Representative volume element-based three-dimensional models with various nanofiller geometries and process parameters are presented for the design and analysis of composite materials. Analytical, computer-aided design, and computer-aided engineering tools are integrated to develop user interface tools with automated three-dimensional models for mechanical and electrical analyses. Various process parameters in the manufacture of nanocomposites are quantified using image analysis techniques. A filler-to-filler distance algorithm is incorporated in developing a three-dimensional network of fillers within matrix representative volume element to account for filler–filler interactions and compatibility. The stress–strain behavior of metal matrix nanocomposites, the effective modulus, and the electrical conductivity of polymer nanocomposite fibers are presented as case studies to demonstrate the capabilities of the developed representative volume element-based design and analysis tools. The unique automated design and analysis framework presented in this study integrates various software tools, quantifies the effect of process parameters of experimental composites with nanofillers, and provides quick what-if analysis for manufacturing application-specific composites.
ChaeHGMinusMLKumarS. Oriented and exfoliated single wall carbon nanotubes in polyacrylonitrile. Polymer. 2006; 47: 3494–3504.
10.
ZhangZChenDL. Consideration of Orowan strengthening effect in particulate-reinforced metal matrix nanocomposites: a model for predicting their yield strength. Scripta Mater. 2006; 54: 1321–1326.
11.
CaoGKobliskaJKonishiH. Tensile properties and microstructure of SiC nanoparticle–reinforced Mg-4Zn alloy fabricated by ultrasonic cavitation–based solidification processing. Metallurg Mater Trans A. 2008; 39: 880–886.
12.
GuptaMSharonNML. Magnesium, magnesium alloys, and magnesium composites, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
13.
XuNZongBY. Stress in particulate reinforcements and overall stress response on aluminum alloy matrix composites during straining by analytical and numerical modeling. Comput Mater Sci. 2008; 43: 1094–1100.
14.
WongEWSheehanPELieberCM. Nanobeam mechanics: elasticity, strength, and toughness of nanorods and nanotubes. Science. 1997; 277: 1971–1975.
15.
ValavalaPKOdegardGM. Modeling techniques for determination of mechanical properties of polymer nanocomposites. Rev Adv Mater Sci. 2005; 9: 34–44.
16.
ValavalaPKOdegardGMAifantisEC. Influence of representative volume element size on predicted elastic properties of polymer materials. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng. 2009; 17(4): 1–15.
17.
SrivastavaDWeiCChoK. Nanomechanics of carbon nanotubes and composites. Appl Mech Rev. 2003; 56: 215–230.
18.
ArroyoMBelytschkoT. Continuum mechanics modeling and simulation of carbon nanotubes. Meccanica. 2005; 40: 455–469.
19.
LeamyMJ. Bulk dynamic response modeling of carbon nanotubes using an intrinsic finite element formulation incorporating interatomic potentials. Int J Solids Struct. 2007; 44: 874–894.
20.
DvorakGJRaoMSMTarnJQ. Yielding in unidirectional composites under external loads and temperature changes. J Compos Mater. 1973; 7: 194–216.
21.
PanYIorgaLPelegriAA. Numerical generation of a random chopped fiber composite RVE and its elastic properties. Compos Sci Technol. 2008; 68: 2792–2798.
22.
KariSBergerHGabbertU. Numerical evaluation of effective material properties of randomly distributed short cylindrical fibre composites. Comput Mater Sci. 2007; 39: 198–204.
23.
BhuiyanMAPuchaRVKarevanM. Tensile modulus of carbon nanotube/polypropylene composites – a computational study based on experimental characterization. Comput Mater Sci. 2011; 50: 2347–2353.
BhuiyanMAPuchaRVWorthyJ. Defining the lower and upper limit of the effective modulus of CNT/polypropylene composites through integration of modeling and experiments. Compos Struct. 2013; 95(1): 80–87.
26.
Kurahatti RV, Surendranathan AO, S. A. Kori NS, Kumar AVR and Srivastava S. Defence applications of polymer nanocomposites. Defence Sci J 2010; 60(5): 551–563.
Hunten KA, Barnard Feeney A and Srinivasan V. Recent advances in sharing standardized STEP composite structure design and manufacturing information. Computer-Aided Design 2013; 45: 1215–1221.
29.
BhuiyanMAPuchaRVWorthyJ. Understanding the effect of CNT characteristics on the tensile modulus of CNT reinforced polypropylene using finite element analysis. Comput Mater Sci. 2013.
30.
Velez-GarciaGMWapperomPBairdDG. Unambiguous orientation in short fiber composites over small sampling area in a center-gated disk. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf. 2012; 43: 104–113.
31.
SteinAMVaderDAJawerthLM. An algorithm for extracting the network geometry of three-dimensional collagen gels. J Microsc. 2008; 232: 463–475.
32.
HoeyDShamosMI. Efficient computations in geometry. Notices Am Math Soc. 1975; 22: A596–A597.
33.
Eberly D. 3D Game Engine Design: A Practical Approach to Real-Time Computer Graphics. 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2005.
34.
Dalmas F, Dendievel R, Chazeau L, et al. Carbon nanotube-filled polymer composites. Numerical simulation of electrical conductivity in three-dimensional entangled fibrous networks. Acta Mater 2006; 54: 2923–2931.
35.
ChronakisIS. Novel nanocomposites and nanoceramics based on polymer nanofibers using electrospinning process—a review. J Mater Process Technol. 2005; 167: 283–293.
36.
KimSDoIDrzalLT. Thermal stability and dynamic mechanical behavior of exfoliated graphite nanoplatelets-LLDPE nanocomposites. Polym Compos. 2010; 31: 755–761.
37.
GohCSWeiJLeeLC. Properties and deformation behaviour of Mg–Y2O3 nanocomposites. Acta Mater. 2007; 55: 5115–5121.
38.
BoutalebSZaïriFMesbahA. Micromechanics-based modelling of stiffness and yield stress for silica/polymer nanocomposites. Int J Solids Struct. 2009; 46: 1716–1726.
39.
Jain R. Carbon nanotube reinforced polyacrylonitrile and poly(etherketone) fibers. PhD Thesis, Georgia Tech, USA, 2009.
40.
ZhangTYiYB. Monte Carlo simulations of effective electrical conductivity in short-fiber composites. J Appl Phys. 2008; 103.
