Guidelines for Determining

Finite Element
Cohesive Material Parameters



Guidelines for Determining Finite Element Cohesive Material Parameters
1 of 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2
Determining Cohesive Parameters Via Finite Element Analysis ............................................. 3
What Test Specimens Are Best? ................................................................................ 3
What Properties Are Needed? ................................................................................... 4
How Should the Models be Created? ........................................................................ 4
Determining Cohesive Properties .............................................................................. 5
References ................................................................................................................. 7
Guidelines for Cohesive Element Usage with Helius:MCT ..................................................... 8
Defining a Helius:MCT Cohesive Material .............................................................................. 9
For More Information ............................................................................................. 9
Summary ...............................................................................................................................10



Guidelines for Determining Finite Element Cohesive Material Parameters
2 of 10

INTRODUCTION
Determining the input properties for cohesive elements used to model delamination
can be one of the most challenging and confusing tasks that a structural analyst faces.
This document describes an easy process that can be used for determining cohesive
input parameters from experimental double cantilever beam (DCB) and end notched
flexure (ENF) experimental data. The process involves 3 easy steps:
1. Determine Mesh Size.
2. Calculate Cohesive Stiffness.
3. Calibrate Initiation Strength.
Following this description are some specific steps and guidelines for using cohesive
elements with Helius:MCT.
If you have any questions or concerns about the content herein, please contact us,
wed love to hear from you!


Guidelines for Determining Finite Element Cohesive Material Parameters
3 of 10

DETERMINING COHESIVE PARAMETERS FOR
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
The following outlines a process for using finite element models of delamination test specimens to
arrive at cohesive stiffness, strength and energy properties. Properties will be calibrated such that
simulated tests match the measured response of the specimens.
What Test Specimens Are Best?
In most composite structural components, damage evolution consists of combined delamination
and intra-laminar ply failure. The evolution of these two physical damage forms is strongly
coupled. For the purpose of trying to use experimental data to characterize cohesive material
properties, it is necessary to identify experiments that isolate delamination behavior (i.e., tests that
result in minimal or no intra-laminar material failure).
Moreover, it is desirable to identify delamination
tests that separate the normal and shear modes of
delamination. For example, the double cantilever
beam (DCB) specimen is designed to produce pure
normal mode delamination without any intra-
laminar material damage. Similarly, the end-
notched flexural (ENF) specimen is designed to
produce pure shear mode delamination without
any intra-laminar material damage. This approach of utilizing experimental data to characterize
cohesive behavior minimizes the number of cohesive properties that must be simultaneously
determined (optimized).





Figure 1. Typical DCB (left) and ENF (right) configurations.
DCB and ENF specimen tests will
isolate delamination behavior and
separate normal and shear modes of
delamination.
Guidelines for Determining Finite Element Cohesive Material Parameters
4 of 10

What Properties Are Needed?
Cohesive input properties include parameters that define the stiffness, strength and fracture
energy of the cohesive material layer in each of its three deformation modes (e.g., a normal mode
denoted by a subscript n), and two shear modes (denoted by subscript s and t respectively).
Normal mode: K
nn
= Stiffness

(F/L
2
/L), S
n
= Strength (F/L
2
), G
n
= Fracture Energy (FL/L
2
)
Shear mode: K
ss
= Stiffness

(F/L
2
/L), S
s
= Strength (F/L
2
), G
s
= Fracture Energy (FL/L
2
)
Shear mode: K
tt
= Stiffness

(F/L
2
/L), S
t
= Strength (F/L
2
), G
t
= Fracture Energy (FL/L
2
)

How Should the Models be Created?
FE Models Should Match DCB & ENF Test Conditions
The first step in this process is to create DCB and ENF finite element models with loading and
dimensions that match the test conditions. The DCB model is used to characterize the normal
cohesive properties (K
nn
, S
n
, and G
n
), and the ENF model is used to characterize the shear cohesive
properties (K
ss
, S
s
, and G
s
).
Be Aware of Mesh Dependency
When determining cohesive material properties, one must be cognizant of the fact that predicted
cohesive behavior is mesh-dependent, i.e., using a consistent set of cohesive properties across a
wide range of cohesive mesh densities will result in a considerable range of predicted delamination
responses. In other words, in order for three different cohesive mesh densities to predict the same
delamination response, we must use three different sets of cohesive properties.
Since cohesive solutions are mesh dependent, it is important that the meshes for the DCB and ENF
specimens use cohesive elements that are approximately the same size as the cohesive elements
that are anticipated to be used in subsequent progressive failure analyses of composite
structural components.
Select Appropriate Damage Initiation Criteria and Damage Evolution Model
For the DCB and ENF models, the cohesive material definition should use the Maximum Stress
damage initiation criterion and the Energy damage evolution law.
For all delamination models implemented in Helius:MCT, the prediction of delamination initiation
is based on the tractions ) , , (
t s n
t t t that occur at the integration points of the cohesive elements.
There are currently two different traction-based delamination initiation criteria implemented in
Helius:MCT Max Stress and Quadratic Stress. However, since DCB and ENF tests are designed to
produce single-mode tractions, it is unnecessary to use a Quad stress criterion and Max Stress is
sufficient. Also, Helius:MCT allows for both a displacement-based and energy-based degradation
laws. Firehole recommends using the energy-based model.
Guidelines for Determining Finite Element Cohesive Material Parameters
5 of 10

Determining Cohesive Properties
Let us now consider the process of determining the cohesive properties based on matching
measured test results. We will first determine the cohesive stiffness in relation to the stiffness of
the surrounding composite plies. We will then use our finite element models to iteratively
determine strengths. It is recommended that the experimentally determined fracture energies are
used in the simulations, regardless of mesh size, cohesive stiffness, and cohesive strength. The
suggestions given in this document have been adapted from material
1,2
published by Turon, Dvila,
Camanho, and Costa.

Cohesive Stiffness
The cohesive stiffness should be determined before the cohesive strength is determined.
It is important to realize that one cannot determine a definitive value of stiffness for cohesive
layers when used to simulated delamination between plies. The stiffness of the cohesive layer
needs to be stiff enough so that it provides adequate load transfer between the bonded layers, but
if it is too stiff, then spurious stress oscillations can occur as shown in Figure 2. As such, the
following equation should be used to estimate the stiffness of the cohesive layer:
K
nn
= K
ss
= K
tt
= E
33
PLY
/t
PLY
where is a parameter with a suggested value of 50, E
33
PLY
is the normal modulus of the composite
material, and t
PLY
is the thickness of the bonded plies. The stress distribution in the cohesive layer
for the ENF model should be checked for the presence of stress oscillations. If detected, decrease
the stiffness of the cohesive layer by 5% until the stress oscillation vanishes.

Figure 2. Example of stress oscillation at the crack tip in the cohesive layer of an ENF model.
Guidelines for Determining Finite Element Cohesive Material Parameters
6 of 10

Cohesive Strengths
After setting the stiffness of the cohesive material, we are now ready to use the finite element
models of the DCB and ENF specimens to iteratively determine the strengths of the cohesive
material (S
n
, S
s
, S
t
). The DCB finite element model is used to calibrate S
n
, and the ENF finite
element model is used to calibrate S
s
=S
t
.
Initial Strength Estimate - Similar to the estimation of the cohesive stiffnesses, the
transverse strengths of the composite material plies can be used as starting points in the
iterative determination of the cohesive strengths. In particular, the initial estimate of
cohesive strength can be computed as

=
+33

12

+
23

2

Note: The stress values predicted in the DCB and ENF finite element models are dependent
on both the cohesive mesh density and the stiffness chosen for the cohesive material
(previous step), thus it is likely that these initial strength estimates will need to be adjusted
in order for the DCB and ENF models to match the measured DCB and ENF test results.
Simulate Results - Run the models using the above strength estimates as starting values
and plot the simulated load-displacement results against the experimental measured
results.

Revise and Repeat
If the maximum simulated loads are lower than the maximum experimental loads,
increase the strengths and run again.
If the maximum simulated loads are greater than maximum experimental loads,
decrease the strengths and run again.
Repeat this iterative process until good agreement is obtained for the maximum measured
loads in the DCB and ENF specimens.


Example
As a specific example, consider the results plotted in Figure 3, which show simulated DCB results
for multiple values of S
n
. When S
n
= 15 N/mm
2
, the simulated maximum load was low compared to
the experimental maximum load. Increasing S
n
to 25 N/mm
2
resulted in an over-prediction of the
maximum load. Good agreement with the experimental curve was finally achieved when S
n
= 21
N/mm
2
. The same iterative process can be used in conjunction with the ENF model to establish the
cohesive shear strengths (S
s
= S
t
).

Guidelines for Determining Finite Element Cohesive Material Parameters
7 of 10


Figure 3. Load-displacement results for a DCB model with variable S
n
values.

Cohesive Energies
The values for the cohesive energies (G
n
, G
s
, G
t
) do not need to be calibrated and should be set to
the experimentally determined fracture energies (G
IC
, G
IIC
).
Specifically:
G
n
= G
IC

G
s
= G
t
= G
IIC


References
1. Turon A., Dvila C., Camanho P., and Costa J., An Engineering Solution for using Coarse Meshes
in the Simulation of Delamination With Cohesive Zone Models, NASA/TM-2005-213547, March
2005.
2. Turon A., Dvila C., Camanho P., and Costa J., An Engineering Solution for Mesh Size Effects in
the Simulation of Delamination using Cohesive Zone Models, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Vol. 74, Pg. 1665-1682, 2007.



Guidelines for Determining Finite Element Cohesive Material Parameters
8 of 10

GUIDELINES FOR COHESIVE ELEMENT USAGE
WITH HELIUS:MCT


The following provides some specific guidelines for using cohesive elements with Helius:MCT:

Use element type COH3D8 or SC8R
Recommend using zero-thickness cohesive elements. This is easily accomplished by using
Fireholes Cohesive Insertion Script or manually editing the nodal coordinates in Abaqus/CAE
For the cohesive section definition, use the Traction Separation Response and specify an
initial thickness of 1.0. The value of unity for the cohesive constitutive thickness prevents
unwanted scaling of the cohesive stiffnesses and it ensures that the nominal strain
components are equal to their respective relative cohesive separation. This is done as
follows:

Turn extrapolation off:

Ensure that the cohesive element orientation is assigned with the local 3-direction parallel to
the element thickness direction

Guidelines for Determining Finite Element Cohesive Material Parameters
9 of 10

DEFINING A HELIUS:MCT COHESIVE MATERIAL
The Helius:MCT Cohesive GUI provides a convenient interface for defining a cohesive material.
For users that choose to utilize a text editor instead, the following illustrates how to do so.
A Helius:MCT cohesive material is defined similar to a composite material using the three
keyword statements *MATERIAL, *DEPVAR, and *USER MATERIAL. Consider the following lines
from an Abaqus input file that completely specify a Helius:MCT user-defined cohesive material.
*MATERIAL, NAME=COHESIVE_MATERIAL
*DEPVAR
9
*USERMATERIAL, CONSTANTS=11
UMC1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
9, 10, 11

Where:
UMC1 = Damage criteria
UMC2 = Normal stiffness
UMC3 = First shear stiffness
UMC4 = Second shear stiffness
UMC5 = Normal maximum traction
UMC6 = First shear maximum traction
UMC7 = Second shear maximum traction
UMC8 = Normal fracture energy
UMC9 = First shear fracture energy
UMC10 = Second shear fracture energy
UMC11 = Mixed mode exponent

For More Information
Further details on this process, including detailed descriptions of each constant, are included in
the Helius:MCT Users Guide section 4.2 and Appendix B.
Note, for any given Helius:MCT
cohesive material, the number of
user material constants must be
between 8 and 11.
Guidelines for Determining Finite Element Cohesive Material Parameters
10 of 10

SUMMARY
Firehole Composites has assembled these guidelines and best practices to provide useful
solutions for simulating composite delamination with cohesive elements. We are happy to
answer any questions regarding the above recommendations or other composite material
characterization questions. Contact Firehole Composites at info@firehole.com or call us at
307-460-4763.


Firehole Composites provides innovative software tools and
engineering services designed to significantly improve structural
design and analysis with composite materials. Our mission is to
help engineers create lighter, stronger, safer and more efficient
composite designs through superior analysis capability. Our team
of engineers has extensive study and experience in analysis of
composite materials and software development. For more
information, visit www.firehole.com.