Composite Material Design Using Fracture Mechanics Model

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for identifying the optimum nanoparticle size and weight fraction for maximizing fracture toughness in brittle matrix materials are lengthy and costly, relying on trial-and-error based fracture experiments, and are complicated by the role of nanoparticle size and agglomeration.

Innovation Solution

A method using a fracture mechanics-based model that incorporates crack-tip shielding due to microcracking induced by reinforcing nanoparticles, allowing for the determination of median particle size and volume fraction to achieve specific fracture or delamination toughness through a limited set of experimental data points.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Strength

If trial-and-error based fracture experiments are used to identify optimum nanoparticle size and weight fraction, then fracture toughness can be maximized, but the process becomes lengthy and costly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefracture toughnessVSAvoidtime for identification process
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by developing and applying a fracture mechanics-based model before conducting extensive experiments. The model uses fundamental fracture mechanics principles and a limited set of preliminary experimental data to predict the optimal nanoparticle characteristics, thereby avoiding lengthy trial-and-error processes while still achieving maximized fracture toughness

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces the mechanical trial-and-error experimentation system with a theoretical fracture mechanics-based model. This model substitutes physical trial-and-error testing with computational prediction based on fracture mechanics principles, significantly reducing time and cost while maintaining accuracy in identifying optimal nanoparticle parameters

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Strength

If nanoparticle weight fraction is increased to maximize fracture toughness, then toughness improves, but particle agglomeration occurs leading to degradation

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefracture toughnessVSAvoidnanoparticle dispersion stability
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies parameter changes by using the fracture mechanics-based model to determine the optimal nanoparticle weight fraction and size parameters. The model predicts the precise parameter values that maximize fracture toughness while maintaining stable nanoparticle dispersion, avoiding the agglomeration that occurs when weight fraction exceeds the optimum value

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Measurement precision

If extensive trial-and-error testing is conducted to identify optimum nanoparticle characteristics, then accurate fracture toughness maximization is achieved, but time and cost increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy in identifying optimum parametersVSAvoidrate of material development
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces extensive mechanical trial-and-error testing with a fracture mechanics-based computational model. This substitution maintains measurement precision in identifying optimal nanoparticle characteristics while dramatically improving productivity by reducing the time and resources required for material development

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary modeling and prediction using fracture mechanics principles before conducting full-scale experimentation. This preliminary action provides accurate predictions of optimal nanoparticle parameters, enabling rapid material development while maintaining the precision that would otherwise require extensive trial-and-error testing

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

This approach eliminates the need for extensive trial-and-error testing, predicting the maximum fracture toughness and delamination toughness with a significant reduction in time and cost, while enhancing the material's flaw tolerance and weight reduction potential.

Implementation Method 1

a fracture mechanics based model that incorporates the effects of crack-tip shielding due to microcracking induced by the reinforcing material

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectCrack-tip shielding: Fracture Mechanics

Data Source

PatentUS20230219304A1Methods for designing composite materials with improved toughness
Publication Date: 2023.07.13 UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
  • US20230219304A1 patent drawing
  • US20230219304A1 patent drawing
  • US20230219304A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Disclosed herein are methods for designing composite materials with improved toughness.