Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Exact relations for composites

Exact relations for composites

Ratings: (0)|Views: 98 |Likes:
Published by b.banerjee.nz6800

More info:

Published by: b.banerjee.nz6800 on Sep 26, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/16/2009

pdf

text

original

 
On exact relations for the calculation of effective propertiesof composites
Biswajit Banerjee
§
and Daniel O. Adams
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah, 50 S Central Campus Drive, Salt LakeCity, UT 84112, USA, Fax: (801)-585-9826.E-mail:
banerjee@eng.utah.edu
,
adams@mech.utah.edu
Abstract.
Numerous exact relations exist that relate the effective elastic properties of composites to the elastic properties of their components. These relations can not only be usedto determine the properties of certain composites, but also provide checks on the accuracyon numerical techniques for the calculation of effective properties. In this work, some exactrelations are discussed and estimates from finite element calculations, the generalized methodof cells and the recursive cell method are compared with estimates from the exact relations.Comparisons with effective properties predicted using exact relations show that the bestestimates are obtained from the finite element calculations while the moduli are overestimatedby the recursive cell method and underestimatedby the generalized method of cells. However,not all exact relations can be used to make such a distinction.
§
To whom correspondenceshould be addressed (banerjee@eng.utah.edu)
 
 Exact relations for effective properties of composites
2
1. Introduction
Exact relations for the effective elastic properties of two-component composites can beclassified into three types. The first type consists of relations that have been determined fromthe similarity of the two-dimensional stress and strain fields for certain types of materials.These exact relations are called duality relations (Helsing, Milton & Movchan 1997). Thesecond type of exact relations, called translation-based relations, state that if a constantquantity is added to the elastic moduli of the component materials then the effective elasticmoduli are also “translated” by the same amount. Microstructure independent exact relations,valid for special combinations of the elastic properties of the components, form the thirdcategory (Milton 1997). The known exact relations are directly applicable only to a limitedrange of properties of the components. Therefore the utility of these relations lies notonly in determining the effective elastic properties of a small range of composites butalso in evaluating the accuracy of numerical and analytical methods of computing effectiveproperties. In this work, predictions from exact relations are compared with estimates fromfinite element calculations, the generalized method of cells (GMC) (Aboudi 1996), andthe recursive cell method (RCM) (Banerjee & Adams 2002
c
). The goal is to assess theeffectiveness of these relations in evaluating the accuracy of the three numerical methods,especially with regard to high modulus contrast materials such as polymer bonded explosives.Five exact relations are explored in this work. The first is a duality-based identity forthe effective shear modulus that is valid for phase-interchangeable materials (Milton 2002).The second is a set of duality relations that are valid for materials that are rigid with respectto shear (Helsing et al. 1997). Two translation-based relations are explored next - the CLMtheorem (Cherkaev, Lurie & Milton 1992) and a relation for symmetric composites with equalbulk modulus (Milton 2002). The microstructure independent Hill’s relation (Hill 1964) isexplored last.
2. Phase interchange identity
A symmetric composite is one that is invariant with respect to interchange of the components.A checkerboard, as shown in Figure 1, is an example of a symmetric composite. The phaseinterchange identity (Milton 2002) for the effective shear modulus of a symmetric two-dimensional two-component isotropic composite is a duality-based exact relation that statesthat
G
eff 
=
 
G
1
G
2
(1)where
G
1
,
G
2
are the shear moduli of the two components and
G
eff 
is the effective shearmodulus.The phase interchange identity is valid only for isotropic composites. In a finite-sizedrepresentative volume element (RVE) for a checkerboard composite the shear modulus is notthe same all directions and hence isotropy is not achieved. The two-dimensional stress-strain
 
 Exact relations for effective properties of composites
3
Figure 1.
Representative volume element for a checkerboard composite.
relation for such a RVE with “square symmetry” can be written as
σ
11
σ
22
σ
12
=
+
µ
1
µ
1
0
µ
1
+
µ
1
00 0
µ
2
ǫ
11
ǫ
22
2
ǫ
12
V
(2)where
σ
11
,
σ
22
,
σ
12
are the stresses;
ǫ
11
,
ǫ
22
,
ǫ
12
are the strains;
is the two-dimensional bulk modulus,
µ
1
is the shear modulus when shear is applied along the diagonals of the RVE, and
µ
2
is the shear modulus for shear along the edges of the RVE.The numerical verification of the phase interchange identity, therefore, requires that thecomponents of the composite be chosen so that the difference between
µ
1
and
µ
2
for thecompositeisminimal. Thisimpliesthatthecomponentsshouldhaveaweakmoduluscontrast.Numerical estimates of the effective elastic properties of the checkerboard compositeshown in Figure 1 were obtained using finite elements (FEM), the recursive cell method(RCM) and the generalized method of cells (GMC). Following the requirement of lowmodulus contrast, both components were assigned a Young’s modulus of 15,300 MPa. ThePoisson’s ratio of the first component was fixed at 0.32 while that of the second componentwas varied from 0.1 to 0.49. The FEM calculations were performed using a mesh of 256
×
256four-noded squareelements. TheRCM calculationsused agridof64
×
64 subcellswithblocksof 2
×
2 subcells and each subcell was modeled using one nine-noded element. The GMCcalculations used 64
×
64 square subcells to discretize the RVE.Figure 2 shows a comparison of the exact effective shear modulus for the checkerboardcomposite with estimates of 
µ
1
and
µ
2
from the three numerical approaches. The resultsshow that all the three methods perform well (the maximum error is 0.1%) in predicting theeffectiveshear moduluswhen the moduluscontrast is small, i.e., when the compositeis nearlyisotropic. It can also be observed that the values of 
µ
1
and
µ
2
are within 1% of each other forthe chosen component moduli.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->