Law-Dependent Cohesive-Zone Scaling in Mode-I Double-Cantilever-Beam Debonding

Articles in Press

Document Type : Research Paper

Author
Marc Azab
College of Engineering and Technology, American University of the Middle East, Egaila, 54200, Kuwait
10.22055/jacm.2026.49649.6131
Abstract
Traction–separation laws with the same initial stiffness, strength, and fracture energy can give similar global double-cantilever-beam (DCB) responses but very different process zones. This study quantifies how post-peak law shape affects the debonding-onset process-zone length L0 and its scaling. Six Mode-I laws (rectangular, linear, trapezoidal, finite exponential, quadratic, and multilinear) were compared in 100 Abaqus/Standard simulations spanning strength, fracture energy, arm height, and penalty stiffness, with L0 measured at a common, interpolated onset event. Where a closed-form beam-on-cohesive-foundation solution exists at h = 1.6 mm, linear-law onset loads match it within 1%. Across 16 six-law blocks, the onset-load spread was 1.9–11.8%, whereas the L0 spread was 116–258%, 19–98 times larger, partly owing to the shared fracture energy. The reference-block onset loads lie 11–16% below the beam-theory value, with a deficit that grows with L0. The ranking of L0 never changed, but the fitted exponents depended on the law. Expressed as local slopes of the scaling function, all eighteen estimates fell within the [1/4, 1] bracket of the slender-beam and bulk limits, indicating a shape-dependent crossover governed by the cohesive-length-to-height ratio. Adjacent-point slopes confirm this trend and always separate the largest-area from the smallest-area laws, although area, energy centroid, and final separation vary together. The beam shape coefficient varied with height (coefficient of variation 24–44%), while penalty-stiffness and onset-threshold effects stayed below 1% and 5%. Matching global curves does not ensure local equivalence, and law shape must be considered in parameter identification and mesh design.
Keywords
Cohesive-zone model, Traction&ndash
separation law, Double-cantilever beam, Process-zone length, Interface debonding, shape effect, Cohesive-zone scaling
Subjects

Publisher’s Note Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

[1] Barenblatt, G.I., The Mathematical Theory of Equilibrium Cracks in Brittle Fracture, Advances in Applied Mechanics, 7, 1962, 55–129.
[2] Dugdale, D.S., Yielding of Steel Sheets Containing Slits, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 8, 1960, 100–104.
[3] Park, K., Paulino, G.H., Cohesive Zone Models: A Critical Review of Traction–Separation Relationships Across Fracture Surfaces, Applied Mechanics Reviews, 64, 2011, 060802.
[4] Hillerborg, A., Modéer, M., Petersson, P.E., Analysis of Crack Formation and Crack Growth in Concrete by Means of Fracture Mechanics and Finite Elements, Cement and Concrete Research, 6, 1976, 773–781.
[5] Chandra, N., Li, H., Shet, C., Ghonem, H., Some Issues in the Application of Cohesive Zone Models for Metal–Ceramic Interfaces, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 39, 2002, 2827–2855.
[6] Alfano, G., On the Influence of the Shape of the Interface Law on the Application of Cohesive-Zone Models, Composites Science and Technology, 66, 2006, 723–730.
[7] Gustafson, P.A., Waas, A.M., The Influence of Adhesive Constitutive Parameters in Cohesive Zone Finite Element Models of Adhesively Bonded Joints, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 46, 2009, 2201–2215.
[8] Campilho, R.D.S.G., Banea, M.D., Neto, J.A.B.P., da Silva, L.F.M., Modelling Adhesive Joints with Cohesive Zone Models: Effect of the Cohesive Law Shape of the Adhesive Layer, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 44, 2013, 48–56.
[9] Zhang, J., Wang, J., Yuan, Z., Jia, H., Effect of the Cohesive Law Shape on the Modelling of Adhesive Joints Bonded with Brittle and Ductile Adhesives, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 85, 2018, 37–43.
[10] Zhang, W., Lin, J., Huang, Y., Lin, B., Liu, X., State of the Art Regarding Interface Bond Behavior Between FRP and Concrete Based on Cohesive Zone Model, Structures, 74, 2025, 108528.
[11] Zhang, W., Huang, Y., Three-Dimensional Numerical Investigation of Mixed-Mode Debonding of FRP–Concrete Interface Using a Cohesive Zone Model, Construction and Building Materials, 350, 2022, 128818.
[12] Simon Portillo, F.J., Cuadrado Sempere, O., Marques, E.A.S., Sánchez Lozano, M., da Silva, L.F.M., Mechanical Characterisation and Comparison of Hyperelastic Adhesives: Modelling and Experimental Validation, Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, 8, 2022, 359–369.
[13] Xu, S., Zhao, C., Xiao, B., Wei, G., Kuang, N., Zhou, S., Zhang, W., Mechanism Based Four-Linear Cohesive Zone Model for Mode I Fracture of Different Stacking Sequence CFRP Laminates, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 134, 2024, 104693.
[14] Duan, Q., Hu, H., Cao, D., Cai, W., Li, S., A New Mechanism Based Cohesive Zone Model for Mode I Delamination Coupled with Fiber Bridging of Composite Laminates, Composite Structures, 332, 2024, 117931.
[15] Çelik, A., Özen, A., Anil, O., Mercimek, O., Failure Mechanism-Based Cohesive Modeling of TRM-Masonry Interface: A New Approach for Traction–Separation Laws, Structures, 87, 2026, 111736.
[16] Shirzadeh, Z., Fakoor, M., Daneshjoo, Z., Simulating Delamination in Composite Laminates with Fracture Process Zone Effects: A Novel Cohesive Zone Modeling Approach, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 315, 2025, 110834.
[17] Calvo, J.V., Quiñonero-Moya, A.R., Feito, N., Tarancón, J.E., Giner, E., Sensitivity of Cohesive Zone Models in CFRP Delamination Modeling, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 143, 2026, 105423.
[18] Hai, L., Feng, Y., A Phase-Field Cohesive Fracture Model Free from the Length Scale Constraints, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 447, 2025, 118374.
[19] Valoroso, N., de Barros, S., Adhesive Joint Computations Using Cohesive Zones, Applied Adhesion Science, 1, 2013, 8.
[20] Sauvage, J.B., Chalandon, P., Poquillon, D., Nardin, M., Aufray, M., Using the Finite Element Analysis Method to Study the 3-Point Bending Test for the Characterization of the Adherence, Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, 6, 2020, 505–516.
[21] Williams, J.G., Hadavinia, H., Analytical Solutions for Cohesive Zone Models, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 50, 2002, 809–825.
[22] Li, G., Li, C., Linking Bilinear Traction Law Parameters to Cohesive Zone Length for Laminated Composites and Bonded Joints, Advances in Aircraft and Spacecraft Science, 1, 2014, 177–196.
[23] Li, G., Li, C., Assessment of Debond Simulation and Cohesive Zone Length in a Bonded Composite Joint, Composites Part B: Engineering, 69, 2015, 359–368.
[24] Xie, J., Waas, A.M., Rassaian, M., Closed-Form Solutions for Cohesive Zone Modeling of Delamination Toughness Tests, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 88–89, 2016, 379–400.
[25] Soto, A., González, E.V., Maimí, P., Turon, A., Sainz de Aja, J.R., de la Escalera, F.M., Cohesive Zone Length of Orthotropic Materials Undergoing Delamination, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 159, 2016, 174–188.
[26] Azab, M., Parry, G., Estevez, R., An Analytical Model for DCB/Wedge Tests Based on Timoshenko Beam Kinematics for Accurate Determination of Cohesive Zone Lengths, International Journal of Fracture, 222, 2020, 137–153.
[27] Azab, M., Estevez, R., Houda, M., Parry, G., Influence of the DCB/Wedge Beam Kinematics on the Identification of the Cohesive Parameters of Interfaces, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 252, 2022, 111810.
[28] Turon, A., Dávila, C.G., Camanho, P.P., Costa, J., An Engineering Solution for Mesh Size Effects in the Simulation of Delamination Using Cohesive Zone Models, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 74, 2007, 1665–1682.
[29] Harper, P.W., Hallett, S.R., Cohesive Zone Length in Numerical Simulations of Composite Delamination, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 75, 2008, 4774–4792.
[30] Ai, X., Chen, B., Kassapoglou, C., Structural Cohesive Element for the Modelling of Delamination in Composite Laminates without the Cohesive Zone Limit, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 329, 2025, 111586.
[31] Anam, K., Todt, M., Pettermann, H.E., An Efficient Ply-Level Based Modeling Strategy for Predicting Delamination Behavior in Laminated Composites, Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, 10, 2024, 652–658.
[32] Škec, L., Identification of Parameters of a Bi-Linear Cohesive-Zone Model Using Analytical Solutions for Mode-I Delamination, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 214, 2019, 558–577.
[33] Li, G., Analytical Estimation of Cohesive Parameters for a Bilinear Traction-Separation Law in DCB Mode I Loading, Journal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures, 18, 2023, 293–317.
[34] Arrese, A., Boyano, A., De Gracia, J., Mujika, F., A Novel Procedure to Determine the Cohesive Law in DCB Tests, Composites Science and Technology, 152, 2017, 76–84.
[35] Gorman, J.M., Thouless, M.D., The Use of Digital-Image Correlation to Investigate the Cohesive Zone in a Double-Cantilever Beam, with Comparisons to Numerical and Analytical Models, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 123, 2019, 315–331.
[36] Huo, X., Luo, Q., Li, Q., Zheng, G., Sun, G., On Characterization of Cohesive Zone Model (CZM) Based upon Digital Image Correlation (DIC) Method, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 215, 2022, 106921.
Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 22 September 2026