Integration of finite displacement interface element in reference and current configurations

In the present paper the non-linear behaviour of a solid body with embedded cohesive interfaces is examined in a finite displacements context. The principal target is the formulation of a two dimensional interface finite element which is referred to a local reference frame, defined by normal and tangential unit vectors to the interface middle surface. All the geometric operators, such as the interface elongation and the reference frame, are computed as function of the actual nodal displacements. The constitutive cohesive law is defined in terms of Helmholtz free energy for unit undeformed interface surface and, in order to obtain the same nodal force vector and stiffness matrix by the two integration schemes, the cohesive law in the deformed configuration is defined in terms of Cauchy traction, as a function of separation displacement and of interface elongation. Explicit expression of the nodal force vector is integrated either over the reference configuration or over the current configuration, which is shown to produce the same analytical finite element operators. No differences between the integration carried out in the reference and in the current configuration are shown, provided that elongation of the interface is taken in to account.

[1]  M. Ortiz,et al.  Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials , 1996 .

[2]  van den Mj Marco Bosch,et al.  An improved description of the exponential Xu and Needleman cohesive zone law for mixed-mode decohesion , 2006 .

[3]  F. Parrinello,et al.  Cohesive–frictional interface constitutive model , 2009 .

[4]  V. Tvergaard.  Effect of fibre debonding in a whisker-reinforced metal , 1990 .

[5]  Giulio Alfano,et al.  An interface element formulation for the simulation of delamination with buckling , 2001 .

[6]  G. Marannano,et al.  A thermodynamically consistent cohesive-frictional interface model for mixed mode delamination , 2016 .

[7]  Alberto Corigliano,et al.  Geometrical and interfacial non-linearities in the analysis of delamination in composites , 1999 .

[8]  Pierre Gilormini,et al.  Testing some implementations of a cohesive-zone model at finite strain , 2015 .

[9]  Glaucio H. Paulino,et al.  A unified potential-based cohesive model of mixed-mode fracture , 2009 .

[10]  P. Geubelle,et al.  Impact-induced delamination of composites: A 2D simulation , 1998 .

[11]  E. Gdoutos.  Fracture Mechanics: An Introduction , 1993 .

[12]  L. Fratini,et al.  Mode I failure modeling of friction stir welding joints , 2009 .

[13]  J. Z. Zhu,et al.  The finite element method , 1977 .

[14]  Mgd Marc Geers,et al.  On the lack of rotational equilibrium in cohesive zone elements , 2013 .

[15]  Mgd Marc Geers,et al.  A cohesive zone model with a large displacement formulation accounting for interfacial fibrilation , 2007 .

[16]  M. Ortiz,et al.  FINITE-DEFORMATION IRREVERSIBLE COHESIVE ELEMENTS FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL CRACK-PROPAGATION ANALYSIS , 1999 .

[17]  P. Krysl,et al.  Finite element simulation of ring expansion and fragmentation: The capturing of length and time scales through cohesive models of fracture , 1999 .

[18]  Jessica Toti,et al.  Interface Elements for the Analysis of Masonry Structures , 2010 .

[19]  J. Mosler,et al.  A thermodynamically and variationally consistent class of damage-type cohesive models , 2011 .

[20]  J. Reinoso,et al.  A consistent interface element formulation for geometrical and material nonlinearities , 2014, 1507.05168.

[21]  G. Giambanco,et al.  The interphase model applied to the analysis of masonry structures , 2014 .

[22]  Matti Ristinmaa,et al.  Fundamental physical principles and cohesive zone models at finite displacements – Limitations and possibilities , 2015 .