceptable values in comparison with
200
the available experimental results. Therefore, to show that bilinear
100 CZMs cannot capture the correct bridging response, DCB specimens
8.6 mm were modeled with two maximum tractions (rmax = 2.5 and
0 50 MPa). The results are shown in Fig. 7, where it is shown that
30 40 50 60 70 80 the bilinear CZM with rmax = 50 MPa can predict neither the initi-
Delamination length, mm ation load (at the nonlinearity point) nor the peak of the load–
(b) Measured R-curve displacement curve accurately. With this value, convergence also
becomes difficult. Cohesive elements with rmax = 2.5 MPa underes-
Fig. 5. Load–displacement and R-curve of a DCB specimen with a0 = 35 mm. timate the initiation point of the delamination growth. Therefore, it
902 M. Heidari-Rarani et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 897–903

Fig. 6. Finite element modeling of DCB specimen with cohesive element.

Table 3
70
Comparison of predicted maximum traction
with different analytical relations. available on
Table 1. 60
Relation no. Maximum traction (MPa)
50
1 104.18
2 125.02
40
Load, N

3 46.83
4 24.2
5 2.54
6 1.47
30

20
Experiment
80 σmax=2,5 MPa
10 σmax=10 MPa
70 Experiment σmax=15 MPa
σmax=2,5 MPa
σmax=50 MPa 0
60 0 5 10 15 20
Displacement, mm
50
Load, N

Fig. 8. Numerical results of the superposed bilinear CZM.

40

30
can be concluded that the maximum traction has significant effect
20 on the initiation point whereas it does not affect the crack propa-
gation. Thus, the bilinear CZM cannot accurately simulate the
10 bridging region in DCB specimens.
The parameters calculated using the superposed CZM are pre-
0
0 5 10 15 20 sented in Table 4. Fig. 8 shows the predicted load–displacement
Displacement, mm relations from the superposed CZM with three different maximum
tractions. The superposed method is capable of capturing the over-
Fig. 7. ABAQUS results for the bilinear CZM with two different maximum tractions. all behavior of mode I delamination growth. According to the val-
ues obtained by the analytical models, rmax = 2.5 MPa cannot
model the bridging region. However, a comparison of the experi-
Table 4
mental data with the predictions from the finite element studies
Parameters for the superposed CZM method.
suggests the value of 15 MPa for the maximum traction. This value
Parameter Value of rmax is much lower than the expected transverse tensile
Transverse tensile strength (MPa) 50 strength. It should be noted that none of the analytical models that
Gss (J/m2) 557 predict the maximum traction resulted in the values that yielded
G1 (J/m2) 98.2
the better correlation with experiment.
Ez = E2 (GPa) 10.23
lFPZ (mm) 8.6
Fracture toughness ratio (m) 0.176 7. Conclusions
Strength ratio (n) 0.871
rPo (MPa) 6.23
It is concluded that the traditional bilinear cohesive zone model
GLc (J/m2) 112.7
(CZM) cannot capture the fracture behavior of laminated compos-
GEc 2
(J/m ) 444.3
ites in the presence of large-scale fiber bridging. A three-linear
Penalty stiffness (Kp) (N/mm3) 104 traction–separation is obtained for the unidirectional DCB
Kp1 n  Kp
specimens following the procedure proposed by Dávila et al. [15]
Kp2 (1  n)  Kp
that only requires the experimental R-curve parameters, i.e., the
 M. Heidari-Rarani et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 897–903
initiation fracture toughness (Gi), the fracture process zone length
(lFPZ) and the steady state toughness (Gss). This method is simple
and efficient due to its dependency to the R-curve and it overcomes
the need to measure the crack tip opening experimentally. The
simulations performed using the three-linear cohesive law whose
relevant parameters are obtained from the R-curve resulted in a
very good agreement with the experimental results. The finite ele-
ment results proved that the load–displacement curve is indepen-
dent of the rmax for the delamination propagation in the DCB
specimen; whereas the crack initiation point (nonlinearity point)
is significantly affected by the value of the rmax. Further research
is required to measure or to predict the value of rmax.
References
[1] Schoeppner GA, Pagano NJ. Stress fields and energy release rates in cross-ply
laminates. Int J Solids Struct 1998;35(11):1025–55.
[2] Sun CT, Jih CJ. On strain-energy release rates for interfacial cracks in bi-
material media. Eng Fract Mech 1987;28(1):13–20.
[3] Krueger R, O’Brien TK. A shell/3D modeling technique for the analysis of
delaminated composite laminates. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2001;32(1):
25–44.
[4] Camanho PP, Dávila CG, De Moura MF. Numerical simulation of mixed-mode
progressive delamination in composite materials. J Compos Mater
2003;37(16):1415–38.
[5] Shokrieh MM, Heidari-Rarani M, Rahimi S. Influence of curved delamination
front on toughness of multidirectional DCB specimens. Compos Struct
2012;94(4):1359–65.
[6] Rybicki EF, Kanninen MF. A finite element calculation of stress intensity factors
by a modified crack closure integral. Eng Fract Mech 1977;9(4):931–8.
[7] Ascione F, Mancusi G. Curve adhesive joints. Compos Struct 2012;94(8):
2657–64.
[8] Ascione F, Mancusi G. Failure criteria for FRP adhesive lap joints: a comparative
analysis. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2010;17:157–64.
[9] Williams JG, Hadavinia H, Kinloch AJ. Cohesive zone models in the
characterisation of toughness. In: Proceeding of 11th international
conference on fracture. Torino, Italy, 20–25 March, 2005.
[10] Williams JG, Hadavinia H. Analytical solution for cohesive zone models. J Mech
Phys Solids 2002;50(4):809–25.
[11] Nairn JA. Analytical and numerical modeling of R-curves for cracks with
bridging zones. Int J Fract 2009;155(2):167–81.
[12] Alfano G. On the influence of the shape of the interface law on the application
of cohesive zone models. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66(6):723–30.
903
[13] Shokrieh MM, Heidari-Rarani M, Ayatollahi MR. Delamination R-curve as a
material property of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites. Mater Design
2012;34:211–8.
[14] Spearing SM, Evans AG. The role of fiber bridging in the delamination
resistance of fiber-reinforced composites. Acta Metall Mater 1992;40(9):
2191–9.
[15] Dávila CG, Rose CA, Camanho PP. A procedure for superposing linear cohesive
laws to represent multiple damage mechanisms in the fracture of composites.
Int J Fract 2009;158(2):211–23.
[16] Suo Z, Bao G, Fan B. Delamination R-curve phenomena due to damage. J Mech
Phys Solids 1992;40(1):1–16.
[17] Sørensen BF, Jacobsen TK. Large-scale bridging in composites: R-curves and
bridging laws. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 1998;29(11):1443–51.
[18] Jacobsen TK, Sørensen BF. Mode I intra-laminar crack growth in composites-
modelling of R-curves from measured bridging laws. Compos Part A Appl Sci
Manuf 2001;32(1):1–11.
[19] Sorensen L, Botsis J, Gmür Th, Humbert L. Bridging tractions in mode I
delamination: measurements and simulations. Compos Sci Technol
2008;68(12):2350–8.
[20] Tamuzs V, Tarasovs S, Vilks U. Progressive delamination and fiber bridging
modeling in double cantilever beam composite specimens. Eng Fract Mech
2001;68(5):513–25.
[21] Shokrieh MM, Heidari-Rarani M, Ayatollahi MR. Calculation of GI for a
multidirectional composite double cantilever beam on two-parametric
elastic foundation. Aerospace Sci Technol 2011;15(7):534–43.
[22] Camanho PP, Dávila CG, Ambur DR. Numerical simulation of delamination
growth in composite materials. NASA/TP-2001-211041. Hampton: NASA
Langley Research Center; 2001.
[23] Blackman BRK, Hadavinia H, Kinloch AJ, Williams JG. The use of a cohesive
zone model to study the fracture of fibre composites and adhesively-bonded
joints. Int J Fract 2003;119(1):25–46.
[24] Rice JR. The mechanics of earthquake rupture. In: Dzie-wonski AM, Boschi E,
editors. Physics of the earth’s interior. Proceedings of the international school
of physics ‘Enrico Fermi’. Italian Physical Society and North-Holland Publ. Co.;
1979. p. 555–649.
[25] Cox BN, Marshall DB. Concepts for bridged cracks in fracture and fatigue. Acta
Metall Mater 1994;42(2):341–63.
[26] Williams JG, Hadavinia H. Elastic and elastic-plastic correction factors for DCB
specimens. In: Neimitz A, Rokach IV, Kocanda D, Golos K, editors. Proceedings
of the 14th biennial conference on fracture – ECF14, vol. III; 2002.
[27] Brunner AJ, Blackman BRK, Williams JG. Calculating a damage parameter and
bridging stress from GIC delamination tests on fibre composites. Compos Sci
Technol 2006;66(6):785–95.
[28] Foote R ML, Mai Y-W, Cotterell B. Crack growth resistance curves in strain-
softening materials. J Mech Phys Solids 1986;34(6):593–607.
[29] Bao G, Suo Z. Remarks on crack-bridging concepts. Appl Mech Rev
1992;45(8):355–66.
[30] Abaqus 6.11 user’s manual, dassault systèmes, Providence, RI, USA; 2011.