Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
com
COMPOSITES
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Composites Science and Technology 68 (2008) 19621974
www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech
Abstract
The most important aspect of formulating unit cells for micromechanical analysis of materials of patterned microstructures is the derivation of appropriate boundary conditions for them. There is lack of a comprehensive account on the derivation of boundary conditions
in the literature, while the use of unit cells in micromechanical analyses is on an increasing trend. This paper is devoted to the generation
of such an account, where boundary conditions are derived entirely based on considerations of symmetries which are present in the
microstructure. The implications of the boundary conditions used for a unit cell are not always clear and therefore have been discussed.
It has been demonstrated that unit cells of the same appearance but subject to boundary conditions derived based on dierent symmetry
considerations may behave rather dierently. One of the objectives of the paper is to inform users of unit cells that to introduce a unit cell
one needs not only mechanically correct boundary conditions but also a clear sense of the microstructure under consideration. Otherwise
the results of such analyses could mislead.
2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: B. Mechanical properties; C. Anisotropy; C. Elastic properties; C. Finite element analysis (FEA); C. Modelling; Unit cells
1. Introduction
Micromechanical analyses have been on an increasing
trend in order to understand the behaviour of modern
materials with sophisticated microstructures, e.g. bre or
particulate reinforced composites, textile composites, etc.
Unit cells are often resorted to in order to facilitate such
analyses. The introduction of a unit cell is usually based
on certain assumptions, such as a regular pattern in the
microstructure, which is sometimes a reasonable approximation, or an idealisation otherwise. A regular pattern
oers certain symmetries which can then be employed to
dene the unit cell and to derive the boundary conditions
for it for micromechanical analysis. Several accounts of
the systematic use of symmetries for the derivation of the
boundary conditions for unit cells have been presented by
1963
=0
E, A
O
x, u
1964
Table 1
Comparison of dierent solutions (f = x/L)
Displacement eld
u 6EA
kL3
Exact solution
1 f3
1
144
5760
Approximate solution
Wrong solution
1
2 2
3
8 1
1
6
56
34
140
5760
135
5760
Assumed displacement
function
(a + bf)(1 f)
a(1 + f)(1 f)
3f1 f
f1 f
placement function had been assumed for the same problem instead of a quadratic function. Rigorously speaking,
imposition of natural boundary conditions prior to variation is not a matter of the level of approximation. Rather,
it violates the integrity of the minimum total potential
energy principle and is hence wrong.
Another source of the confusion associated with natural
boundary conditions lies between prescription of boundary
conditions and application of loads. If the free end of the
bar as in the above example is subjected to a traction,
say r0, its contribution to the problem should be found
in the potential of external forces as a part of the total
potential energy. It should not alter the form of the
assumed displacement function in any way. The value of
constants a and b will, of course, vary correspondingly
out of the variational process. Following the approach of
the wrong solution as in Table 1, one would have to ddle
the displacement function in a cumbersome manner only
leading to a worse result. In FE applications, prescription
of boundary conditions and application of loads are two
dierent concepts and hence two dierence processes inside
the code. The former must be satised precisely before
seeking equilibrium and the latter will be satised in the
same way and at the same time as the equilibrium is satised, which is usually approximate.
A further potential source of confusion is associated
with bending problems, where elements, such as beams,
plates and shells, involve displacements which are in a generalised sense, i.e. nodal rotations are considered as displacements. Boundary conditions described in terms of
bending moments and shear forces are generalised traction
boundary conditions and, hence, they are natural boundary conditions in the terminology of variational principles.
3. Sucient and necessary number of boundary conditions
for unit cells
In the literature, it is often found, e.g. in [12], that the
number of boundary conditions prescribed at the same part
of the boundary varies from case to case. Without appropriate justication, it is rather confusing. As a result, incorrect usages are often found, e.g. in [4,10]. According to the
theory of continuum mechanics for the deformation problem of materials in 3-D space, at any given point on the
boundary, three prescribed boundary conditions are
required in any logical combination of displacements and
tractions. For instance, for a boundary perpendicular to
the x-axis, the three boundary conditions can be a prescription of the following
8
>
< u or rx in the x-direction
v or sxy in the y-direction
1
>
:
w or sxz in the z-direction
where u, v and w are displacements in x, y and z directions
respectively and r and s are direct and shear stress components with subscripts in their conventional sense. In the terminology of partial dierential equations, displacement
boundary conditions are boundary conditions of the rst
kind and traction ones are the second kind. There could
be a third kind which is mixture of the rst and second
kinds corresponding to elastic support physically. However, it is irrelevant to the present topic and hence will
not be considered.
When the boundary conditions are imposed in the form
of equations relating the displacements or tractions on one
part of the boundary to those of another part of the boundary, the equation boundary conditions should be imposed
to the following
8
>
< u and rx
2
v and sxy
>
:
w and sxz
Instead of three boundary conditions on one part of the
boundary, there are six boundary conditions for two parts
of the boundary.
Bearing in mind that traction boundary conditions are
natural boundary conditions in conventional FE analyses,
they will be left out of the prescription list. For example, if
part of the boundary is subjected to prescribed
8
>
<u
sxy
>
:
sxz
it is sucient and necessary to prescribe u only on this part
of boundary for the FE analysis. Any non-zero shear tractions should be included as externally applied load rather
than boundary conditions in an FE analysis.
Applying the same argument to equation boundary conditions, it is obvious that equation constraints have to be
imposed to all three displacements to be both sucient
and necessary, whereas equations for tractions can and
should be left out, as in [2,3].
and
w0
1965
tively, the unit cell as shown in Fig. 2c will have to be subjected to equation boundary conditions as given in [2]
relating displacements on opposite sides of the unit cell
while ignoring the traction conditions.
However, if the material under consideration allows
one to idealise it into a microstructure as shown in
Fig. 3a, the repetitive cell as shown in Fig. 3b would be
the unit cell of smallest size if only translational symmetries are employed. Obviously, the size of the unit cell
can be reduced to that as shown in Fig. 3c after the available reectional symmetries about x and y axes have been
utilised. As a result, boundary conditions can be obtained
without equations relating the displacements on the opposite sides of the cell. Having used the reectional symmetries, one needs to bear in mind two issues associated with
a unit cell, as shown in Fig. 3c, which can be easily overlooked. Firstly, the microstructure of the material the unit
cell in Fig. 3c is given in Fig. 3a not as shown in Fig. 2a
although the appearance of the unit cells in Figs. 2c and
3c look identical. Secondly, some macroscopic strain
states, in particular, associated with shear, are anti-symmetric under the reectional symmetry transformations.
Appropriate considerations should be given to the antisymmetric nature when boundary conditions are derived
from the symmetry transformations. As a result, the number of boundary conditions for some loading cases would
be dierent from those for the other cases.
Sometimes, for patterns like the one shown in Fig. 4a,
unit cells of only a quarter of the size, as shown in
Fig. 4c, are seen in the literature. It, in fact, results from
exactly the same considerations as in Fig. 3. A quarter is
sucient only because the presence of the reectional symmetries about the x and y axes within the repetitive cell as
shown in Fig. 4b. Many regular shapes of the inclusion
possess these symmetries, such as diamond, rectangle and
circle, but there are also shapes which do not possess such
symmetries, e.g. that in Fig. 2a. The conditions implied by
a quarter size unit cell are the existence of reectional symmetries, as in Fig. 3. The boundary conditions for a quarter
size unit cell should be derived in exactly the same way as
those for the unit cell in Fig. 3c.
The ultimate unit cells obtained from Figs. 2 and 3 share
the same appearance. However, they are subject to dierent
boundary conditions and are associated with dierent
microstructures. An obvious consequence of the dierence
in the microstructure is that the one in Fig. 3a is macroscopically orthotropic while that in Fig. 2a is not necessarily the case, as will be seen later through an example. Users
of unit cells should be aware of the dierence and decide if
the dierence has any signicance for their particular applications while choosing the unit cell to be employed.
Another regular pattern often encountered in the literature is hexagonal. Arguments, similar to those above for
the square pattern, apply to a large extent. The only dierence is that there are more ways to express the translational
symmetries as discussed fully in [1,2]. Whether the repetitive cell, e.g. the rectangle or any of the hexagons shown
1966
1967
and
wjxbx wjxbx 0
A repetitive cell if only translations
in x and y directions are allowed
ry jyby ry jyby 0
syz jyby syz jyby 0
wjyby wjyby 0
2bz c0yz
wjzbz wjzbz
and
2bz e0z
2by e0y
vjyby vjyby
with a unit cell having a bigger size, as shown in the rectangle in Fig. 5, which is obviously not a unique choice. When
analysing these unit cells, in general, equation boundary
conditions will have to be employed.
rx jxbx rx jxbx 0
sxy jxbx sxy jxbx 0
bz 6 x 6 bz
The material is subjected to a set of macroscopic
strains fe0x ; e0y ; e0z ; c0yz ; c0zx ; c0xy g which can be introduced as
six extra degrees of freedom (d.o.f.) in an FE analysis,
e.g. as six individual nodes, each having a single d.o.f.,
or six degrees of freedom of a special node. Each of them
can be prescribed to achieve a macroscopically uniaxial
strain state. Alternatively, upon any of these extra
d.o.f.s, a concentrated force can be applied in order to
impose a macroscopic stress while leaving the others free
in order to produce a macroscopically uniaxial stress
1968
rx jx0 rx jx0
and
and
wjxbx wjxbx
rx jxbx rx jxbx
sxy jxbx sxy jxbx
sxz jxbx sxz jxbx
sxy jxbx 0
sxz jxbx 0
11
syz jy0 0
14
15
wjyby wjyby
ry jyby ry jyby
16
syx jyby 0
by e0y
and
17
10
and
syx jy0 0
ry jyby ry jyby ! free
13
sxz jx0 0
ujx0 0
and
and
vjy0 0
rx jx0 rx jx0 ! free
sxy jx0 0
ujxbx ujxbx
vjxbx vjxbx
vjy0 vjy0
wjy0 wjy0
ujy0 ujy0
12
18
and
19
and
wjzbz
ujxbx 0
20
bz e0z
1969
r0y
24
and
25
With similar considerations as given above, the boundary conditions for the unit cell under r0y are identical to
those in (20). The only dierence is that it should be the
extra d.o.f. e0y that is subjected to a concentrated force associated with r0y , while e0x and e0z are left free to produce a
macroscopically uniaxial stress state r0y . The nodal displacements at those extra d.o.f.s give the corresponding
macroscopic strains directly.
ujy0 wjy0 0
21
and
ry jy0 0
and
wjy0 0
26
27
Notice that there are two displacement boundary conditions in this case as opposed to the x = 0 plane on which
there is only one boundary condition as given in (24). They
have to be imposed in order to dene the unit cell properly
under this loading condition. There is one traction boundary condition ryjy=0 = 0 which has been ignored as a natural boundary condition.
Applying the reectional symmetry to the two opposite
faces at y = by, one obtains
ujyby ujyby
vjyby vjyby
wjyby wjyby
28
wjyby 0
ry jyby 0
syz jyby syz jyby ! free
29
ujyby wjyby 0
sxz jx0 0
22
ujy0 0
rx jx0 rx jx0
and
Rewrite
23
On the opposite faces at x = bx, the reectional symmetry conditions are similar to (21) but on x = bx instead
of x = 0. In conjunction with the translational symmetry
conditions (4), they lead to the boundary condition
30
and
vjzbz bz c0yz
31
where the extra d.o.f. c0yz is introduced through the translational symmetry conditions (6), which can be associated
with ujzbz instead of vjzbz if the rigid body rotation of
the unit cell is constrained dierently. There will be no difference whatsoever as far as the deformation is concerned,
1970
provided that it has been dealt with correctly. The same applies to the consideration of the two subsequent loading
cases without further explanation. To impose a macroscopic stress s0yz , a concentrated force can be applied to
the d.o.f. c0yz . The nodal displacement at c0yz , obtained after
the analysis, gives the corresponding macroscopic strain directly. Since w is not constrained on z = 0 and z = bz, these
faces do not have to remain at after deformation.
As a summary, all boundary conditions for the unit cell
under macroscopic stress s0yz are as follows
ujxbx 0
ujx0 0
ujy0 wjy0 0 ujyby wjyby 0
32
ujz0 vjz0 0 ujzbz 0 & vjzbz bz c0yz
Notice that there are dierent numbers of conditions on
dierent sides. In general, symmetry produces one condition while anti-symmetry results in two. The same applies
to the subsequent shear loading cases where details of the
derivation are omitted.
5.5. Under s0xz
After considering all symmetry conditions, the boundary conditions for the unit cell subjected to this loading
condition can be obtained as
vjx0 wjx0 0 and vjxbx wjxbx 0
vjy0 0 and vjyby 0
ujz0 vjz0 0
and
ujzbz
bz c0xz
33
& vjzbz 0
wjz0 0
and
and
6. 2-D problems
The 3-D presentation of boundary conditions readily
degenerates into 2-D problems, such as plane stress, plane
strain, generalised plane strain problems and anticlastic
problems. They apply to the rectangular unit cell obtained
from the hexagonal layout shown in Fig. 6, as well as to the
square one shown in Fig. 3. They are given as follows without detailed derivations, in the yz plane, for example.
6.1. Under r0y and r0z
When a 2-D unit cell, in the yz plane, is subjected to
macroscopic stresses r0y or r0z , the boundary conditions
are the same as follows
vjy0 0
and
vjyby by e0y
wjz0 0
and
wjzbz bz e0z
35
The boundary conditions for a unit cell under macroscopically uniaxial shear stress s0yz in the yz plane are as
follows
wjzbz 0
34
wjy0 0
and
vjz0 0 and
wjyby 0
36
vjzbz bz c0yz
A concentrated force at the extra d.o.f. c0yz delivers the macroscopically uniaxial shear stress states.
and
ujzbz bz c0xz
37
and
ujyby by c0xy
38
1971
1972
Fig. 8. Curved edges in deformed unit cells: (a) square unit cell under macroscopic transverse shear s0yz (1 MPa), (b) hexagonal unit cell under macroscopic
transverse shear s0yz (1 MPa), and (c) hexagonal unit cell under macroscopic transverse tension r0y (1 MPa).
Inclusion
Matrix
E (GPa)
v
10
0.2
1
0.3
1973
Fig. 9. Mesh for the unit cell with an reinforcement of an elliptical crosssection.
Fig. 10. Deformation and von Mises stress contour plots for the unit cell corresponding to (a) Fig. 2c under r0z , (b) Fig. 3c under r0z , (c) Fig. 2c under s0yz ,
and (d) Fig. 3c under s0yz .
1974
Table 3
Eective properties corresponding to the unit cells
Eective
properties
E1 (GPa)
E2 (GPa)
E3 (GPa)
G23 (GPa)
G13 (GPa)
G12 (GPa)
m23
m13
m12
g14
g24
g34
l56
4.603
2.183
1.864
0.6803
0.7016
0.9180
0.3586
0.2606
0.2436
0.01377
0.08768
0.04289
0.1143
4.605
2.372
1.890
0.6710
0.7144
1.0288
0.3663
0.2612
0.2378
0
0
0
0