4.5 Article

Computational modeling and simulation of bioinspired nacre-like composites

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS RESEARCH
卷 36, 期 13, 页码 2651-2661

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1557/s43578-021-00124-6

关键词

Composite; Fracture; Interface; Modeling; Simulation

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1538448]
  2. University of Texas at San Antonio, Office of the Vice President for Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents 3D computational modeling and simulation of a hybrid nanocomposite mimicking nacre's ultrastructure, where stiff mineral tablets are bonded by soft organic matrices. The finite element analysis and experimental validation investigate the mechanical properties and damage modes of the composite, as well as the effect of microstructural features on the elastic modulus.
Inspired by design motifs driving the balanced combination of rigidity, strength, and toughness in biological materials, this paper presents 3D computational modeling and simulation of an interface-enriched hybrid nanocomposite mimicking nacre's ultrastructure. In this architectured material model, stiff mineral tablets are bonded by relatively soft and ductile organic matrices placed in the junction and interlayer space of the microstructure. Finite element analysis of this staggered multilayered model material is conducted using an in-house developed software package in which thin organic interfaces are represented by a generalized cohesive interface zone model. The computational model is validated against experimental measurements of stress-strain curves of nacre in tension. Subsequently, the deformation/toughening mechanisms and failure modes are discussed in tension and compression loading conditions. As an important microstructural feature, the effect of tablet aspect ratio on the elastic modulus of the composite is discussed. The role of the interlayer organic matrix on damage-induced tensile instability and compressive buckling in slender composite models is elucidated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据