4.7 Article

Micromechanical models to guide the development of synthetic 'brick and mortar' composites

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE MECHANICS AND PHYSICS OF SOLIDS
Volume 60, Issue 8, Pages 1545-1560

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2012.03.002

Keywords

Composites; Micromechanics; Strength; Modulus; Nacre

Funding

  1. Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies from the U.S. Army Research Office [W911NF-09-D-0001]
  2. NSF CMII [1063714, 0800790]
  3. Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering, of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes a micromechanical analysis of the uniaxial response of composites comprising elastic platelets (bricks) bonded together with thin elastic perfectly plastic layers (mortar). The model yields closed-form results for the spatial variation of displacements in the bricks as a function of constituent properties, which can be used to calculate the effective properties of the composite, including elastic modulus, strength and work-to-failure. Regime maps are presented which indicate critical stresses for failure of the bricks and mortar as a function of constituent properties and brick architecture. The solution illustrates trade-offs between elastic modulus, strength and dissipated work that are a result of transitions between various failure mechanisms associated with brick rupture and rupture of the interfaces. Detailed scaling relationships are presented with the goal of providing material developers with a straightforward means to identify synthesis targets that balance competing mechanical behaviors and optimize material response. Ashby maps are presented to compare potential brick and mortar composites with existing materials, and identify future directions for material development. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available