See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263665283

A Note on mori-tanaka's method

Article  in  Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica · June 2014

DOI: 10.1016/S0894-9166(14)60033-1

CITATIONS READS
36 5,730

2 authors, including:

Ling Liu
ASML
13 PUBLICATIONS   265 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

micromechanics on fibrous composites View project

Topographical switching of liquid crystal polymers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ling Liu on 23 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica, Vol. 27, No. 3, June, 2014 ISSN 0894-9166
Published by AMSS Press, Wuhan, China

A NOTE ON MORI-TANAKA’S METHOD⋆⋆

Ling Liu Zhengming Huang⋆

(School of Aerospace Engineering & Applied Mechanics, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road,
Shanghai 200092, China)

Received 16 July 2012, revision received 14 September 2013

ABSTRACT Explicit expressions of Mori-Tanaka’s tensor for a transversely isotropic fiber rein-
forced UD composite are presented. Closed-form formulae for the effective elastic properties of
the composite are obtained. In a 3D sense, the resulting compliance tensor of the composite is
symmetric. Nevertheless, the 2D compliance tensor based on a deteriorated Mori-Tanaka’s tensor
is not symmetric. Nor is the compliance tensor defined upon a deteriorated 2D Eshelby’s tensor.
The in-plane effective elastic properties given by those three approaches are different. A detailed
comparison between the predicted results obtained from those approaches with experimental data
available for a number of UD composites is made.

KEY WORDS micromechanics, Eshelby-Mori-Tanaka’s method, effective elastic property, asym-

metry

I. INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, fibrous composites are widely used in many different fields of engineering to
replace traditional structural materials such as metals and ceramics. Tremendous efforts have been
made to accurately predict mechanical properties of a composite. Compared with a phenomenological
method, a micromechanical approach to obtain those properties does not require experimental data of
the composite but only relies on the material properties of its constituents, thus offers a much more
economical and effective way for understanding the mechanical behavior and for an optimal structure
design of the composite.
In 1973, Mori-Tanaka[1] proposed a rational approach to correlate averaged stresses and strains of
the constituent fiber with those of the matrix in a composite. Later in 1987, Benveniste[2] found that the
Mori-Tanaka’s approach can be reformulated by making use of the equivalent inclusion idea in terms of a
more compacted tensor, which is called the Mori-Tanaka’s tensor here and in the following. This tensor in
a way only depends on an Eshelby’s tensor[3] . From this tensor, all of the effective elastic properties of the
UD composite can be determined. Thus far, the Eshelby-Mori-Tanaka’s method has become very popular
in the composite community. Moreover, a lot of work has been done to study mechanical behaviors of
hybrid composites containing various kinds of inclusion shapes, including ellipsoidal family with different
aspect ratios, from penny-shaped disc, spherical inclusion, to non-circular cylinder reinforcement (e.g.,
Tandon[4, 5] , Weng[6] , Wang[7] , Zhao[8] , Zheng[9] and Klusemann[10] ), and non-ellipsoidal fillers (e.g.,
Kachanov[11], Eroshkin[12] and Nogales[13] ). Different inclusion configurations in addition to uniform
alignment have also been taken into account, such as randomly dispersed orientations (e.g., Weng[6] ,
⋆ Corresponding author. E-mail: huangzm@tongji.edu.cn
⋆⋆ Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11272238) and Doctoral Fund of Ministry
of Education of China (No. 20120072110036).
 Vol. 27, No. 3 Ling Liu et al.: A Note on Mori-Tanaka’s Method · 235 ·

Tandon[14] and Zhao[15] ), and partially aligned configurations (e.g., Gommers[16] and Schjødt[17] ). Except
for the two-phase (i.e., inclusion and matrix phases with no interface in between) inclusion problems,
multi-phase interaction relationships were also explored in terms of the Eshelby-Mori-Tanaka’s method,
by Benveniste and Chen[18, 19] for composites with coated fiber reinforcements and by Liu[20] and Li[21]
for hierarachical multi-interphase composites, to name a few.
Despite the high efficiency of the Eshelby-Mori-Tanaka’s method due to its explicit and closed-form
solution for the effective elastic properties of a composite, it may sometimes lead to an unexpected
situation, e.g., the stiffness tensor of the composite is asymmetric. Benveniste[22] showed that a predicted
effective stiffness tensor satisfies the symmetric condition only for a two-phase (matrix and inhomogenity)
composite and a multi-phase composite whose inclusions have a similar shape and the same orientation.
When more than one inclusions of different morphologies occur in a composite, such as one is a circular
fiber and another is an alinged spheroid, the asymmetry of the overall moduli tensor is significant, as
pointed out by Qiu[23] and Castañeda[24] . Schjødt[17] also recognized that an asymmetry exists for a
composite with partially aligned reinforcement, whose orientations change from randomly dispersed to
unidirectional alignment. Some more comments on asymmetry involved in applying the Eshelby-Mori-
Tanaka’s method can be found in Ferrari[25], Berryman[26], and Li[27] .
In this paper, we will point out that, in the application of the Eshelby-Mori-Tanaka’ method,
another kind of asymmetry can occur to the stiffness tensor of a composite even with unidirectional
fiber reinforcement. Because the stiffness tensor of a composite can be represented as the combination
of a Mori-Tanaka’s tensor with the stiffness and compliance tensors of the constituent fiber and matrix
materials, a 2D or 3D stiffness tensor of the composite is resulted as long as a 2D or 3D Mori-Tanaka’s
tensor is used. Here, the 2D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor is a deteriorated one from the 3D counterpart. In such
a case, the 3D stiffness tensor is always symmetric. Nevertheless, the 2D one is asymmetric in general.
Moreover, the 2D stiffness tensor of a UD composite based on a deteriorated 2D Eshelby’s tensor is not
symmetric either. Thus, the in-plane effective elastic moduli of the UD composite, as required in most
applications, can be different if a different dimensional (2D or 3D) Mori-Tanaka’s tensor or Eshelby’s
tensor is applied.
Closed-form expressions of the 3D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor elements for a UD composite reinforced
with transversely isotropic fibers are derived in the paper. Explicit formulae for calculating all of the
effective elastic moduli of the composite based on the 3D as well as the deteriorated 2D Mori-Tanaka’s
tensor and on the 2D deteriorated Eshelby’s tensor are presented. A detailed comparison between the
predicted results from those three methods with experimental data available for a total number of eight
typical UD composites is made.

II. MORI-TANAKA’S TENSOR

A UD composite is schematically shown in Fig.1(a), from which a representative volume element
(RVE) in a cross-sectional view is depicted in Fig.1(b), which is somewhat similar to a concentric
cylinder model, i.e., an infinite long fiber cylinder embedded in an unbounded matrix. The composite
discussed here is a two-phase material, with fibers and matrix as its constituents. According to the
Mori-Tanaka theory and Benveniste’s reformulation[1, 2], the averaged stresses and strains in the fiber
and matrix materials can be correlated with the following relationships.
n o
εfi = [Tij ] εm

j (1a)
n o
{σim } = [Aij ] σjf (1b)
In Eq.(1a), [Tij ] is expressed upon an Eshelby’s tensor and elastic properties of the fiber and matrix
materials through[2]
h  m  h f i  m i−1
[Tij ] = [Iij ] + [Lik ] Skp Cpj − Cpj (2)
where [Lij ] is a contracted form from the fourth order Eshelby’s tensor, and [Sij ] and [Cij ] denote
compliance and stiffness tensors of a material. [Iij ] is a second order unit tenor. It is easy to show that
the tensor [Aij ] is related with [Tij ] through
h i  m   f   m 
 h f i
m −1 f m

[Aij ] = [Cik ] [Tkp ] Spj = [Cik ] [Ikq ] + [Lkl ] Slp Cpq − Cpq Sqj (3)
 · 236 · ACTA MECHANICA SOLIDA SINICA 2014

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of (a) a unidirectional composite, and (b) cross-sectional view of an RVE for the composite.

which, in this paper, is called a Mori-Tanaka’s tensor.

It is noted that there is no restriction applied on the fiber and matrix materials yet. This means that
both of them can be anisotropic. Specifically, the fiber can be a transversely isotropic material, which
is reasonable in most cases. However, only when the matrix material used is isotropic can an explicit
and simple Eshelby’s tensor be available. Supposing an unbounded isotropic matrix is embedded with
a circular fiber cylinder, the 3D Eshelby’s tensor is given by[28]

L1111 L1122 L1133 0 0 0

 
L L2222 L2233 0 0 0 
 2211 
 
 L3311 L3322 L3333 0 0 0 
[L] =  (4)
 

 0 0 0 2L2323 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 2L1313 0
 

0 0 0 0 0 2L1212

νm
L2211 = L3311 = (5a)
2 (1 − ν m )
3 (1 − 2ν m )
 
1
L2222 = L3333 = + (5b)
2 (1 − ν m ) 4 2
1 (1 − 2ν m )
 
1
L2233 = L3322 = − (5c)
2 (1 − ν m ) 4 2
1 (1 − 2ν m )
 
1
L2323 = + (5d)
2 (1 − ν m ) 4 2
1
L1212 = L1313 = , L1111 = L1122 = L1133 = 0 (5e)
4

where ν m is Poisson’s ratio of the matrix.

Equation (4) is for a 3D Eshelby’s tensor, from which a deteriorated in-plane 2D one reads

L1111 L1122 0
 

[Lij ] =  L2211 L2222 0 (6)

 

0 0 2L1212

where L1111 , L1122 , L2211 , L2222 , and 2L1212 are exactly the corresponding elements of Eq.(4).
 Vol. 27, No. 3 Ling Liu et al.: A Note on Mori-Tanaka’s Method · 237 ·

Substituting Eq.(4) into Eq.(3), the 3D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor can be found as

A11 A12 A13 0 0 0

 
A A22 A23 0 0 0 
 21 
 
 A31 A32 A33 0 0 0 
[Aij ] =  (7)
 

 0 0 0 A44 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 A55 0 
 

0 0 0 0 0 A66

where the non-zero elements, after a series of manipulations through Mathematica, are given by
" #
f
Em ν m (ν m − ν12 )
A11 = f
1+ (8a)
E11 (1 + ν m )(1 − ν m )
f f
Em ν m (1 − ν23 ) Em ν12 νm
A12 = f 2(1 + ν m )(1 − ν m )
− f (1 + ν m )(1 − ν m )
+ = A13 (8b)
E22 E11 2(1 − ν m )
f
Em ν m − ν12
A21 = f 2(1 + ν m )(1 − ν m )
= A31 (8c)
E11
f f m
Em (ν23 − 3) Em ν12 ν (ν m + 1)(4ν m − 5)
A22 = f
+ f
+ = A33 (8d)
E22 8(ν m − 1)(ν m + 1) E11 2(ν m − 1)(ν m + 1) 8(ν m − 1)(ν m + 1)
f f m
Em (3ν23 − 1) Em ν12 ν (ν m + 1)(1 − 4ν m )
A32 = f
+ f + = A23 (8e)
E22 8(ν m − 1)(ν + 1) E11 2(ν − 1)(ν + 1) 8(ν m − 1)(ν m + 1)
m m m

Gm 1 (3 − 4ν m )
A44 = + (8f)
Gf23 4(1 − ν m ) 4(1 − ν m )

Gm + Gf12
A55 = = A66 (8g)
2Gf12

Here E and G are Young’s and shear moduli of a material, respectively; and ν is a Poisson’s ratio, with
superscripts f and m referring to the fiber and the matrix.
The 3D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor derived from the 3D Eshelby’s tensor, Eqs.(4) and (5), can be employed
to predict the full 3D elastic properties of a composite laminae. However, in most applications, only
2D properties of the composite are necessary. The 2D compliance tensor of a material is deteriorated
from its 3D counterpart. As such, there may exist two possible ways to obtain the 2D elastic properties
of a composite, as shown subsequently, by making use of a deterioration from the 3D Eshelby’s tensor
and the 3D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor, respectively.
Substituting the deteriorated Eshelby’s tensor Eq.(6) into Eq.(3) in which all of the compliance and
stiffness tensors of the fiber and matrix materials are expressed as in-plane quantities (notice: a 2D [Cij ]
should be obtained from the inverse of a 2D [Sij ]), one can obtain a 2D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor [Aij ],

a11 a12 0
 

[Aij ] =  a21 a22 0  (9)

 

0 0 a33
n h i o
f f
Em ν m 4(ν12 − 1)ν m − 3ν12 −8 +8 (4ν m − 1)(ν m )2
a11 = f
+
E11 8(ν m − 1)2 (ν m + 1) 8(ν m − 1)2 (ν m + 1)
 · 238 · ACTA MECHANICA SOLIDA SINICA 2014

f
E m ν12 [ν m (ν m + 2) − 2] E m ν m (3 − 4ν m ) ν m [5 − 4ν m (ν m + 1)]
a12 = f 2(ν m − 1)2 (ν m + 1)
+ f 8(ν m − 1)2 (ν m + 1)
+
E11 E22 8(ν m − 1)2 (ν m + 1)
h i
f m f m 2
m 4(ν12 + 1)ν − 3ν12 − 8(ν )
E ν m (4ν m − 1)
a21 = f m 2 m
+ (10)
E11 8(ν − 1) (ν + 1) 8(ν − 1)2 (ν m + 1)
m

f m
Em (3 − 4ν m ) E m ν12 ν (−1 + 2ν m ) 5 − 4ν m (1 + ν m )
a22 = f 8(ν m − 1)2 (1 + ν m )
+ f 2(ν m − 1)2 (1 + ν m )
+
E22 E11 8(ν m − 1)2 (1 + ν m )

Gm + Gf12
a33 =
2Gf12

On the other hand, a deterioration from the 3D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor reads

A11 A12 0
 

[Aij ] =  A21 A22 0  (11)

 

0 0 A66

where A11 , A12 , A21 , A22 , and A66 are given by Eqs.(8a)-(8d) and (8g), respectively.

III. EFFECTIVE ELASTIC MODULI

Using a Mori-Tanaka’s tensor, no matter whether it is three- or two-dimensional, the effective
compliance tensor of the composite is obtained as[2, 29]
 h i 
f  m
[Sij ] = Vf Sik + Vm Sip [Apk ] (Vf [Ikj ] + Vm [Akj ])−1 (12)

where Vf and Vm are volume fractions of the fiber and matrix, respectively, with Vf + Vm = 1, and
[Aij ] is a Mori-Takana’s tensor given either by Eqs.(7) and (8), by Eqs.(9) and (10), or by Eqs.(11) and
f m
(8). It is noted that in the latter two cases the compliance tensors [Sij ] and [Sij ] are supposed to be
two-dimensional, whereas [Sij ] is also so.
If all of the tensors in Eq.(12) are three-dimensional, the resulting compliance tensor of the composite
is always symmetric, and the five effective elastic moduli can be determined as follows.

1
= (A11 + A22 + A32 ) Vf Vm + [A11 (A22 + A32 ) − 2A12 A21 ] Vm2 + Vf2

E11 =
S11
n h   i
m f f m
/ Vf Vm 2A21 S12 − S12 + (A22 + A32 ) S11 + A11 S11 + [A11 (A22 + A32 )
o
m 2 f
−2A12 A21 ] S11 Vm + S11 Vf2 (13a)

1
E22 = = {[(A22 − A32 ) Vm + Vf ] [(A11 + A22 + A32 ) Vf Vm + [A11 (A22 + A32 )
S22
−2A12 A21 ] Vm2 + Vf2 / [A22 (b1 + b2 ) Vm + A12 (b3 + b4 ) Vm + b5 (A11 Vm + Vf )

+A222 S11
m 2

Vm (A11 Vm + Vf ) (13b)

1 (Vf + Vm A66 ) Gf12 Gm

G12 = = (13c)
S66 Vf Gm + Vm A66 Gf12

1 (Vf + A44 Vm ) Gm Gf23

G23 = = (13d)
S44 Gm Vf + Vm A44 Gf23
 Vol. 27, No. 3 Ling Liu et al.: A Note on Mori-Tanaka’s Method · 239 ·

S12 n h 
f m

m
i h
f
ν12 = − = A12 Vm Vf S11 − S11 + 2A21 Vm S12 − (Vf + A11 Vm ) Vf S12
S11
n
m f
+ (A22 + A32 ) Vm S12 ]} / Vf2 S11 + [−2A12 A21 + A11 (A22 + A32 )] Vm2 S11
m
+ Vf Vm
h  io
f m f m
· (A22 + A32 ) S11 + A11 S11 + 2A21 −S12 + S12 (13e)

where
h    i
m f f m
b1 = Vf Vm A12 S12 − S12 + A11 S22 + S11
 
f
b2 = Vf2 S22 m
+ S11 m 2
− 2A12 A21 S11 Vm
h  i
m f f m m
b3 = A21 Vm 2A32 S11 Vm − Vf S22 − S23 + S11 + S12 (14)
 
m f
b4 = Vf S12 − S12 (Vf − A32 Vm )
 
m f f
b5 = A32 Vf Vm S12 − S23 − A232 S11
m 2
Vm + S22 Vf2

Interestingly, one can find that as long as a 2D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor, given either by Eqs.(9) and (10)
or by Eq.(11) together with Eqs.(8a)-(8d) and (8g), is substituted into Eq.(12) in which the compliance
tensors of the fiber and matrix materials are of in-plane quantities, the resulting 2D compliance tensor
of the composite is generally not symmetric. This can be verified by comparing the in-plane Poisson’s
ratios obtained from different compliance tensor elements. Taking Eqs.(9) and (10) as an example, the
resulting in-plane elastic moduli of the composite are found to be:

1
E11 =
S11
(Vf + Vm a11 ) (Vf + Vm a22 ) − a12 a21 Vm2
=     (15a)
f m +V V m f 2 m
(Vf + Vm a22 ) Vf S11 + Vm a11 S11 f m S12 − S12 a21 − a12 a21 Vm S11

1
E22 =
S22
(Vf + Vm a11 ) (Vf + Vm a22 ) − a12 a21 Vm2
=     (15b)
f m +V V m − Sf 2 m
(Vf + Vm a11 ) Vf S22 + Vm a22 S22 f m S 21 21 a12 − a12 a21 Vm S22

1 (Vf + Vm a33 ) Gf12 Gm

G12 = = (15c)
S33 Vf Gm + Vm a33 Gf12
S12
ν12 = −
S11
   
f m m f
(Vf + Vm a11 ) Vf S12 + Vm a22 S12 + Vf Vm S11 − S11 a12 − a12 a21 Vm2 S12
m
=−     (15d)
f m +V V m f 2 m
(Vf + Vm a22 ) Vf S11 + Vm a11 S11 f m S12 − S12 a21 − a12 a21 Vm S11

S21
ν12 ∗ = −
S11
f m m f
(Vf + Vm a22 )(Vf S12 + Vm a11 S12 ) + Vf Vm (S11 − S22 )a21 − a12 a21 Vm2 S12
m
=−     (15e)
f m +V V m f 2 m
(Vf + Vm a22 ) Vf S11 + Vm a11 S11 f m S12 − S12 a21 − a12 a21 Vm S11

When the deteriorated 2D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor, Eq.(11) together with Eqs.(8a) to (8d) and Eq.(8g),
is applied, the expressions of E11 , E22 , G12 , ν12 and ν12
∗
are exactly the same as Eqs.(15a)-(15e) if aij
 · 240 · ACTA MECHANICA SOLIDA SINICA 2014

are replaced by Aij . For latter comparison purpose, we repeat these formulae as follows:

(Vf + Vm A11 ) (Vf + Vm A22 ) − A12 A21 Vm2

E11 =     (16a)
f m +V V m f 2 m
(Vf + Vm A22 ) Vf S11 + Vm A11 S11 f m S12 − S12 A21 − A12 A21 Vm S11

(Vf + Vm A11 ) (Vf + Vm A22 ) − A12 A21 Vm2

E22 =     (16b)
f m +V V m f 2 m
(Vf + Vm A11 ) Vf S22 + Vm A22 S22 f m S21 − S21 A12 − A12 A21 Vm S22

(Vf + Vm A66 ) Gf12 Gm

G12 = (16c)
Vf Gm + Vm A66 Gf12
   
f m m f
(Vf + Vm A11 ) Vf S12 + Vm A22 S12 + Vf Vm S11 − S11 A12 − A12 A21 Vm2 S12
m
ν12 =−     (16d)
f m +V V m f 2 m
(Vf + Vm A22 ) Vf S11 + Vm A11 S11 f m S12 − S12 A21 − A12 A21 Vm S11

f m m f
(Vf + Vm A22 )(Vf S12 + Vm A11 S12 ) + Vf Vm (S11 − S22 )A21 − A12 A21 Vm2 S12
m
ν12 ∗ = −     (16e)
f m +V V m f 2 m
(Vf + Vm A22 ) Vf S11 + Vm A11 S11 f m S12 − S12 A21 − A12 A21 Vm S11

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Asymmetry
A comment on the asymmetry of a 2D compliance tensor of a UD composite is made herein.
As long as A22 = A33 , A21 = A31 and A23 = A32 , which is true as is shown in Eqs.(8), the symmetric
condition on a 3D compliance tensor [Sij ] of the composite leads to
f m f m f m
(S12 − S12 )(A11 − A22 − A32 ) + A21 (S22 − S22 + S23 − S23 )
A13 = A12 = f
(17)
S11 m
− S11

Substituting A11 , A21 , A22 and A32 given by Eqs.(8a), (8c), (8d) and (8e) into Eq.(17), one can see
that the resulting A12 is the same as that given by Eq.(8b). This means that the 3D compliance tensor
of the UD composite based on the 3D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor, Eqs.(7) and (8), is always symmetric.
However, the similar restriction on a 2D [Sij ], i.e. S21 = S12 , would request that[29]
f m m f
(S12 − S12 )(a22 − a11 ) + (S22 − S22 )a21
a12 = (18)
m − Sf
S11 11
h    i
f m f m
Comparing Eq.(18) with Eq.(17), it is evident that if and only if A21 S23 − S23 − A32 S12 − S12
becomes zero can the symmetric condition of the 2D compliance tensor of the composite be fulfilled
with the utilization of the deteriorated 2D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor. In such a case, ν12 always equals to
ν12
∗
. Unfortunately, this condition is hardly able to be satisfied in reality. Furthermore, the elements of
a 2D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor obtained from the deteriorated 2D Eshelby’s tensor, given by Eqs.(9) and
(10), cannot satisfy Eq.(18) in general. Hence, a 2D compliance tensor of a UD composite based on a
2D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor is generally asymmetric.

4.2. Comparison with Experiment

A total number of eight typical UD composites are analyzed in this sub-section. Original constituent
elastic properties together with experimentally measured data for these composites are taken from
Ref.[30,31], and are summarized in Table 1 through Table 8. Effective elastic moduli of the composites
are calculated by using Eqs.(13), (15) and (16), respectively, and are listed in the corresponding tables.
It can be seen from these tables that the elastic moduli based on a 2D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor are indeed
asymmetric. Even worse, the calculated longitudinal Poisson’s ratios ν12 or ν12∗
of several composites are
negative, by either of the 2D Eshelby-Mori-Tanaka’s approaches. Due to this reason, the longitudinal
Poisson’s ratio based on the deteriorated 2D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor should be defined by (−S21 /S11 ),
 Vol. 27, No. 3 Ling Liu et al.: A Note on Mori-Tanaka’s Method · 241 ·

Table 1. Measured and predicted elastic moduli of AS4/3501-6 UD composite (Vf = 0.6)

Composite
Property Fiber Matrix
a By Eqs.(13) By Eqs.(15) By Eqs.(16)
Measured
Data Error Data Error Data Error
E11 225 4.2 126 136.7 8.49% 136.9 8.65% 135.3 7.41%
E22 15 4.2 11 8.756 −20.40% 8.621 −21.62% 8.613 −21.70%
G12 15 1.567 6.6 4.537 −31.26% 4.537 −31.26% 4.537 −31.26%
G23 7 1.567 3.92 3.318 −15.35% - - - -
ν12 0.2 0.34 0.28 0.2526 −9.77% 0.2480 −11.41% −0.2064 −173.73%
∗
ν12 0.2 0.34 0.28 0.2526 −9.77% 0.0291 −89.61% 0.2445 −12.67%
Averaged error 0 17.48% b 18.24% c 18.26% d

a Constituent properties and experiments data of composite laminae in Table 1-Table 4 are cited
from Ref.[30].
b Calculated algebraically from the errors of E , E , G
12 and ν12 or ν12 .
∗
11 22
c ν ∗ has not been included due to negative value of it found in some composites.
12
d ν
12 has not been included due to negative value of it found in some composites.

Table 2. Measured and predicted elastic moduli of T300/BSL914C UD composite (Vf = 0.6)

Composite
Property Fiber Matrix
By Eqs.(13) By Eqs.(15) By Eqs.(16)
Measured
Data Error Data Error Data Error
E11 230 4.0 138 139.6 1.18% 139.9 1.36% 138.1 0.06%
E22 15 4.0 11 8.572 −22.07% 8.418 −23.47% 8.412 −23.52%
G12 15 1.481 5.5 4.353 −20.86% 4.353 −20.86% 4.353 −20.86%
G23 7 1.481 3.92 3.209 −18.14% - - - -
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.28 0.2566 −8.35% 0.2514 −10.23% −0.2896 −203.41%
∗
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.28 0.2566 −8.35% −0.0273 −109.75% 0.2476 −11.59%
Averaged error 0 13.11% 13.98% 14.01%

Table 3. Measured and predicted elastic moduli of E-glass/LY556 UD composite (Vf = 0.62)

Composite
Property Fiber Matrix
By Eqs.(13) By Eqs.(15) By Eqs.(16)
Measured
Data Error Data Error Data Error
E11 80 3.35 53.48 50.9 -4.83% 51.0 −4.69% 50.4 −5.82%
E22 80 3.35 17.7 11.705 −33.87% 11.415 −35.51% 11.411 −35.53%
G12 33.33 1.24 5.83 4.605 −21.01% 4.605 −21.01% 4.605 −21.01%
G23 33.33 1.24 6.32 4.064 −35.70% - - - -
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.278 0.2488 −10.51% 0.2451 −11.83% 0.0809 −70.91%
∗
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.278 0.2488 −10.51% 0.0891 −67.94% 0.2393 −13.94%
Averaged error 0 17.56% 18.26% 19.08%

i.e., by Eq.(16e), whereas that based on the deteriorated 2D Eshelby’s tensor must be determined from
(−S12 /S11 ), i.e., using Eq.(15d).
Relative errors between the predicted results and the experimental data are calculated, and are given
in the Tables. Averaged errors of the prediction of in-plane effective moduli, i.e., E11 , E22 , G12 and
ν12 , according to Eqs.(13), (15) and (16), are also shown in the Tables. It is noted that the difference
between the predicted and measured results for the transversely shear modulus, G23 , is not included
into the averaged error. The overall averaged error of each approach, represented by Eqs.(13), (15) and
Eqs.(16), for all of the eight composites are indicated in Table 9. According to this table, the most
accurate predictions are made by the method with 3D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor whose overall error of the
eight composites is 17.68%. As for the 2D approaches, predictions through Eqs.(15) are better than
those through Eqs.(16), but the difference between them is small. They achieved overall averaged errors
of 18.35% and 18.64%, respectively, which are only slightly lager than that through the 3D approach.
 · 242 · ACTA MECHANICA SOLIDA SINICA 2014

Table 4. Measured and predicted elastic moduli of E-Glass/MY750 UD composite (Vf = 0.6)

Composite
Property Fiber Matrix
By Eqs.(13) By Eqs.(15) By Eqs.(16)
Measured
Data Error Data Error Data Error
E11 74 3.35 45.6 45.8 0.36% 45.8 0.52% 45.3 −0.73%
E22 74 3.35 16.2 11.019 −31.98% 10.757 −33.60% 10.753 −33.63%
G12 30.8 1.24 5.83 4.318 −25.94% 4.318 −25.94% 4.318 −25.94%
G23 30.8 1.24 5.79 3.825 −33.94% - - - -
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.278 0.2517 −9.48% 0.2479 −10.84% 0.0926 −66.69%
∗
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.278 0.2517 −9.48% 0.1011 −63.65% 0.2419 −12.99%
Averaged error 0 16.94% 17.72% 18.32%

Table 5. Measured and predicted elastic moduli of IM7/8511-7 UD composite (Vf = 0.6)

Composite
Property Fiber Matrix
By Eqs.(13) By Eqs.(15) By Eqs.(16)
Measureda
Data Error Data Error Data Error
E11 276 4.08 165 167.3 1.38% 167.8 1.73% 164.8 −0.12%
E22 19 4.08 8.4 9.666 15.08% 9.496 13.05% 9.496 13.04%
G12 27 1.478 5.6 4.917 −12.19% 4.917 −12.19% 4.917 −12.19%
G23 7 1.478 2.8 3.230 15.35% - - - -
ν12 0.2 0.38 0.34 0.2669 −21.51% 0.2609 −23.25% −0.4083 −220.09%
∗
ν12 0.2 0.38 0.34 0.2669 −21.51% −0.2653 −178.02% 0.2562 −24.66%
Averaged error 0 38.08% 37.57% 38.08%
a Constituent properties and experiments data of composite laminae in Table 5-Table 8

are cited from Ref.[31].

Table 6. Measured and predicted elastic moduli of T300/PR319 UD composite (Vf = 0.6)

Composite
Property Fiber Matrix
By Eqs.(13) By Eqs.(15) By Eqs.(16)
Measured
Data Error Data Error Data Error
E11 231 0.95 129 139.0 7.74% 139.3 7.96% 137.4 6.52%
E22 15 0.95 5.6 3.020 −46.08% 2.947 −47.38% 2.944 −47.44%
G12 15 0.35 1.33 1.294 −2.69% 1.294 −2.69% 1.294 −2.69%
G23 7 0.35 1.86 1.058 −43.13% - - - -
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.318 0.2523 −20.67% 0.2482 −21.95% −1.6530 −619.82%
∗
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.318 0.2523 −20.67% −1.3944 −538.48% 0.2424 −23.77%
Averaged error 0 19.29% 20.00% 20.10%

Table 7. Measured and predicted elastic moduli of AS carbon/epoxy UD composite (Vf = 0.6)

Composite
Property Fiber Matrix
By Eqs.(13) By Eqs.(15) By Eqs.(16)
Measured
Data Error Data Error Data Error
E11 231 3.2 140 139.9 −0.07% 140.2 0.12% 138.3 −1.18%
E22 15 3.2 10 7.481 −25.19% 7.340 −26.60% 7.331 −26.69%
G12 15 1.2 6 3.673 −38.78% 3.673 −38.78% 3.673 −38.78%
G23 7 1.2 3.35 2.766 −17.45% - - - -
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.3 0.2555 −14.83% 0.2505 −16.49% −0.3998 −233.27%
∗
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.3 0.2555 −14.83% −0.1343 −144.77% 0.2462 −17.92%
Averaged error 0 19.72% 20.50% 21.14%

V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, explicit expressions for a 3D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor correlating averaged stresses of
the matrix with those of the fiber in a two-phase concentric cylinder model are derived. The fiber
cylinder can be transversely isotropic. Based on this tensor, closed-form formulae to calculate all of the
effective elastic properties of a UD composite are obtained. It has been shown that the 2D stiffness
tensor obtained upon a deteriorated 2D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor is generally asymmetric, nor is that
 Vol. 27, No. 3 Ling Liu et al.: A Note on Mori-Tanaka’s Method · 243 ·

Table 8. Measured and predicted elastic moduli of S2-Glass/epoxy UD composite (Vf = 0.6)

Composite
Property Fiber Matrix
By Eqs.(13) By Eqs.(15) By Eqs.(16)
Measured
Data Error Data Error Data Error
E11 87 3.2 52.0 53.5 2.89% 53.6 3.06% 52.9 1.76%
E22 87 3.2 19.0 10.783 −43.25% 10.518 −44.64% 10.515 −44.66%
G12 36 1.2 6.70 4.224 −36.96% 4.224 −36.96% 4.224 −36.96%
G23 36 1.2 6.70 3.723 −44.43% - - - -
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.3 0.2515 −16.17% 0.2477 −17.42% 0.0556 −81.46%
∗
ν12 0.2 0.35 0.3 0.2515 −16.17% 0.0634 −78.87% 0.2417 −19.44%
Averaged error 0 24.82% 25.52% 25.71%

Table 9. Overall errors from three different approaches to in-plane effective properties of the UD composite

Property By Eqs.(13) By Eqs.(15) By Eqs.(16)

E11 3.37% 3.51% 2.95%
E22 29.74% 30.73% 30.78%
G12 23.71% 23.71% 23.71%
ν 12 13.91% 15.43% 17.12%
Overall error 17.68% 18.35% 18.64%

based on a deteriorated 2D Eshelby’s tensor, even though the 3D stiffness tensor calculated upon the
3D Mori-Tanaka’s tensor is always symmetric. When those three approaches are applied to predict
in-plane effective properties of the composite, all of them can achieve comparable prediction accuracy,
although the 3D approach gives a slightly better correlation with experiments. This has been shown
by the analysis of eight typical UD composites.

References
[1] Mori,T. and Tanaka,K., Average stress in matrix and average elastic energy of materials with misfitting
inclusions. Acta Metallurgica, 1973, 21(5): 571-574.
[2] Benveniste,Y., A new approach to the application of Mori-Tanaka’s theory in composite materials. Me-
chanics of Materials, 1987, 6(2): 147-157.
[3] Eshelby,J.D., The Determination of the Elastic Field of an Ellipsoidal Inclusion, and Related Problems.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 1957, 241(1226):
376-396.
[4] Tandon,G.P. and Weng,G.J., The effect of aspect ratio of inclusions on the elastic properties of unidirec-
tionally aligned composites. Polymer Composites, 1984, 5(4): 327-333.
[5] Tandon,G.P. and Weng,G.J., Stress Distribution in and Around Spheroidal Inclusions and Voids at Finite
Concentration. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 1986, 53(3): 511-518.
[6] Weng,G.J., Some elastic properties of reinforced solids, with special reference to isotropic ones containing
spherical inclusions. International Journal of Engineering Science, 1984, 22(7): 845-856.
[7] Wang,Y.M. and Weng,G.J., The influence of inclusion shape on the overall viscoelastic behavior of com-
posites. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 1992, 59(3): 510-518.
[8] Zhao,Y.H. and Weng,G.J., Effective elastic moduli of ribbon-reinforced composites. Journal of Applied
Mechanics, 1990, 57(1): 158-167.
[9] Zheng,Q.S. and Du,D.X., An explicit and universally applicable estimate for the effective properties of
multiphase composites which accounts for inclusion distribution. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of
Solids, 2001, 49(11): 2765-2788.
[10] Klusemann,B., Böhm,H.J. and Svendsen,B., Homogenization methods for multi-phase elastic composites
with non-elliptical reinforcements: Comparisons and benchmarks. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids,
2012, 34(0): 21-37.
[11] Kachanov M., Tsukrov I. and Shafiro B., Effective moduli of solids with cavities of various shapes. Applied
Mechanics Reviews, 1994, 47(1S).
[12] Eroshkin,O. and Tsukrov,I., On micromechanical modeling of particulate composites with inclusions of
various shapes. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2005, 42(2): 409-427.
[13] Nogales,S. and Böhm,H.J., Modeling of the thermal conductivity and thermomechanical behavior of dia-
mond reinforced composites. International Journal of Engineering Science, 2008, 46(6): 606-619.
 · 244 · ACTA MECHANICA SOLIDA SINICA 2014

[14] Tandon,G.P. and Weng,G.J., Average stress in the matrix and effective moduli of randomly oriented com-
posites. Composite Science Technology, 1986, 27(2): 111-132.
[15] Zhao,Y., Tandon,G. and Weng,G., Elastic moduli for a class of porous materials. Acta Mechanica, 1989,
76(1): 105-131.
[16] Gommers,B., Verpoest,I. and Van,H.P., The Mori—Tanaka method applied to textile composite materials.
Acta Materialia, 1998, 46(6): 2223-2235.
[17] Schjøt,T.J. and Pyrz,R., The Mori-Tanaka stiffness tensor: diagonal symmetry, complex fibre orientations
and non-dilute volume fractions. Mechanics of Materials, 2001, 33(10): 531-544.
[18] Benveniste,Y., Dvorak,G.J. and Chen,T., Stress fields in composites with coated inclusions. Mechanics of
Materials, 1989, 7(4): 305-317.
[19] Chen,T. and Dvorak,G.J. and Benveniste,Y., Stress fields in composites reinforced by coated cylindrically
orthotropic fibers. Mechanics of Materials, 1990, 9(1): 17-32.
[20] Liu,H. and Brinson,L.C., A hybrid numerical-analytical method for modeling the viscoelastic properties
of polymer nanocomposites. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 2006, 73(5): 758-768.
[21] Li,Y., Waas,A.M. and Arruda,E.M., A closed-form, hierarchical, multi-interphase model for composites—
Derivation, verification and application to nanocomposites. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids,
2011, 59(1): 43-63.
[22] Benveniste,Y., Dvorak,G.J. and Chen,T., On diagonal and elastic symmetry of the approximate effective
stiffness tensor of heterogeneous media. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1991, 39(7): 927-946.
[23] Qiu,Y.P. and Weng,G.J., On the application of Mori-Tanaka’s theory involving transversely isotropic spher-
oidal inclusions. International Journal of Engineering Science, 1990, 28(11): 1121-1137.
[24] Castañda,P.P. and Willis,J.R., The effect of spatial distribution on the effective behavior of composite
materials and cracked media. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1995, 43(12): 1919-1951.
[25] Ferrari,M., Asymmetry and the high concentration limit of the Mori-Tanaka effective medium theory. Me-
chanics of Materials, 1991, 11(3): 251-256.
[26] Berryman,J.G. and Berge,P.A., Critique of two explicit schemes for estimating elastic properties of mul-
tiphase composites. Mechanics of Materials, 1996, 22(2): 149-164.
[27] Li,J.Y., On micromechanics approximation for the effective thermoelastic moduli of multi-phase composite
materials. Mechanics of Materials, 1999, 31(2): 149-159.
[28] Mura,T., Micromechanics of defects in solids, The Netherlands: Springer Company, 1987.
[29] Huang,Z.M. and Zhou,Y.X., Strength of Fibrous Composites. Hangzhou, New York: Zhejiang University
Press & Springer, 2011.
[30] Soden,P.D., Hinton,M.J. and Kaddour,A.S., Lamina properties, lay-up configurations and loading con-
ditions for a range of fibre-reinforced composite laminates. Composites Science Technology, 1998, 58(7):
1011-1022.
[31] Kaddour,A.S. and Hinton,M., Input data for test cases used in benchmarking triaxial failure theories of
composites. Journal of Composite Materials, 2012, 46(19-20): 2295-2312.

View publication stats