, Volume 49, Issue 12, pp 2933–2963 | Cite as

Energetic versus maximally-dissipative local solutions of a quasi-static rate-independent mixed-mode delamination model

  • Roman Vodička
  • Vladislav Mantič
  • Tomáš Roubíček


A quasi-static rate-independent model of delamination of linearly elastic bodies at small strains, sensitive to mode of delamination, using interfacial damage and interfacial plasticity as two internal parameters, is further developed with the aim to extract representations typically employed in engineering interface-models, i.e. fracture envelope and fracture energy dependence on the mode mixity, which are suitable for the model fitting to experimental data. Moreover, two concepts of solutions are implemented: globally stable energy-conserving solutions or stress-driven maximally-dissipative local solutions, arising by the fully implicit or by a semi-implicit time-stepping procedures, respectively, both yielding numerically stable and convergent time-discretizations. Spatial discretization is performed by the symmetric Galerkin boundary-element method (SGBEM). Alternating quadratic programming is implemented to cope with, respectively, global or local, energy-minimizations in the computation of the time-discretized solutions. Sample 2D numerical examples document applicability of the model as well as efficiency of the SGBEM numerical implementation and facilitate comparison of the two mentioned solution concepts.


Adhesive contact Debonding Interface fracture  Interface damage Interface plasticity Imperfect interface Weak interface Symmetric Galerkin BEM Alternating quadratic programming Local-solution concepts 



The authors are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for many useful suggestions that improved the presentation in particular aspects. A part of the work has been accomplished during the stages of R. V. and T. R. at Universidad de Sevilla whose hospitality is acknowledged. Moreover, the authors acknowledge the support from the Spanish Ministry of Education (Ref. SAB2010-0082) and Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Project MAT2012-37387), from the Junta de Andalucía and European Social Fund through the Project of Excellence P08-TEP-04051, from the Slovak Ministry of Education through the grant 1/0201/11 (VEGA), as well as from the Czech Republic through the grants 201/10/0357, 201/12/0671, and 105/13/18652S (GA ČR), together with the institutional support RVO: 61388998.


  1. 1.
    Alfano G, Sacco E (2006) Combining interface damage and friction in a cohesive-zone model. Int J Numer Methods Eng 68:542–582MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allix O, Feld N, Baranger E, Guimard J-M, Ha-Minh C (2014) The compressive behaviour of composites including fiber kinking: modelling across the scales. Meccanica. doi: 10.1007/s11012-013-9872-y
  3. 3.
    Banks-Sills L, Ashkenazi D (2000) A note on fracture criteria for interface fracture. Int J Fract 103:177–188Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartels S, Kružík M (2011) An efficient approach to the numerical solution of rate-independent problems with nonconvex energies. Multiscale Model Simul 9:1276–1300MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benešová B (2011) Global optimization numerical strategies for rate-independent processes. J Glob Optim 50:197–220CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonnet M (1995) Regularized direct and indirect symmetric variational BIE formulations for three-dimensional elasticity. Eng Anal Bound Elem 15:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonnet M, Maier G, Polizzotto C (1998) Symmetric Galerkin boundary element method. Appl Mech Rev 15:669–704CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bourdin B (2007) Numerical implementation of the variational formulation for quasi-static brittle fracture. Interfaces Free Bound 9:411–430MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bourdin B, Francfort A, Marigo JJ (2000) Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 48:797–826MathSciNetCrossRefMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bourdin B, Francfort A, Marigo JJ (2008) The variational approach to fracture. J Elasticity 91:5–148MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carpinteri A (1989) Cusp catastrophe interpretation of fracture instability. J Mech Phys Solids 37:567–582CrossRefMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carpinteri A, Cornetti P, Pugno N (2009) Edge debonding in FRP strengthtened beams; stress versus energy failure criteria. Eng Struct 21:2436–2447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cornetti P, Carpinteri A (2011) Modelling of FRP-concrete delamination by means of an exponentially softening law. Eng Struct 33:1988–2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cornetti P, Mantič V, Carpinteri A (2012) Finite fracture mechanics at elastic interfaces. Int J Solids Struct 49:1022–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dal Maso G, Francfort GA, Toader R (2005) Quasistatic crack growth in nonlinear elasticity. Arch Rational Mech Anal 176:165–225MathSciNetCrossRefMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diaz-Diaz A, Caron J-F (2006) Interface plasticity and delamination onset prediction. Mech Mater 38:648–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dostál Z (2009) Optimal quadratic programming algorithms. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evans A, Rühle M, Dalgleish B, Charalambides P (1990) The fracture energy of bimaterial interfaces. Metall Trans A 21A:2419–2429CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frémond M (1985) Dissipation dans l’adhérence des solides. CR Acad Sci Paris Ser II 300:709–714MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frémond M (2002) Non-smooth thermomechanics. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giambanco G, Scimemi GF (2006) Mixed mode failure analysis of bonded joints with rate-dependent interface models. Int J Numer Methods Eng 67:1160–1192CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grassl P, Rempling R (2008) A damage-plasticity interface approach to the meso-scale modelling of concrete subjected to cyclic compressive loading. Engng Fract Mech 75:4804–4818Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hill R (1948) A variational principle of maximum plastic work in classical plasticity. Q J Mech Appl Math 1:18–28CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hutchinson JW, Suo Z (1992) Mixed mode cracking in layered materials. Adv Appl Mech 29:63–191CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kočvara M, Mielke A, Roubíček T (2006) A rate-independent approach to the delamination problem. Math Mech Solids 11:423–447MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kolluri M, Hoefnagels JPM, van Dommelen JAW, Geers MGD (2011) An improved miniature mixed-mode delamination setup for in situ microscopic interface failure analyses. J Phys D Appl Phys 44:034005Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kolluri M, Hoefnagels JPM, van Dommelen JAW, Geers MGD (2013) A practical approach for the separation of interfacial toughness and structural plasticity in a delamination growth experiment. Int J Fract 183:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lenci A (2001) Analysis of a crack at a weak interface. Int J Fract 108:275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liechti K, Chai Y (1992) Asymmetric shielding in interfacial fracture under in-plane sheare. J Appl Mech 59:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mantič V (2008) Discussion on the reference length and mode mixity for a bimaterial interface. J Eng Mater Technol 130:045501-1-2Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mantič V, Távara L, Blázquez A, Graciani E, París F (2013) Application of a linear elastic–brittle interface model to the crack initiation and propagation at fibre–matrix interface under biaxial transverse loads. ArXiv preprint. arXiv:1311.4596.
  32. 32.
    Matzenmiller A, Gerlach S, Fiolka M (2010) A critical analysis of interface constitutive models for the simulation of delamination in composites and failure of adhesive bonds. J Mech Mater Struct 5:185–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mielke A (2011) Differential, energetic and metric formulations for rate-independent processes. In: Ambrosio L, Savaré G (eds) Nonlinear PDEs and applications. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 87–170Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mielke A, Roubíček T (2015) Rate-independent systems—theory and application. Applied Mathematical Sciences Series. Springer, New York (contracted)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mielke A, Theil F (2004) Mathematical model for rate-independent phase transformations with hysteresis. Nonlinear Differ Equ Appl 11:151–189MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mielke A, Roubíček T, Zeman J (2010) Complete damage in elastic and viscoelastic media and its energetics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199:1242–1253CrossRefMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moreo P, García-Aznar JM, Doblaré M (2007) A coupled viscoplastic rate-dependent damage model for the simulation of fatigue failure of cement-bone interfaces. Int J Plasticity 23:2058–2084CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Panagiotopoulos CG, Mantič V, Roubíček T (2013) BEM implementation of energetic solutions for quasistatic delamination problems. Comput Mech 51:505–521MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    París F, Cañas J (1997) Boundary element method. Fundamentals and applications. Oxford University Press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roubíček T (2009) Rate independent processes in viscous solids at small strains. Math Methods Appl Sci 32:825–862 (Erratum 2176)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roubíček T (2013) Nonlinear partial differential equations with applications, 2nd edn. Birkhäuser, BaselCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roubíček T (2013) Adhesive contact of visco-elastic bodies and defect measures arising by vanishing viscosity. SIAM J Math Anal 45:101–126MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roubíček T (submitted) Maximally-dissipative local solutions to rate-independent systems and application to damage and delamination problems. Nonlinear AnalGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roubíček T, Mantič V, Panagiotopoulos C (2013) Quasistatic mixed-mode delamination model. Discr Contin Dyn Syst 6:591–610MATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Roubíček T, Panagiotopoulos C, Mantič V (2013) Quasistatic adhesive contact of visco-elastic bodies and its numerical treatment for very small viscosity. Z Angew Math Mech 93:823–840CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Roubíček T, Scardia T, Zanini C (2009) Quasistatic delamination problem. Contin Mech Thermodyn 21:223–235MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Roubíček T, Kružík M, Zeman J (2014) Delamination and adhesive contact models and their mathematical analysis and numerical treatment. In: Mantič V (ed) Mathematical methods and models in composites. Imperial College Press, London, pp 349–400Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Roubíček T, Panagiotopoulos C, Mantič V (submitted) Local-solution approach to quasistatic rate-independent mixed-mode delamination. Math Models Methods Appl SciGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sauter SA, Schwab C (2010) Boundary element methods. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Scheider I (2009) Derivation of separation laws for cohesive models in the course of ductile fracture. Eng Fract Mech 76:1450–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Scheider I, Mosler J (2011) Novel approach for the treatment of cyclic loading using a potential-based cohesive zone model. Procedia Eng 10:2164–2169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sirtori S (1979) General stress analysis by means of integral equations and boundary elements. Meccanica 14:210–218CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sirtori S, Miccoli S, Korach E (1993) Symmetric coupling of finite elements and boundary elements. In: Kane JH, Maier G, Tosaka N, Atluri SN (eds) Advances in boundary element techniques. Springer, Berlin, pp 407–427Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Snozzi L, Molinari J-F (2013) A cohesive element model for mixed mode loading with frictional contact capability. Int J Numer Methods Eng 93:510–526MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Spada A, Giambanco G, Rizzo P (2009) Damage and plasticity at the interfaces in composite materials and structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198:3884–3901MathSciNetCrossRefMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Stefanelli U (2009) A variational characterization of rate-independent evolution. Math Nach 282:1492–1512MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sutradhar A, Paulino GH, Gray LJ (2008) The symmetric Galerkin boundary element method. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Swadener J, Liechti K, deLozanne A (1999) The intrinsic toughness and adhesion mechanism of a glass/epoxy interface. J Mech Phys Solids 47:223–258CrossRefMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Távara L, Mantič V, Graciani E, París F (2011) BEM analysis of crack onset and propagation along fiber–matrix interface under transverse tension using a linear elastic-brittle interface model. Eng Anal Bound Elem 35:207–222MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Toader R, Zanini C (2009) An artificial viscosity approach to quasistatic crack growth. Boll Unione Matem Ital 2:1–36MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Vodička R, Mantič V, París F (2007) Symmetric variational formulation of BIE for domain decomposition problems in elasticity—an SGBEM approach for nonconforming discretizations of curved interfaces. CMES Comput Model Eng 17:173–203MATHGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Vodička R, Mantič V, París F (2011) Two variational formulations for elastic domain decomposition problems solved by SGBEM enforcing coupling conditions in a weak form. Eng Anal Bound Elem 35:148–155MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Xu Q, Lu Z (2013) An elastic–plastic cohesive zone model for metal-ceramic interfaces at finite deformations. Int J Plasticity 41:147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ziegler H (1958) An attempt to generalize Onsager’s principle, and its significance for rheological problems. Z Angew Math Phys 9b:748–763CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roman Vodička
    • 1
  • Vladislav Mantič
    • 2
  • Tomáš Roubíček
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Civil Engineering FacultyTechnical University of KošiceKošiceSlovakia
  2. 2.School of EngineeringUniversity of SevilleSevilleSpain
  3. 3.Mathematical InstituteCharles UniversityPraha 8Czech Republic
  4. 4.Institute of Thermomechanics of the ASCRPraha 8Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations