Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:48:09.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

3D multiscale modeling of fracture in metal matrix composites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Yan Li Open the ORCID record for Yan Li [Opens in a new window] ,
Leon Phung  and
Cyril Williams
Yan Li*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, California 90840, USA
Leon Phung
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, California 90840, USA
Cyril Williams
Affiliation:
US Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Adelphi, Maryland 21005, USA
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Metal matrix composites (MMCs) have great potential to replace monolithic metals in many engineering applications due to their enhanced properties, such as higher strength and stiffness, higher operating temperature, and better wear resistance. Despite their attractive mechanical properties, the application of MMCs has been limited primarily due to their high cost and relative low fracture toughness and reliability. Microstructure determines material fracture toughness through activation of different failure mechanisms. In this paper, a 3D multiscale modeling technique is introduced to resolve different failure mechanisms in MMCs. This approach includes 3D microstructure generation, meshing, and cohesive finite element method based failure analysis. Calculations carried out here concern Al/SiC MMCs and focus on primary fracture mechanisms which are correlated with microstructure characteristics, constituent properties, and deformation behaviors. Simulation results indicate that interface debonding not only creates tortuous crack paths via crack deflection and coalescence of microcracks but also leads to more pronounced plastic deformation, which largely contributes to the toughening of composite materials. Promotion of interface debonding through microstructure design can effectively improve the fracture toughness of MMCs.

Keywords

microstructurefracturesimulations
Type
Invited Paper
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 34 , Issue 13: Focus Issue: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Size Effects in Materials , 15 July 2019 , pp. 2285 - 2294
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Romanova, V.A., Balokhonov, R.R., and Schmauder, S.: The influence of the reinforcing particle shape and interface strength on the fracture behavior of a metal matrix composite. Acta Mater. 57, 97–107 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chawla, K.K.: Metal matrix composites. In Composite Materials (Springer, New York, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llorca, J., Needleman, A., and Suresh, S.: An analysis of the effects of matrix void growth on deformation and ductility in metal-ceramic composites. Acta Metall. Mater. 39, 2317–2335 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babout, L., Brechet, Y., Maire, E., and Fougères, R.: On the competition between particle fracture and particle decohesion in metal matrix composites. Acta Mater. 52, 4517–4525 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, L., Kobayashi, T., Toda, H., Goda, T., and Wang, Z.G.: Fracture toughness of a 6061Al matrix composite reinforced with fine SiC particles. Mater. Trans. 43, 2838–2842 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabek, D.M., Chmielewski, M., Dulnik, J., and Strojny-Nedza, A.: The influence of the particle size on the adhesion between ceramic particles and metal matrix in MMC composites. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 25, 3139–3145 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alaneme, K.K. and Aluko, A.O.: Fracture toughness (K 1C) and tensile properties of as-cast and age-hardened aluminium (6063)–silicon carbide particulate composites. Sci. Iran. 19, 992–996 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayyar, A. and Chawla, N.: Microstructure-based modeling of crack growth in particle reinforced composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 66, 1980–1994 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sozhamannan, G.G., Prabu, S.B., and Paskaramoorthy, R.: Failures analysis of particle reinforced metal matrix composites by microstructure based models. Mater. Des. 31, 3785–3790 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M., Ghosh, S., Richmond, O., Weiland, H., and Rouns, T.N.: Three dimensional characterization and modeling of particle reinforced metal matrix composites part II: Damage characterization. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 266, 221–240 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, Q. and Boas, D.A.: Tetrahedral mesh generation from volumetric binary and gray-scale images. In Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE international conference on Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, Boston, Massachusetts, 2009.Google Scholar
ABAQUS 6-14 manual (Simulia, Providence, Rhode Island, 2016).Google Scholar
Ghandehariun, A.: Mechanics of machining metal matrix composites: Analytical modeling and finite element simulation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2015. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10155/514.Google Scholar
Li, Y. and Zhou, M.: Effect of competing mechanisms on fracture toughness of metals with ductile grain structures. Eng. Fract. Mech. 205, 14–27 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, X., Chang, K., Chen, L.Q., and Zhou, M.: Determination of fracture toughness of AZ31 Mg alloy using the cohesive finite element method. Eng. Fract. Mech. 96, 401–415 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needleman, A., Nutt, S.R., Suresh, S., and Tvergaard, V.: Matrix, reinforcement, and interfacial failure. In Fundamentals of Metal-Matrix Composites, Suresh, S., Mortensen, A., and Needleman, A., eds. (Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1993); ch. 13, pp. 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y. and Zhou, M.: Prediction of fracture toughness of ceramic composites as function of microstructure: I. Numerical simulations. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 61, 472–488 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, O. and Vaziri, R.: Adaptive insertion of cohesive elements for simulation of delamination in laminated composite materials. Eng. Fract. Mech. 146, 121–138 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandolfi, A.O.: An efficient adaptive procedure for three-dimensional fragmentation simulations. Eng. Comput. 18, 148 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhai, J., Tomar, V., and Zhou, M.: Micromechanical simulation of dynamic fracture using the cohesive finite element method. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 126, 179–191 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., McDowell, D., and Zhou, M.: A multiscale framework for predicting fracture toughness of polycrystalline metals. Mater. Perform. Charact. 3, 1–16 (2014).Google Scholar
Qu, J. and Cherkaoui, M.: Fundamentals of Micromechanics of Solids (John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2007), pp. 120–153.Google Scholar
Borja, R.I.: Plasticity Modeling and Computation (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013).Google Scholar
York Duran, J.L., Kuhn, C., and Müller, R.: Modeling of the effective properties of metal matrix composites using computational homogenization. Appl. Mech. Mater. 869, 94–111 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ASTM E1290-08e1: Standard test method for crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) fracture toughness measurement. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. (2011).Google Scholar
Panontin, T.L., Makino, A., and Williams, J.F.: Crack tip opening displacement estimation formulae for C(T) specimens. Eng. Fract. Mech. 67, 293–301 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucci, R.J.: Selecting aluminum alloys to resist failure by fracture mechanisms. Eng. Fract. Mech. 12, 407–441 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
https://accuratus.com.Google Scholar
Wu, C., Ma, K., Wu, J., Fang, P., Luo, G., Chen, F., Shen, Q., Zhang, L., Schoenung, J.M., and Lavernia, E.J.: Influence of particle size and spatial distribution of B4C reinforcement on the microstructure and mechanical behavior of precipitation strengthened Al alloy matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 675, 421–430 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milan, M.T. and Bowen, P.: Tensile and fracture toughness properties of SiCp reinforced Al alloys: Effects of particle size, particle volume fraction, and matrix strength. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 13, 775–783 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J.N., Jones, J.W., and Sachdev, A.K.: Particle size, volume fraction and matrix strength effects on fatigue behavior and particle fracture in 2124 aluminum-SiCp composites. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 183, 69–80 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Cao, J., and Williams, C.: Competing failure mechanisms in metal matrix composites and their effects on fracture toughness. Materialia 5, 100238 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, M. and Huang, B.: Effects of particle size on the fracture toughness of SiCp/Al alloy metal matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 488, 601–607 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babout, L., Ludwig, W., Maire, E., and Buffière, J.Y.: Damage assessment in metallic structural materials using high resolution synchrotron X-ray tomography. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 200, 303–307 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar