| Literature DB >> 28773744 |
Wenzhi Wang1, Yonghui Dai2, Chao Zhang3, Xiaosheng Gao4, Meiying Zhao5.
Abstract
Modeling the random fiber distribution of a fiber-reinforced composite is of great importance for studying the progressive failure behavior of the material on the micro scale. In this paper, we develop a new algorithm for generating random representative volume elements (RVEs) with statistical equivalent fiber distribution against the actual material microstructure. The realistic statistical data is utilized as inputs of the new method, which is archived through implementation of the probability equations. Extensive statistical analysis is conducted to examine the capability of the proposed method and to compare it with existing methods. It is found that the proposed method presents a good match with experimental results in all aspects including the nearest neighbor distance, nearest neighbor orientation, Ripley's K function, and the radial distribution function. Finite element analysis is presented to predict the effective elastic properties of a carbon/epoxy composite, to validate the generated random representative volume elements, and to provide insights of the effect of fiber distribution on the elastic properties. The present algorithm is shown to be highly accurate and can be used to generate statistically equivalent RVEs for not only fiber-reinforced composites but also other materials such as foam materials and particle-reinforced composites.Entities:
Keywords: elastic properties; fiber-reinforced composites; micromechanical; nearest neighbor distance; random representative volume element; statistics
Year: 2016 PMID: 28773744 PMCID: PMC5509042 DOI: 10.3390/ma9080624
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Flowchart for micromechanical modeling of random representative volume element. The scanning electron microscope (SEM) image is reproduced from [15].
Figure 2Schematic illustration of the modified nearest neighbor algorithm (NNA) algorithm. (a) Step 1: generation of the first fiber (fiber #1) in the central area of the window; (b) step 2–4: generation of the fiber #2 with inter-fiber distance d12 and the orientation angle θ12 satisfying the statistical distribution; (c) step 5–6: generation of more fibers around fiber #1; (d) step 7–8: repeating of the previous steps followed by switching the reference fiber.
Figure 3(a) Example of generated representative volume element (RVE) of fiber volume ration 57%; (b) distribution of fiber radius; and (c) distribution of nearest neighbor distances.
Figure 4Comparison of experimental measured and computational modeled (a) probability density function of nearest neighbor distances and (b) cumulative distribution function of nearest neighbor orientation.
Figure 5Comparison of experimental measured and computational modeled Ripley’s K function (a) 0 ≤ h/r ≤ 35; (b) 30 ≤ h/r ≤ 35; and (c) 0 ≤ h/r ≤ 4.
Figure 6(a) L(h) for experimental characterized and numerical generated RVE; and (b) L(h) for periodic RVE of square arrangement and hexagonal arrangement.
Figure 7Radial distribution function for experimental characterized and numerical generated RVE.
Figure 8(a) Random RVE for composite with fiber volume ratio 60%; (b) and (c) 3D finite element mesh for the microstructure of (a).
Elastic properties of T300 carbon fiber and 914C epoxy resin [31].
| Properties | Carbon Fiber T300 | Epoxy Resin 914C |
|---|---|---|
| Longitudinal Young’s Modulus | 230 | 4 |
| Transverse Young’s Modulus | 15 | 4 |
| Longitudinal Shear Modulus | 15 | 1.481 |
| Transverse Shear Modulus | 7 | 1.481 |
| Major Poisson’s Ratio | 0.2 | 0.35 |
| Transverse Poisson’s Ratio | 0.07 | 0.35 |
Summary of predicted effective elastic properties and comparison with experimental results.
| Properties | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prediction 1 | 137.98 | 8.21 | 4.58 | 3.08 | 0.2758 | 0.3243 |
| Prediction 2 | 138.27 | 8.22 | 4.55 | 3.09 | 0.2747 | 0.3243 |
| Prediction 3 | 138.49 | 8.25 | 4.55 | 3.08 | 0.2747 | 0.3233 |
| Prediction 4 | 138.32 | 8.22 | 4.53 | 3.10 | 0.2737 | 0.3262 |
| Prediction 5 | 138.38 | 8.20 | 4.58 | 3.10 | 0.2747 | 0.3262 |
| Prediction 6 | 138.14 | 8.21 | 4.55 | 3.07 | 0.2758 | 0.3243 |
| Prediction 7 | 138.33 | 8.24 | 4.59 | 3.10 | 0.2747 | 0.3243 |
| Prediction 8 | 138.40 | 8.20 | 4.54 | 3.10 | 0.2737 | 0.3262 |
| Average | 138.29 | 8.22 | 4.56 | 3.09 | 0.2747 | 0.3249 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.152 | 0.016 | 0.019 | 0.011 | 0.00074 | 0.00107 |
| Experimental [ | 138.00 | 11.00 | 5.50 | 3.93* | 0.2800 | 0.4000 |
| Error (%) | 0.20 | −25.28 | −17.13 | −21.391 | −1.88 | −18.78 |
* Calculated from .