Analytical modeling of tensile strength of particulate‐filled composites

Abstract

Based on Christen sen and Lo's (11) three‐layer sphere model, a two‐layer built‐in model is proposed to represent particulate‐filled composites. Following Papanico‐laou and Bakos' (14) procedure for a particle embedded in an infinite matrix model and using the rule‐of‐mixtures approach, formulations estimating the tensile strength of particulate‐filled composites are developed. Unlike Fapanicolaou and Bakos' formulations, the formulations developed in the present paper can characterize the effect of particle size, particle size distribution, and particle clustering on the tensile strength of the composites. A reasonable agreement is found between the predicted tensile strength and the experimental results found in the literature. Parameters affecting the tensile strength of particulate‐filled composites are discussed via the calculated results.

Effects of particle size, particle/matrix interface adhesion and particle loading on mechanical properties of particulate–polymer composites

“…(30). Note that S depends on interface adhesion and varies from 9.8 Â 10 À4 to 1.74 Â 10 À3 MPa m. Li et al [171] developed a model that includes the effects of particle/matrix adhesion, particle size distribution, matrix degradation, etc. But the final expression of integration/summation is difficult to use in practical prediction of composite strength.…”

“…In the second case (n p = 1 À V p ), perfect bonding between particles and matrix is also used, but the matrix is assumed to degrade linearly with inclusion of particles due to the presence of particles and complications developed during the preparation of the composite. Using composite properties [171]: for glass particles -Young's modulus = 71 GPa, bulk modulus = 53.3 GPa, Poisson's ratio = 0.279, and epoxy -Young's modulus = 3.53 GPa, bulk modulus = 4.21 GPa, Poisson's ratio = 0.35 and tensile strength = 80 MPa, the effect of particle size on tensile strength is shown in Fig. 23 (where d p is mean particle size).…”

“…Moreover, there is another disadvantage that the model is unsuitable for prediction of the strength of nanocomposites because it predicts a constant strength for particle sizes in nanoscale. To show the effect of particle size, two cases are considered [171]. In the first case (n p = 1), the particles are perfectly bonded to the matrix and no degradation of matrix is assumed.…”

Injection Molded Solid and Microcellular Polylactide Compounded with Recycled Paper Shopping Bag Fibers

“…However, the PLA-30 %SF composites exhibited an increase in specific tensile strength for both solid and microcellular components when compared to the neat PLA and PLA-10 %SF composites. It is possible that at increased fiber content (30 wt.%), the fibers were more densely packed and were able to increase the stress transfer ability of the PLA-30 %SF composites, thereby improving the tensile strength (Li et al, 2001). Other groups have shown that it is also possible that at high filler contents, the fibers were able to restrain the PLA matrix from deformation, allowing the highly-filled composite to withstand a higher stress at low strains (Bhardwaj et al, 2006;Whaling et al, 2006).…”

Inhomogeneous cloud coverage through the Coulomb explosion of dust in substellar atmospheres

“…The RoM can be used to approximate properties of composite materials such as the elastic modulus. Additional physical effects can be incorporated into the RoM formulation such as interfacial bonding between the composite materials; and the effect of particle size distributions and particle clustering within the composite (Li et al 2001). To quantify the effect of imperfect bonding between the individual Shackelford & Alexander (2000) components and the departure from perfectly formed idealized crystalline solids the parameter m b ∈ (0, 1] is introduced.…”