The Cohesive Zone Model

  • Haoyun TuEmail author
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)


According to what has been summarized in the previous chapters, simulations are performed with the Rousselier and the Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) models predicting the crack propagation of the C(T)-specimens with different initial crack positions, i.e., the initial crack located in the BM, in the centre of the FZ and at the interface between the FZ and the HAZ. As explained in the previous chapters, the phenomenological model—the cohesive model—is able to describe ductile and brittle fracture behaviour of materials when the proper traction-separation law is adopted. In this chapter, the dimensions and the mechanical properties of different weld regions are derived from the previous chapters. Compact tension specimens [C(T)25 with 20% side groove] are investigated with the cohesive model. The numerical simulation results are compared with the experimental one in terms of the F-COD- and JR-curves.


  1. ABAQUS, Theory manual 6.7 (Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, 2008)Google Scholar
  2. ASTM E 1820-96, Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughness, in Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol 03.01 (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 2003)Google Scholar
  3. K.B. Broberg, The cell model of materials. Comput. Mech. 19, 447–452 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. W. Brocks, D. Arafah, Computational Fracture Mechanics, Students Project, Final report. Politecnico di Milano (2014)Google Scholar
  5. W. Brocks, I. Scheider, Numerical aspects of the path-dependence of the J-integral in incremental plasticity. Technical Note GKSS/WMS/01/08, GKSS-Forschungszentrum Geesthacht (2001)Google Scholar
  6. W. Brocks, A. Cornec, I. Scheider, Computational aspects of nonlinear fracture mechanics. Technical note GKSS/WMS/02/05, GKSS-Forschungszentrum Geesthacht (2002)Google Scholar
  7. P.P. Camanho, C.G. Dávila, Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for the simulation of delamination in composite materials. NASA-Technical paper 211737(1), 33 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. A. Cornec, I. Scheider, K.-H. Schwalbe, On the practical application of the cohesive model. Eng. Fract. Mech. 70, 1963–1987 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. U. Eisele, R. Lammert, D. Restemeyer, X. Schuler, H.P. Seebich, M. Seidenfuß, H. Silcher, L. Stumpfrock, Reactor safety research—Project No. 1501240: Critical examination of the master curve approach regarding application in German nuclear power plants. Report-No: 8886000000, MPA Stuttgart (2006)Google Scholar
  10. E. Roos, U. Eisele, Determination of material characteristic values in elastic-plastic fracture mechanics by means of J-Integral crack resistance curves. J. Test. Eval. 16, 1–11 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. I. Scheider, W. Brocks, Simulation of cup-cone fracture using the cohesive model. Eng. Fract. Mech. 70, 1943–1961 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. K.-H. Schwalbe, I. Scheider, A. Cornec, SIAM CM09—The SIAM method for application cohesive models of the damage behaviour of engineering materials and structures. GKSS report, 2009/1, GKSS-Forschungszentrum Geesthacht (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Aerospace Engineering and Applied MechanicsTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations