This article was downloaded by: [University of Otago]

On: 05 January 2015, At: 06:49

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Composite Interfaces
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcoi20

Effects of particle/matrix interface

and strengthening mechanisms on the
mechanical properties of metal matrix
composites
a

Guoqing Wu , Qingqing Zhang , Xue Yang , Zheng Huang & Wei

Sha

School of Materials Science and Engineering, Beihang University,

37 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, China
b

Click for updates

School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queens

University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
Published online: 24 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Guoqing Wu, Qingqing Zhang, Xue Yang, Zheng Huang & Wei Sha (2014) Effects
of particle/matrix interface and strengthening mechanisms on the mechanical properties of metal
matrix composites, Composite Interfaces, 21:5, 415-429, DOI: 10.1080/15685543.2014.872914
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15685543.2014.872914

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Composite Interfaces, 2014

Vol. 21, No. 5, 415429, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15685543.2014.872914

Effects of particle/matrix interface and strengthening mechanisms on

the mechanical properties of metal matrix composites
Guoqing Wua*, Qingqing Zhanga, Xue Yanga, Zheng Huanga and Wei Shab
a

School of Materials Science and Engineering, Beihang University, 37 Xueyuan Road, Haidian
District, Beijing 100191, China; bSchool of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering,
Queens University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

(Received 30 July 2013; accepted 3 December 2013)

A randomly distributed multi-particle model considering the effects of particle/matrix
interface and strengthening mechanisms introduced by the particles has been
constructed. Particle shape, distribution, volume fraction and the particles/matrix
interface due to the factors including element diffusion were considered in the model.
The effects of strengthening mechanisms, caused by the introduction of particles on
the mechanical properties of the composites, including grain renement strengthening, dislocation strengthening and Orowan strengthening, are incorporated. In the
model, the particles are assumed to have spheroidal shape, with uniform distribution
of the centre, long axis length and inclination angle. The axis ratio follows a right
half-normal distribution. Using Monte Carlo method, the location and shape
parameters of the spheroids are randomly selected. The particle volume fraction is
calculated using the area ratio of the spheroids. Then, the effects of particle/matrix
interface and strengthening mechanism on the distribution of Mises stress and
equivalent strain and the ow behaviour for the composites are discussed.
Keywords: particle reinforcement; metal matrix composites; interface; strengthening
mechanisms; nite element analysis

1. Introduction
Particle-reinforced metal matrix composite materials (PMMCs) have been received
considerable attention due to their high strength, high stiffness, superior wear resistance
and strength retention at elevated temperatures.[1,2] The reinforcement/matrix interface
is formed during the preparation process by the interactions of the reinforcement and
the matrix, such as chemical reaction and element diffusion.[35] The mechanical
properties of the PMMCs are determined by the shape, distribution and volume fraction
of particles, and the materials characteristics of the matrix and particles.[68] Particle/
matrix interface is formed with the addition of particles, but at the same time, particles
can affect the microstructure of the matrix and generate various strengthening
mechanisms, both affecting the mechanical properties of the composite.[911]
However, the inuence caused by the reinforcement/matrix interface and strengthening
mechanism is difcult to characterise through experimental methods due to the small
size, complex structure and mechanical environment.

*Corresponding author. Email: guoqingwu@buaa.edu.cn

2013 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

416

G. Wu et al.

In contrast, the nite element simulation method attracts more and more attention.
To investigate the interface or strengthening mechanism problems, some micronite
element models were established.[1217] Mondal et al. [12] considered the interface as
a phase and proved the effects of the interface strength and modulus on the ow
behaviour of the composites. Ramakrishnan proposed a model considering both loading
transfer and Orowan strengthening for predicting yield strength for PMMCs.[16] Based
on the comprehensive considering of Orowan strengthening, dislocation strengthening
and loading transfer, a yield strength-predicting model was established for nanoparticles-reinforced MMCs by Zhang and Chen [17]. Researches revealed that particle
addition would rene the grain size of the matrix and results in grain renement
strengthening.[18] However, a model considering such complete factors has not been
proposed by any researchers by now.
When making composites, ceramic particles are usually used as reinforcements.
They can increase the strength and modulus, but signicantly sacrice the ductility.[1,2]
Wang et al. studied the MgLi matrix composites strengthened with inter-metallic compound YAl2.[3,4] They found that using YAl2 as reinforcement could effectively
increase the composite strength while maintaining good ductility. Microstructural
examination has conrmed that there is good interface adhesion between the reinforcing
particles and the matrix, absent of voids, interface cracking, interface reaction and
amorphous layer. These are likely important factors contributing to the good ductility
of the composite. In the previous study, the transition interface layer was characterised
in YAl2-reinforced Mg14Li3Al matrix composite, and the model considering
interface layer was established for numerical study on the ow behaviour of the
composite.[19,20]
This paper aims to study the effects of particle/matrix interface and strengthening
mechanisms on mechanical properties of the composites. With particular emphasis on
their contribution, the signicance of the contribution from these separate factors is
evaluated. Three models are used with increasing complexity: a randomly distributed
multi-particle model (model-1); a randomly distributed multi-particle model with
interface layers (model-2); and a randomly distributed multi-particle model considering
particle/matrix interface and the effects on strengthening mechanisms after introducing
the particles (model-3). Stress and strain distribution in the composite and the stress
strain curves of the composite are simulated. The elastic modulus of the composite, the
tensile strength and the maximum strain as functions of the particle volume fraction are
analysed.
2. Randomly distributed multi-particle model considering interface and
strengthening
2.1. Introduction of interface layers in the model
The particle shape is assumed to be spheroidal. Monte Carlo method was used to
randomly choose the position and shape parameters of the spheroids to generate a
random two-dimensional section of the composite (Figure 1). The randomly distributed
multi-particle model considering particle/matrix interface and strengthening mechanisms
brought in by the particles is illustrated in Figure 2. Assume that there is element
diffusion between the particle and matrix, dislocation strengthening and Orowan
strengthening, all within certain regions around the particles. These regions are called
interface layers. For a given particle volume fraction, the interface layer thickness is
constant and is assumed not to vary with particle size. Because the diffusion distance

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

Composite Interfaces

Figure 1.

417

A random two-dimensional section of the composite.

Figure 2. The randomly distributed multi-particle model considering particle/matrix interface

and strengthening mechanisms.

for the elements between the particles and matrix is short, the region affected by
diffusion is very small. It is assumed that diffusion only affects a very small area
within a part of the interface layer adjacent to the particles. Orowan strengthening
originates from the interaction between particles and dislocations. It is assumed that
dislocation strengthening and Orowan strengthening take place in the same regions.
Grain renement strengthening is assumed to affect the entire matrix.
After adding particles, several regions can be recognised as shown in Figure 3
according to the type of interaction between particles and the matrix in the composite,
outside the volume occupied by the particles. Region I in the matrix is only affected by
grain renement strengthening. Region II in the matrix is affected by grain renement
strengthening, dislocation strengthening and Orowan strengthening. Region III in the
matrix is affected by element diffusion, grain renement strengthening, dislocation
strengthening and Orowan strengthening. Regions II and III form a interface layer.
As Region I only has grain renement strengthening, it is assumed that the material
properties are uniform in this region. In the interface layer consisting of Regions II and
III, however, the extent of element diffusion and the dislocation density would

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

418

G. Wu et al.

Figure 3. Several regions outside the volume occupied by the particles according to the type of
interaction between particles and the matrix in the composite.

gradually decrease in the direction of particle to the matrix, causing the material
properties to gradually change in the direction of particle to the matrix. When the interparticle distance is large, the strength distribution in the interface layers is like as
shown in Figure 4(a). When the inter-particle distance is small, there is overlapping of
the regions belonging to the two particles, causing the strength distribution in the interface layers to be like as shown in Figure 4(b). In order to reect the graded distribution
of the material properties in the interface layers, we divide this region into a number of
sublayers, each sublayer having different material properties. The aim is to represent
the true distribution of material properties in the strengthening regions. Region II is
divided into n sublayers, and Region III into m into sublayers. The total thickness of
the interface layer is given by Inem and Pollard [5]:
q
8
  9
<B1  2PVp B2 1  2PVp 2 16 sy PB=
G
 
Rl R
(1)
4sy
:
;
G

where B 1 m jDCTEDTj
1m

Figure 4. The strength distribution in the interface layers in the composites with: (a) a large
inter-particle distance; and (b) a small inter-particle distance.

Composite Interfaces
P

419

21  2m3k 2G




1m


3 Vp 3k 2G 1  Vp 3k 2G
1  m 1  Vp 3k 2G
1m
(2),


Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

where R is particle radius, Vp is volume fraction of particles, is the shear yield

strength of the matrix, is the Poissons ratio of matrix, CTE is the difference in
thermal expansion coefcients between particle and matrix, T is the temperature
difference during cooling of the casting process, and k k  k and G G  G are
lattice mismatch parameters. According to the result in [20], the thickness of Region III
is 0.1R. The thickness of each sublayer in Region II is lIIi, and the thickness of each
sublayer in Region II is lIIIj, where i is an integer between 0 and n, and j an integer
between 0 and m.
2.2 Introduction of strengthening mechanisms in the model
In order to model the effect of introducing particles on the matrix, we will use
empirical relationships for grain renement strengthening, dislocation strengthening and
Orowan strengthening. The supersition of the different strengthening mechanisms uses
the method proposed by Ramakrishnan [16]. Region I has only grain renement
strengthening, and the strength is assumed to follow rI rm 1 fgb ,[16] where I is
the strength in Region I and m is the matrix strength before strengthening,[21,22]
fgb rgb =rm

(3)

where
 
rgb k

dp

1=3 12

1Vp
Vp

(4)

where k is a constant and dp is the particle diameter. Region II has grain renement,
dislocations and Orowan strengthening; and the strengthening effect in this region
decreases in the direction of particle to matrix. Assume that the strength in this region
follows:


rII crm 1 f gb 1 f EM 1 f CTE 1 f or
(5)
where II is the strength in Region II and m is the matrix strength without strengthening.
fgb is given in Equation (3). fEM = EM/m, where EM is the increase in yield strength of
the composite due to geometrically necessary dislocations [23,24]:
 12
rEM aM Gm b

6Vp e
bdp

(6)

where M is the Taylor factor, is a constant, Gm is the shear modulus of the matrix, b
is Burgers vector, and is strain. fCTE = CTE/m, where CTE is the increase in yield
strength of the composite due to the mismatch in thermal expansion coefcients
[11,25]:
 p
12
rCTE aM Gm b

12 2DCTEDT Vp
1Vp
bdp

(7)

420

G. Wu et al.

for ror =rm where or is the increase in yield strength of the composite due to Orowan
strengthening [25]:
p

ln
2=3
d
=b
p
M 0:4Gm b

(8)
ror p  1
1m
p 2
p 2=3dp 4Vp  1

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

c in Equation (5) is a coefcient for the interface layer strength, with the value range
(1/[(1 + fEM)(1 + fCTE)(1 + for)], 1). Region III has all strengthening mechanisms and
elemental diffusion strengthening in Region II. The strength in this region is assumed
to follow III = II, where is a coefcient ranging (1, Ep/EIII) where Ep is the
elastic modulus of the particles and EIII is the elastic modulus of Region III interface
layer.
3. Simulation details
To study the effects of particle/matrix interface layer and strengthening mechanisms on
mechanical properties of the composites, three models are used with increasing
complexity: a randomly distributed multi-particle model (model-1); a randomly distributed multi-particle model with interface layers (model-2); and a randomly distributed
multi-particle model considering particle/matrix interface and the effects on strengthening mechanisms after introducing the particles (model-3).
The remaining part of this paper uses the YAl2/Mg14Li1Al composites as the
simulation materials. The parameters for the matrix are those experimentally obtained
from the cast Mg14Li1Al alloy, with elastic modulus and Poissons ratio of 34.5 GPa
and 0.33, respectively.[3] The constitutional relations are based on the stressstrain
curve data experimentally obtained from the Mg14Li1Al alloy.[20] The parameters
for particle reinforcement are based on YAl2 particles, with elastic modulus and
Poissons ratio of 158 GPa and 0.205, respectively.[20]
Considering the ease of calculation and being representative of the interaction
between multiple particles, the calculation area uses 0.2 0.2 mm. Experimentally, the
size of the particles is smaller than 40 m. Table 1 summarises the geometrical parameters used for multiple particles. To simplify calculations, when the volume fraction of
particles is 20%, the interface layers are divided to n = 2 and m = 1. When the volume
fraction of particles is greater than 20%, the dislocation strengthening and Orowan
strengthening exist in the entire matrix. The interface layers are divided to
n = 0 and m = 1 (Figure 5). According to Equation (1), when the particle size is 30 m,
the interface layer thickness l is 810 m. Here, we will use l = 9 m, and l does not
change with the volume fraction and particle size.
The gradient of numerical variation is relatively large at the transition interface
region between particle and matrix because of stress concentration. To truly reect the
variation in the numerical data, relatively ne mesh is needed. Inside the matrix and
particle, the numerical variation gradient is relatively small. To reduce the computational cost, relatively a coarse mesh can be used. In this work, by using ABAQUS, a
typical mesh is shown in Figure 6. The effect of mesh size on convergence was studied. With more rened mesh, the maximum strain obtained changed within 1%, but the
computational time increased. Therefore, the mesh as shown in Figure 6 was adopted.
The matrix and interface layer are both assumed to be isotropic elastoplastic and
follow von Mises yield criterion. The particles are also isotropic, but are treated as

Composite Interfaces

421

Table 1. Geometrical parameters for the randomly distributed multi-particle model considering
interface and strengthening mechanism effects.[26]
Parameter

Symbol

Unit

Value or distribution

(x, y)

(m, m)

Long axis

Axis ratio

Uniform distribution in
the range of (10, 190)
Uniform distribution in
the range of (12, 18)
Right semi-normal
distribution, (1, 4)
b = a/p
c = sqrt (a2 b2)
xc = x c cosn, yc = y c sinn
Uniform between 90 and 90
10, 20, 30, 40
3.186, 5.200
7.59, 7.59
615
21.17 106
95
lII1 = 1.5, lII2 = 6, lIII1 = 1.5

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

Coordinate of spheroid centres

Short axis
Focal length
Coordinates of the focal points
Inclination angle
Particles fraction volume
Magnesium lattice constant
YAl2 lattice constant
Difference in temperature
Difference in thermal expansion coefcients
Matrix shear yield strength
Interface layer thickness

b
c
(xc, yc)

Vp
k,G
*,G*
T

y
lIIilIIIj

m
m
(m, m)

/
MPa
m

Figure 5. The randomly distributed multi-particle model considering particle/matrix interface

and strengthening mechanisms (Vp > 20%, n = 0, m = 1).

elastic material only. The failure criterion adopted is the maximum strain. In another
word, when the strain in the composite reaches the maximum allowable strain, the
calculation stops. The maximum strain is set at twice the maximum strain of the matrix
obtained experimentally. The boundary conditions are: (1) x = 0, Ux = 0; (2) y = 0,
Uy = 0; and (3) y = L, all node points have a same displacement in the y direction and

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

422

G. Wu et al.

Figure 6. A typical mesh of the randomly distributed multi-particle model considering particle/
matrix interface and strengthening mechanisms.

are under uniform tensile stress. Here, Ux is a displacement in the x direction, and Uy
is a displacement in the y direction. The composite strain from the modelling is given
by = U/L, where U is the displacement of the top side of the model under stress. By
applying a series of tensile stress values, the stressstrain curves of the composites with
various particle volume fraction can be calculated, from which the elastic modulus,
tensile strength and maximum strain can be derived.
4. Numerical results and discussion
4.1 Fracture mechanism
Comparisons of the distribution of the local von Mises stress and equivalent strain (at
120 MPa stress) of the composite with 10% particles volume fraction for the model-1,
model-2 and model-3 are shown in Figure 7. The maximum Mises stress and equivalent strain are, respectively, 224.5 MPa and 0.404 for the model-1 (Figure 7(a) and (b)).
The maximum Mises stress and equivalent strain are, respectively, 227.7 MPa and
0.292 for the model-2 (Figure 7(c) and (d)). While the maximum Mises stress and
equivalent strain are, respectively, 207.7 MPa and 0.236 for the model-3 (Figure 7(e)
and (f)). It is apparent that the particle carries higher stress in the presence of the
transition interface layer than in the conventional multi-particle model, and relaxes the
stress concentration in the matrix, which is agreed with the experimental results for
YAl2-reinforced LA143 matrix composites.[3] Compared with the model-2, it can be
concluded that the introduction of strengthening mechanisms can improve the loadbearing capacity of matrix and relax the stress concentration in the particles and matrix.
In such circumstance, the failure of the composite may be delayed by the introduction
of interface layer and strengthening mechanism.

423

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

Composite Interfaces

Figure 7. Comparisons of the distribution of local von Mises stress and equivalent strain of
composite with 10% particles volume fraction for (a, b) the randomly distributed multi-particle
model, (c, d) randomly distributed multi-particle model with interface layers and (e, f ) randomly
distributed multi-particle model considering particle/matrix interface and strengthening
mechanisms.

424

G. Wu et al.

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

4.2. Effects of interface and strengthening mechanisms on the stressstrain

behaviour
The true stresstrue strain curves of the composites in various particle volume fractions
predicted by the model-1, model-2 and model-3 are shown in Figure 8. It can be seen
that the discrimination is little for true stresses between the model-1 and model-2. And
the true stresses for the two models do not display signicant variation vs. particles
volume fraction. The true stress for the model-3 is higher than those for the model-1
and model-2. And a remarkable increase is shown when the particle volume fraction
increases. This means that the effect of particle volume fraction can only be understood
when the strengthening mechanism is considered. The true strains for all the three
models decrease with increasing particle volume fraction, which are mainly attributed
to the strain-hardening behaviour. The true strain for the model-3 is the largest, while
the strain for the model-1 is the smallest. It may probably be related to the stress
concentration and relaxation which are in good agreement with the predictions of the
maximum Mises strain and equivalent stress in Figure 7.

Figure 8. The maximum true stresstrue strain curves of the composite in various particle
volume fractions predicted by the randomly distributed multi-particle model, the randomly
distributed multi-particle model with interface layers and the randomly distributed multi-particle
model considering particle/matrix interface and strengthening mechanisms: (a) 10%; (b) 20%;
(c) 30%; and (d) 40%.

Composite Interfaces

425

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

4.3. Contribution for the composite mechanical properties

In this paper, the Mg14Li1Al alloy and the YAl2/Mg14Li1Al composites
developed by the authors team were used. The tensile loading process was simulated
by using the three models. The elastic modulus variations between the experimental
and numerical results for the composites in various particle volume fractions are shown
in Figure 9. It can be seen that the elastic modulus increases with the particle volume
fraction. Both results for the model-1 and model-2 deviate from the experimental data
with a discrepancy of ~40%. The results are lower than the elastic modulus for model3 and the experimental data. The elastic modulus predicted by the model-3 shows the
best agreement within a discrepancy of ~20% when the particle volume fraction
increases from 10 to 40%. It implies that the matrix/particle interface layer contributes
few to the elastic modulus of composite within 1%, but the strengthening mechanisms
play a crucial role. Meanwhile, the elastic modulus increases by 78% when the particle
volume fraction increases from 10 to 40%. Thus, it can be concluded that the elastic
modulus is relevant to particle volume fraction and strengthening mechanisms, which is
more systemic than the study before.[27,28] The contribution of strengthening
mechanisms is greater than that of the particle volume fraction.
The variations of ultimate tensile strength for the composites in various particle
volume fractions compared with the experimental data are shown in Figure 10. It is
apparent that only the ultimate tensile strength for the model-3 increases with the particle volume fraction increasing. The ultimate tensile strength for the model-3 deviates
from the experimental data within a 16% discrepancy when the particle volume fraction
increases from 10 to 40%. Both results for the model-1 and model-2 are invariable with
the particle volume fraction with a discrepancy of ~50% compared with the experimental data. The results of the model-1 and model-2 indicate that the matrix/particle
interface layer contributes few to the ultimate tensile strength within 6%. Comparisons
of results for the model-2 and model-3 reveal that strengthening mechanisms play a
crucial role in the ultimate tensile strength. The ultimate tensile strength for the
model-3 increases by 107% when the particle volume fraction increases from 10 to

Figure 9.
tions.

The variations of elastic modulus for the composites in various particle volume frac-

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

426

G. Wu et al.

Figure 10. The variations of ultimate tensile strength for the composites in various particle
volume fractions compared with the experimental data.

40%. It means that the improvement of the ultimate tensile strength for the composites
is closely related to the strengthening mechanisms after the addition of particles.
The elongations of the composites at different particle volume fractions were
predicted and compared with the experimental data obtained from the authors team.
The numerical results of elongation and experimental data are shown in Figure 11. It
can be seen that the elongations decrease with the particle volume fraction increment
for all the three models. The result for the model-1 deviates from the experimental data
with a discrepancy of 47% when the particle volume fraction increases from 10 to
40%. For the model-2 and model-3, the discrepancy is within 20% vs. the particle
volume fraction. When the particle volume fraction increases to 40%, the numerical

Figure 11. The variations of elongation for the composites in various particle volume fractions
compared with the experimental data.

Composite Interfaces

427

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

results for all the three models are higher than the experimental data. This may
probably be related to the assumption of uniform distribution of particles in the model
establishment. The comparison of results for the model-1 and model-2 indicates that
the matrix/particle interface layer contributes a lot to the elongation, and the contribution decreases from 47 to 6% with the particle volume fraction increasing from 10 to
40%. The strengthening mechanisms are also benet to elongation, which can be
derived from the comparison of results for the model-2 and model-3. The contribution
decreases from 18 to 5% with the particle volume fraction increasing from 10 to 40%.
It implies that the elongation is correlated to both matrix/particle interface layer and
strengthening mechanism. When the particle volume fraction is low, the contribution of
interface layer is greater than that of strengthening mechanisms.
5. Conclusions
In this study, a randomly distributed multi-particle model considering the effects of
particle/matrix interface and strengthening mechanisms introduced by the particles has
been constructed. The model considers particle shape, distribution, volume fraction and
the interface between the particles and matrix due to the factors including element
diffusion. The effects of strengthening mechanisms, caused by the introduction of particles on the mechanical properties of the composites, including grain renement
strengthening, dislocation strengthening and Orowan strengthening, are incorporated.
Then, the effects of particle/matrix interface and strengthening mechanism on the distribution of Mises stress and equivalent strain and the ow behaviour for the composites
are discussed. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) The numerical results obtained from a randomly distributed multi-particle model
considering the effects of particle/matrix interface and strengthening mechanisms are in good agreement with the experimental data. The discrepancy is
less than 20% with the particle volume fraction varying from 10 to 40 vol%.
(2) The introduction of strengthening mechanisms and the transition interface layer
can improve the load-bearing capacity of matrix and relax the stress concentration in the particles and matrix. In such circumstance, the failure of the
composite may be delayed.
(3) The elastic modulus and ultimate tensile strength increase with the particle
volume fraction, while the elongation decreases with the particle volume fraction increment. The improvement of the elastic modulus and ultimate tensile
strength for the composites is closely related with the strengthen mechanisms
after the addition of particles.
(4) The elastic modulus is relevant to particle volume fraction and strengthening
mechanisms, and the contribution of strengthening mechanisms is greater than
that of particle volume fraction. But for the elongation of the composites, the
contribution of interface layer is greater than that of strengthening mechanisms
when the particle volume fraction is low.

Funding
This paper was nancially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number
50901005]; Fund of Aeronautics Science [grant number 2010ZF51068].

428

G. Wu et al.

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

References
[1] Lee IT, Wang YQ, Ochi Y, Bae SI, Han KS, Song JI. Effect of short ber reinforcement on
the fracture toughness of metal matrix composites. Adv. Compos. Mater. 2010;19:4153.
[2] Tekmen C, Cocen U. Squeeze casting of Ni coated SiC particle reinforced Al based
composite. J. Compos. Mater. 2008;42:12711279.
[3] Wang SJ, Wu GQ, Ling ZH, Huang Z. Microstructure and mechanical properties of YAl2
reinforced MgLiAl composite. Mater. Sci. Eng., A. 2009;518:158161.
[4] Wang SJ, Wu GQ, Li RH, Luo GX, Huang Z. Microstructures and mechanical properties of
5 wt.% Al2Yp/MgLi composite. Mater. Lett. 2006;60:18631865.
[5] Inem B, Pollard G. Interface structure and fractography of a magnesium-alloy, metal-matrix
composite reinforced with SiC particles. J. Mater. Sci. 1993;28:44274434.
[6] Deng X, Chawla N. Modeling the effect of particle clustering on the mechanical behavior of
SiC particle reinforced Al matrix composites. J. Mater. Sci. 2006;41:57315734.
[7] Tohgo K, Itoh Y, Shimamura Y. A constitutive model of particulate-reinforced composites
taking account of particle size effects and damage evolution. Composites Part A.
2010;41:313321.
[8] Xu W, Wu X, Honma T, Ringer SP, Xia K. Nanostructured AlAl2O3 composite formed
in situ during consolidation of ultrane Al particles by back pressure equal channel angular
pressing. Acta Mater. 2009;57:43214330.
[9] Suh YS, Joshi SP, Ramesh KT. An enhanced continuum model for size-dependent
strengthening and failure of particle-reinforced composites. Acta Mater. 2009;57:58485861.
[10] Evans RD, Boyd JD. Near-interface microstructure in a SiC/Al composite. Scripta Mater.
2003;49:5963.
[11] Shao JC, Xiao BL, Wang QZ, Ma ZY, Yang K. An enhanced FEM model for particle size
dependent ow strengthening and interface damage in particle reinforced metal matrix
composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2011;71:3945.
[12] Mondal DP, Ramakrishnan N, Das S. FEM modeling of the interface and its effect on the
elastio-plastic behavior of metal matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng., A. 2006;433:286290.
[13] Zhang WX, Li LX, Wang TJ. Interphase effect on the strengthening behavior of
particle-reinforced metal matrix composites. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2007;41:145155.
[14] Wang WH, Keya S, Baran G. Finite element analysis of the effect of an interphase on
toughening of a particle-reinforced polymer composite. Composites Part A.
2008;39:956964.
[15] Maligno AR, Warrior NA, Long AC. Effects of interphase material properties in
unidirectional bre reinforced composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2010;70:3644.
[16] Ramakrishnan N. An analytical study on strengthening of particulate reinforced metal matrix
composites. Acta Mater. 1996;44:6977.
[17] Zhang Z, Chen DL. Consideration of orowan strengthening effect in particulate-reinforced
metal matrix nanocomposites: a model for predicting their yield strength. Scripta Mater.
2006;54:13211326.
[18] Zhang X, Wu GQ, Ling ZH, Huang Z. A novel method to control agglomeration of ultrane
YAl2 particles in YAl2p/MgLiAl composite. Mater. Lett. 2011;65:104106.
[19] Zhang QQ, Wu GQ, Niu LY, Huang Z. Effects of heat treatment on interface and
mechanical properties of YAl2 reinforced Mg14Li3Al matrix composite. Mater. Sci. Eng.,
A. 2013;564:298302.
[20] Yang X, Wu GQ, Sha W, Zhang QQ, Huang Z. Numerical study of the effects of
reinforcement/matrix interphase on stressstrain behavior of YAl2 particle reinforced
MgLiAl composites. Composites Part A. 2012;43:363369.
[21] Caceres CH, Lukac P. Strain hardening behaviour and the taylor factor of pure magnesium.
Philos. Mag. 2008;88:977989.
[22] Kim WJ. Explanation for deviations from the HallPetch relation based on the creep
behavior of an ultrane-grained MgLi alloy with low diffusivity. Scripta Mater.
2009;61:652655.
[23] Meisam HK, Shailendra JP, Manoj G. Hierarchical magnesium nano-composites for
enhanced mechanical response. Acta Mater. 2010;58:61046114.
[24] Dai LH, Ling Z, Bai YL. Size-dependent inelastic behavior of particle-reinforced
metalmatrix composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2001;61:10571063.

Composite Interfaces

429

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:49 05 January 2015

[25] Han BQ, Dunand DC. Microstructure and mechanical properties of magnesium containing
high volume fractions of yttria dispersoids. Mater. Sci. Eng., A. 2000;277:297304.
[26] Westbrook JH, Fleischer RL. Basic mechanical properties and lattice defects of intermetallic
compounds. Intermetallic Compd. 2000;2:5871.
[27] Fu SY, Feng XQ, Lauke B, Mai YW. Effects of particle size, particle/matrix interface
adhesion and particle loading on mechanical properties of particulatepolymer composites.
Composites Part B. 2008;39:933961.
[28] Marur Prabhakar R. Estimation of effective elastic properties and interface stress
concentrations in particulate composites by unit cell methods. Acta Mater. 2004;52:
12631270.