0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

On the Micromechanics-Based Simulation of Metal Matrix Composite Response

[+] Author and Article Information
Marek-Jerzy Pindera

Civil Engineering Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4742mp3g@virginia.edu

Yogesh Bansal

Civil Engineering Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4742

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 129(3), 468-482 (Feb 04, 2007) (15 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2744419 History: Received July 11, 2006; Revised February 04, 2007

The response of metal matrix composites is affected by factors such as inclusion distribution and shape, inclusion/matrix interfacial bond, residual stresses, and fabrication-altered in situ matrix properties. These effects are studied using a finite-volume micromechanics model whose extensive modeling capabilities are sufficient to account for these diverse factors. A consistent micromechanics-aided methodology is developed for extracting the unknown in situ matrix plastic parameters using a minimum amount of experimental data. Subsequent correlation of the micromechanics-based predictions with carefully generated data on off-axis response of unidirectional boron/aluminum composite specimens under tensile and compressive axial loading validates the model’s predictive capability and quantifies the importance of each factor.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) A continuously reinforced multiphase composite along the x1 axis with a periodic microstructure in the x2-x3 plane constructed with repeating unit cells. (b) Discretization of the repeating unit cell into subcells employed in the reconstructed finite-volume model.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

An off-axis specimen uniaxially loaded in the global coordinate and the corresponding transformed combined in-plane stresses in the principal material coordinate system

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Actual representative cross-sectional area element of the investigated inidirectional B∕Al composite (30)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

(a) Discretization of the unit cell based on an actual representative cross-sectional area element of the investigated unidirectional boron/aluminum composite, modified to ensure periodicity. (b) and (c) unit cells for the square and hexagonal fiber arrays of the same volume fraction.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Aluminum stress-strain responses

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Simulated transverse stress-strain response of the 90deg specimens based on: (a) 0-tempered and processed aluminum properties and (b) derived in situ aluminum properties. Comparison with experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Macroscopic normal and transverse strains as a function of the cooldown temperature with calibrated in situ aluminum properties

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Effective plastic strain distributions during cooldown with calibrated in situ aluminum properties: (a)ΔT=−60°C; and (b)ΔT=−100°C

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Simulated normal stress-strain response of the 0deg specimen based on the calibrated in situ aluminum properties after different cooldown temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Simulated normal stress-strain response of the 0deg specimen based on the calibrated in situ aluminum properties after cooldown temperature of 30°C

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Effective plastic strain distributions at different macroscopic strains during simulated normal stress versus normal strain response for the 0deg specimen based on the calibrated in situ aluminum properties after cooldown temperature of 30°C: (a)ε¯11=0.06%; (b)ε¯11=0.08%; (c)ε¯11=0.10%; and (d)ε¯11=0.12%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Macroscopic normal stress versus normal strain response for (a)θ=10,15,45deg, and (b)θ=30deg, and 60deg off-axis specimens based on actual RUC. Comparison with experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Effective stress distributions for: (a) θ=10deg; (b)θ=15deg; (c)θ=30deg; and (d)θ=60deg off-axis specimens at applied macroscopic strain of ε¯xx=0.2%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Effective plastic strain distributions for: (a)θ=10deg; (b)θ=15deg; (c)θ=30deg; and (d)θ=60deg off-axis specimens at applied macroscopic strain of ε¯xx=0.2%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Poisson’s response for (a)θ=0,10,15,90deg and (b)θ=30,45,60deg off-axis specimens based on actual RUC. Comparison with experimental data.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Macroscopic shear stress versus shear strain response for (a)θ=10,45,60deg, and (b)θ=15deg, and 30deg off-axis specimens based on actual RUC. Comparison with experimental data.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Macroscopic normal stress versus normal strain response for (a)θ=45deg and (b)θ=90deg specimens based on actual square and hexagonal array RUCs. Comparison with experimental data.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In