Computational Mechanics

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 499–514 | Cite as

A Discontinuous/continuous Galerkin method for modeling of interphase damage in fibrous composite systems

Original Paper


A Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) interface treatment embedded in a Continuous Galerkin formulation is presented for simulating the progressive debonding of bi-material interfaces. The method seamlessly tracks the progression from perfect adhesion to interface softening and finally to complete separation without resorting to node-to-node springs or deletion of connectivities. While the formulation is inspired by an augmented Lagrangian approach, it does not introduce multiplier fields to enforce the continuity conditions, resulting in a pure displacement method amenable to traditional symmetric positive-definite solvers. The study of fibrous composites serves as the application in the present work. The constitutive behavior of the interface is modeled within an energetic framework from which the initiation criterion and softening response emanate. Numerical simulations are conducted for various loading cases on a fiber-matrix unit cell that highlight the performance of the method on crude meshes.


Discontinuous Galerkin Bi-material interfaces Composites Damage Debonding 


  1. 1.
    Arnold DN (1982) An interior penalty finite element method with discontinuous elements. SIAM J Numer Anal 19:742–760MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold DN, Brezzi F, Cockburn B, Marini LD (2002) Unified analysis of discontinuous Galerkin methods for elliptic problems. SIAM J Numer Anal 93:1749–1779MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balzani C, Wagner W (2008) An interface element for the simulation of delamination in unidirectional fiber-reinforced composite laminates. Eng Fract Mech 75:2597–2615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barenblatt GI (1962) The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Adv Appl Mech 7:55–129MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breitzman T, Lipton R, Iarve E (2007) Local field assessment inside multiscale composite architectures. SIAM Multiscale Model Simul 6(3):937–962MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brezzi F, Fortin M (1991) Mixed and hybrid finite element methods. Springer, New YorkMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Camacho GT, Ortiz M (1996) Computational modeling of impact damage in brittle materials. Int J Solids Struct 33:2899–2938MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chandra N, Li H, Shet C, Ghonem H (2002) Some issues in the application of cohesive zone models for metal-ceramic interfaces. Int J Solids Struct 39:2827–2855MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Borst R, Remmers JJC, Needleman A (2006) Mesh-independent discrete numerical representations of cohesive-zone models. Eng Fract Mech 73:160–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dugdale DS (1960) Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. J Mech Phys Solids 8:100–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fortin M, Glowinski R (1983) Augmented Lagrangian methods: application to the numerical solution of boundary-value problems, Studies in Mathematics and its Applications, vol 15. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hettich T, Hund A, Ramm E (2008) Modeling of failure in composites by X-FEM and level sets within a multiscale framework. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:414–424MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li S, Ghosh S (2007) Modeling interfacial debonding and matrix cracking in fiber reinforced composites by the extended Voronoi cell FEM. Finite Elem Anal Des 43:397–410MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lorentz E (2008) A mixed interface finite element for cohesive zone models. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198:302–317Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Masud A, Truster T, Bergman L (2012) A unified formulation for interface coupling and frictional contact modeling with embedded error estimation. Int J Numer Methods Eng 92(2):141–177MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McDevitt TW, Laursen TA (2000) A mortar-finite element formulation for frictional contact problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 48:1525–1547Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mergheim J, Kuhl E, Steinmann P (2004) A hybrid discontinuous Galerkin/interface method for the computational modelling of failure. Commun Numer Methods Eng 20:511–519MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moorthy S, Ghosh S (1996) A model for analysis of arbitrary composite and porous microstructures with Voronoi cell finite elements. Int J Numer Methods Eng 39:2363–2398 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ortiz M, Pandolfi A (1999) Finite-deformation irreversible cohesive elements for three-dimensional crack-propagation analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 44:1267–1282MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raghavan P, Ghosh S (2005) A continuum damage mechanics model for unidirectional composites undergoing interfacial debonding. Mech Mater 37:955–979Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simo JC, Laursen TA (1992) An augmented Lagrangian treatment of contact problems involving friction. Comput Struct 42:97–116MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Talon C, Curnier A (2003) A model of adhesion coupled to contact and friction. Eur J Mech - A/Solids 22(4):545–565MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wriggers P, Zavarise G (1993) Application of augmented Lagrangian techniques for nonlinear constitutive laws in contact interface. Commun Numer Methods Eng 9:815–824MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wriggers P, Zavarise G, Zohdi TI (1998) A computational study of interfacial debonding damage in fibrous composite materials. Comput Mater Sci 12:39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zavarise G, Wriggers P, Schrefler BA (1995) On augmented Lagrangian algorithms for thermomechanical contact problems with friction. Int J Numer Methods Eng 38:2929–2949MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign UrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations