Finite Element Analysis of the Microstructure-Strength Relationships of Metal Matrix Composites

doi:10.1007/s40195-014-0089-4

Abstract

Abstract:

The influence of the shape and spatial distribution of reinforced particles on strength and damage of metal matrix composite (MMC) is investigated through finite element method under uniaxial tensile, simple shear, biaxial tensile, as well as combined tensile/shear loadings. The particle shapes change randomly from circular to regular n-sided polygon (3 ≤ n ≤ 10); the particle alignments are determined through a sequentially random number stream and the particle locations are defined through the random sequential adsorption algorithm. The ductile failure in metal matrix and brittle failure in particles are described through damage models based on the stress triaxial indicator and maximum principal stress criterion, respectively, while the debonding behavior of interface between particles and matrix is simulated through cohesive elements. The simulation results show that, under different loadings, interface debonding is the dominated failure mechanism in MMCs and plastic deformation and ductile failure of matrix also play very important roles on the failure of MMCs.

Key words: Metal matrix composites, Finite element analysis, Damage Strength

Qing Hai. Finite Element Analysis of the Microstructure-Strength Relationships of Metal Matrix Composites[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2014, 27(5): 844-852.

Figures/Tables 16

Fig. 1 Example of FE-mesh of microstructural model

Fig. 2 Nominal stress-strain curves of different micromechanical models under uniaxial tensile a, simple shear loadings b

Fig. 3 Failure matrix fraction versus the nominal strain of different micromechanical models under uniaxial tensile a, simple shear loadings b

Fig. 4 Failure particle fraction versus the nominal strain of different micromechanical models under uniaxial tensile a, simple shear loadings b

Fig. 5 Failure interface fraction versus the nominal strain of different micromechanical models under uniaxial tensile a, simple shear loadings b

Fig. 6 Biaxial tensile nominal stress-strain curves of different micromechanical models: a, b kb = 0.5; c kb = 1.0

Fig. 7 Failure matrix fraction versus the nominal tensile strain of different micromechanical models for kb = 0.5 a, kb = 1.0 b

Fig. 8 Failure particle fraction versus the nominal tensile strain of different micromechanical models for kb = 0.5 a, kb = 1.0 b

Fig. 9 Failure interface fraction versus the nominal tensile strain of different micromechanical models for kb = 0.5 a, kb = 1.0 b

Fig. 10 Nominal shear stress-strain curves of different micromechanical models for kc = 0.5 a, kc = 1.0 b, kc = 2.0 c

Fig. 11 Nominal tensile stress-strain curves of different micromechanical models for kc = 0.5 a, kc = 1.0 b, kc = 2.0 c

Fig. 12 Failure matrix fraction versus the nominal tensile strain of different micromechanical models for kc = 0.5 a, kc = 1.0 b, kc = 2.0 c

Fig. 13 Failure particle fraction versus the nominal tensile strain of different micromechanical models for kc = 0.5 a, kc = 1.0 b, kc = 2.0 c

Fig. 14 Failure interface fraction versus the nominal tensile strain of different micromechanical models for kc = 0.5 a, kc = 1.0 b, kc = 2.0 c

Table 1 The failure strengths and corresponding strains for different particle shapes and arrangements under uniaxial and biaxial tensile loadings

Loading type	ɛ₂₂ (%)	ɛ₁₁ (%)	σ₂₂ (MPa)	σ₁₁ (MPa)
Uniaxial	0.396 (0.009)	-	207.490 (2.405)	-
Biaxial
k_b = 0.5	0.327 (0.017)	0.169 (0.01)	232.680 (6.980)	171.830 (6.154)
k_b = 1.0	0.277 (0.014)	0.278 (0.014)	218.195 (5.719)	220.040 (5.708)

Table 2 The failure strengths and corresponding strains for different particle shapes and arrangements under simple shear and combined tensile and shear loadings

Loading type	ɛ₂₂ (%)	γ₁₂ (%)	σ₂₂ (MPa)	σ₁₂ (MPa)
Simple shear	-	0.748 (0.039)	-	123.330 (1.100)
Combined loading
k_c = 0.5	0.272 (0.011)	0.536 (0.026)	130.965 (1.926)	97.510 (1.061)
k_c = 1.0	0.344 (0.017)	0.339 (0.019)	175.470 (3.259)	65.950 (0.918)
k_c = 2.0	0.374 (0.019)	0.185 (0.012)	196.480 (3.992)	37.138 (0.701)

References 35

[1]	E.A. Starke, J.T. Staley,Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 32, 131(1996)
[2]	J.A. Hooker, P.J. Doorbar,Mater. Sci. Technol. Lond. 16, 725(2000)
[3]	S. Rawal, JOM 53, 14 (2001)
[4]	I.N. Orbulov, K. Májlinger, Mater. Des. 49, 1(2013)
[5]	S. Nemat-Nasser, M. Hori, in Micromechanics: Overall Properties of Heterogeneous Materials, 2nd edn.(Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994)
[6]	S. Torquato, in Random Heterogeneous Materials,(Springer, Heidelberg, 2006)
[7]	L. Mishnaevsky, in Computational Mesomechanics of Composites: Numerical Analysis of the Effect of Microstructures of Composites of Strength and Damage Resistance,(Wiley, Hoboken, 2007)
[8]	T.I. Zohdi, P. Wriggers, in an Introduction to Computational Micromechanics,(Springer, Heidelberg, 2008)
[9]	V.A. Romanova, R.R. Balokhonov, S. Schmauder,Acta Mater. 57, 97(2009)
[10]	A. Rasool, H.J. Bohm,Int. J. Eng. Sci. 58, 21(2012)
[11]	E.J. Garboczi, J.F. Douglas,Mech. Mater. 51, 53(2012)
[12]	M.N. Yuan, Y.Q. Yang, C. Li, P.Y. Heng, L.Z. Li,Mater. Des. 38, 1(2012)
[13]	R. Ekici, M.K. Apalak, M. Yildirim, F. Nair, F. Mater. Des. 31, 2818(2010)
[14]	H. Qing,Mater. Des. 44, 446(2013)
[15]	G. Meijer, F. Ellyin, Z. Xia,Compos. Pt. B Eng. 31, 29(2000)
[16]	F. Bouafia, B. Serier, B.A.B. Bouiadjra, Comput. Mater. Sci. 54, 195(2012)
[17]	J. Lu, B. Miege, J.F. Flavenot, S. Thery, J. Compos. Technol. Res. 12, 232(1990)
[18]	W.X. Zhang, L.X. Li, T.J. Wang,Comput. Mater. Sci. 41, 145(2007)
[19]	X. Yang, G.Q. Wu, W. Sha, Q.Q. Zhang, Z. Huang,Compos. Pt. A. Appl. Sci. Manuf. 43, 363(2012)
[20]	H. Qing,Mater. Des. 51, 438(2013)
[21]	H. Qing,Comput. Mater. Sci. 89, 102(2014)
[22]	L. Mishnaevsky, K. Derrien, D. Baptiste,Compos. Sci. Technol. 64, 1805(2004)
[23]	J. Segurado, C. Gonzalez, J. Llorca,Acta Mater. 51, 2355(2003)
[24]	A. Ayyar, N. Chawla,Acta Mater. 55, 6064(2007)
[25]	H. Xu, E.J. Palmiere,Compos. Part A. 30, 203(1999)
[26]	P.B. Prangnell, S.J. Barnes, S.M. Roberts, P.J. Withers, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 220, 41 (1996)
[27]	N. Jia, F. Roters, P. Eisenlohr, D. Raabe, X. Zhao,Acta Mater. 61, 4591(2013)
[28]	Z.H. Xia, W.A. Curtin,Acta Mater. 49, 1633(2001)
[29]	S.J. Guo, G.Z. Kang,Acta Metall. Sin. 42, 1051(2006). (in Chinese)
[30]	S.B. Kim, D.A. Koss, D.A. Gerard, Mat. Sci. Eng. A 277, 123 (2000)
[31]	H.W. Wang, H.W. Zhou, R.D. Peng, L. Mishnaevsky,Compos. Sci. Technol. 71, 980(2011)
[32]	B. Zhang, Z. Yang, X. Sun, Z. Tang,Comput. Mater. Sci. 49, 645(2010)
[33]	C. Lu, R. Danzer, F.D. Fischer, Phys. Rev. E 65, 067102 (2002)
[34]	G. Bao, Z. Lin,Acta Mater. 44, 1011(1996)
[35]	J.R. Rice, D.M. Tracey, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 17, 201 (1969)