Paper detail

Two adhesive-contact models for quasistatic mixed-mode delamination problems

Two models for quasistatic adhesive unilateral contact delaminating in mixed fracture mode, i.e. distinguishing the less-dissipative Mode I (opening) from the more-dissipative Mode II (shearing), and allowing rigorous mathematical and numerical analysis, are studied. One model, referred to as Associative Plasticity-based Rate-Independent Model (APRIM), works for purely elastic bodies and involves, in addition to an interface damage variable, an auxiliary variable (representing interfacial plastic slip) to provide a fracture-mode sensitivity. It relies on a particular concept of force-driven local solutions (given by either vanishing-viscosity concept or maximum-dissipation principle). The other model, referred to as Linear Elastic - (perfectly) Brittle Interface Model (LEBIM), works visco-elastic bodies and rely on a conventional concept of weak solution and needs no auxiliary interfacial variable. This model is directly related to a usual phenomenological model of interface fracture by Hutchinson and Suo used in engineering. This paper devises a way how the phenomenology of the LEBIM can be fit to imitate the APRIM under relatively very slow loading, where both models are essentially rate-independent. The so-called effective dissipated energy is partitioned in both formulations to the surface energy and the energy dissipated during the interface debonding process, where the former is independent and the latter dependent on the fracture mode mixity. A numerical comparison of these models, implemented in a Boundary Element Method (BEM) code, is carried out on a suitable two-dimensional example. Furthermore, the computational efficiency and behaviour of the LEBIM is illustrated on another geometrically more complicated numerical example.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.