Multiscale Characterization and Domain Partitioning for Multiscale Analysis of Heterogeneous Materials

  • Somnath Ghosh


This chapter discusses the development of a multiscale characterization methodology leading to microstructural morphology-based domain partitioning MDP methodology for materials with nonuniform heterogeneous microstructure. The comprehensive set of methods is intended to provide a concurrent multiscale analysis model with the initial computational domain that delineates regions of statistical homogeneity and inhomogeneity. The MDP methodology is intended as a preprocessor to multiscale analysis of mechanical behavior and damage of heterogeneous materials, e.g., cast aluminum alloys. It introduces a systematic three-step process that is based on geometric features of morphology. The first step simulates high-resolution microstructural information from low-resolution micrographs of the material and a limited number of high-resolution optical or scanning electron microscopy micrographs. The second step is quantitative characterization of the high-resolution images to create effective metrics that can relate microstructural descriptors to material behavior. The third step invokes a partitioning method to demarcate regions belonging to different length scales in a concurrent multiscale model. Partitioning criteria for domain partitioning are defined in terms of microstructural descriptors and their functions. The effectiveness of these metrics in differentiating microstructures of a 319-type cast aluminum alloy with different secondary dendrite arm spacings SDAS is demonstrated. The MDP method establishes intrinsic material length scales and consequently subdivides the computational domain for concurrently coupling macro- and micromechanical analyses in the multiscale model. Finally, a multiscale analysis of ductile fracture is conducted using a differentiated scale structure that has been laid out by the MDP algorithm. The chapter emphasizes the need for coupling multiscale characterization and domain decomposition with multiscale analysis of heterogeneous materials.


Pair Distribution Function Multiscale Analysis Cast Aluminum Alloy Micromechanical Analysis Inhomogeneous Region 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work has been supported by the National Science Foundation NSF Div Civil and Mechanical Systems Division through the GOALI grant No. CMS-0308666 (Program director: Dr. Clark cooper) and by the Army Research Office through grant No.DAAD19-02-1-0428 (Program Director: Dr. B. Lamattina). This sponsorship is gratefully acknowledged. Computer support by the Ohio Supercomputer Center through grant PAS813-2 is also gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Anson, J.P. and Gruzleski, J.E.: The quantitative discrimination between shrinkage and gas microporosity in cast Aluminum alloys using spatial data analysis. Mater. Charac. 43, 319–335 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argon, A.S., Im, J. and Sofoglu, R.: Cavity formation from inclusions in ductile fracture. Metall. Mater. Trans. A. 6A, 825–837 (1975)Google Scholar
  3. Ghosh, S., Bai, J. and Paquet, D.: Homogenization based continuum plasticity-damage model for ductile failure of materials containing heterogeneities. J. Mech. Physics Solids 57, 1017–1044 (2009)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, S. and Kanade, T.: Super-resolution: reconstruction or recognition? Proc. 2001 IEEE-EURASIP Workshop on Nonlinear Signal and Image Processing, (2001)Google Scholar
  5. Boehm, H.J., Han, W. and Ecksclager, A.: Multi-inclusion unit cell studies of reinforcement stresses and particle failure in discontinuously reinforced ductile matrix composites. Comp. Model. Eng. Sci. 5, 5–20 (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Boileau, J.M.: The effect of solidification time on the mechanical properties of a cast 319 aluminum alloy. Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University (2000)Google Scholar
  7. Caceres, C.H. and Griffiths, J.R.: Damage by the cracking of silicon particles in an Al-7Si-0.4Mg casting alloy. Acta Mater. 44, 25–33 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. Caceres, C.H., Griffiths, J.R. and Reiner, P.: The influence of microstructure on the bauschinger effect in an Al-Si-Mg casting alloy. Acta Mater. 44, 15–23 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caceres, C.H.: Particle cracking and the tensile ductility of a model Al-Si-Mg composite system. Aluminum Trans. 1, 1–13 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. Christman, T., Needleman, A. and Suresh, S.: An experimental and numerical study of deformation in metal-ceramic composites. Acta Metall. et Mater. 37, 3029–3050 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chui, C.K.: An introduction to wavelets. Academic (1992)Google Scholar
  12. Chung, P.W. and Tamma, K.K.: Woven fabric composites: Developments in engineering bounds, homogenization and applications. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 45, 1757–1790 (1999)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, D.W.: Random sequential packing simulation in three dimensions for spheres. Phys. Rev. A: A38, 522–524 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. Everett, R.K. and Chu, J.H.: Modeling of non-uniform composite microstructures. J. Compos. Mater. 27, 1128–1144 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Everson, R., Sirooich, L. and Sreenicasan, K.R.: Wavelet analysis of the turbulent jet. Phys. Lett. A. 145, 314–322 (1990)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Farsiu, S., Robinson, D., Elad, M. and Milanfar, P.: Advances and challenges in super-resolution. Int. Jour. Imaging Syst. Tech., 14(2), 47–57 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fish, J. and Shek, K.: Multiscale analysis of composite materials and structures. Comp. Sci. Tech. 60, 2547–2556 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman, W.T., Pasztor, E.C. and Carmichael, O.T.: Learning low-level vision. Int. J. Comp. Vision. 40, 24–47 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghosh, S., Nowak, Z. and Lee, K.: Quantitative characterization and modeling of composite microstructures by Voronoi cells. Acta Mater. 45, 2215–2234 (1997a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghosh, S., Nowak, Z. and Lee, K.: Tessellation based computational methods in characterization and analysis of heterogeneous microstructures. Comp. Sci. Tech. 57, 1187–1210 (1997b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghosh, S., Ling, Y., Majumdar, B. and Kim, R.: Interfacial debonding analysis in multiple fiber reinforced composites. Mech. Mater. 32, 561–591 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ghosh, S., Lee, K. and Raghavan, P.: A multi-level computational model for multi-scale damage analysis in composite and porous materials. Int. J. Solids Struct. 38(14), 2335–2385 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ghosh, S., Valiveti, D.M., Harris, S.H. and Boileau, J.: Microstructure characterization based domain partitioning as a pre-processor to multi-scale modeling of cast Aluminum alloys. Mod. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 14, 1363–1396 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghosh S.: Adaptive concurrent multi-level model for multi-scale analysis of composite materials including damage. In Kwon, Y., Allen, D.H. and Talreja, R. (eds.), Multiscale Modeling and Simulation of Composite Materials and Structures, pp 83–164, Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  25. Gokhale, A.M. and Yang, S.: Application of image processing for simulation of mechanical response of multi-length scale microstructures of engineering alloys. Metall. Mater. Trans. A30, 2369–2381 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gonzalez, C. and Llorca, J.: Prediction of the tensile stress-strain curve and ductility in Al/SiC composites. Scripta Metall. 35(1), 91–97 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill, R.: Elastic Properties of Reinforced Solids: Some Theoretical Principles. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 11, 357–372 (1963)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hu, C. and Ghosh, S.: Locally enhanced Voronoi cell finite element model (LE-VCFEM) for simulating evolving fracture in ductile microstructures containing inclusions, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 76(12), 1955–1992 (2008)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Hao, S., Liu, W.K., Moran, B., Vernerey, F. and Olson, G.B.: Multi-scale constitutive model and computational framework for the design of ultra-high strength, high toughness steels. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 193(17–20), 1865–1908 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jain, J.R. and Ghosh, S.: A 3D continuum damage mechanics model from micromechanical analysis of fiber reinforced composites with interfacial damage. ASME J. App. Mech. 75, 031011-1-031011-15 (2008a)Google Scholar
  31. Jain, J.R. and Ghosh, S.: Damage evolution in composites with a homogenization based continuum damage mechanics model. Inter. J. Damage Mech. (2008b) doi:10.1177/1056789508091563Google Scholar
  32. Jensen, K. and Anastassiou, D.: Subpixel edge localization and the interpolation of still images. IEEE Trans. Image Proc. 4, 285–295 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karnezis, P.A., Durrant, G. and Cantor, B.: Characterization of reinforced distribution in cast Al-Alloy/SiC composites. Mater. Charac. 40, 97–109 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kumar, H., Briant, C.L., Curtin, W.A.: Using microstructure reconstruction to model mechanical behavior in complex microstructures. Mech. Mater. 38, 818–832 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewalle, J.: Wavelet analysis of experimental data: some methods and the underlying physics. AIAA 94–2281, 25th AIM Fluid Dynamics Colorado Springs (1994)Google Scholar
  36. Li, M., Ghosh, S. and Richmond, O.: An experimental-computational approach to the investigation of damage evolution in discontinuously reinforced aluminum matrix composites. Acta Mater. 47(12), 3515–3552 (1999a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li, M., Ghosh, S., Richmond, O., Weiland, H. and Rouns, T.N.: Three dimensional characterization and modeling of particle reinforced metal matrix composites part II: damage characterization. Mater. Sci. Eng. A266, 221–240 (1999b)Google Scholar
  38. Li, S. and Ghosh, S.: Extended Voronoi cell finite element model for multiple cohesive crack propagation in brittle materials. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 65, 1028–1067 (2006)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Luthon, F., Lievin, M. and Faux, F.: On the use of entropy power for threshold selection. Signal Proc. 84, 1789–1804 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manwart, C., Torquato, S. and Hilfer, R.: Stochastic reconstruction of sandstones. Physical Rev. E. 62, 893–899 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Motard, R.L. and Joseph, B.: Wavelet applications in chemical engineering. Kluwer (1994)Google Scholar
  42. Poole, W.J., Dowdle, E.J.; Experimental measurements of damage evolution in Al-Si eutectic alloys. Scripta Mater. 39, 1281–1287 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prasad L and Iyengar S.S.: Wavelet analysis with applications to image processing, CRC, 1997Google Scholar
  44. Pyrz, R.: Quantitative description of the microstructure of composites: I. Morphology of unidirectional composite systems. Compos. Sci. Tech. 50, 197–208 (1994)Google Scholar
  45. Qian, S. and Weiss, J.: Wavelets and the numerical solution of boundary value problems. Appl. Math. Lett. 6(1), 47–52 (1993)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. Raghavan, P. and Ghosh, S.: Adaptive multi-scale computational modeling of composite materials. Comp. Model. Eng. Sci. 5, 151–170 (2004a)MATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Raghavan, P. and Ghosh, S.: Concurrent multi-scale analysis of elastic composites by a multi-level computational model. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 5(2), 151–170 (2004b)MATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Raghavan, P., Li, S. and Ghosh, S.: Two scale response and damage modeling of composite materials. Fin. Elem. Anal. Des. 40(12), 1619–1640 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rintoul, M.D. and Torquato, S.: Reconstruction of structure of dispersions. J. Colloid Int. Sci. 186, 467–476 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robert, R.K.: Cubic convolution interpolation for digital image processing. IEEE Trans. Acous. Speech Signal Proc. ASSP-29, 1153–1160 (1981)Google Scholar
  51. Russ, J.C.: The Image Processing Handbook, 3rd Edition, CRC and IEEE, New York (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Sahoo, P.K., Soltani, S., Wong, A.K.C.: A survey of thresholding techniques. Comp. Vision Graphics Image Proc. 41, 233–260 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Segurado, J. and Llorca. J.: A computational micromechanics study of the effects of interface decohesion on the mechanical behavior of composites. Acta Mater. 53, 4931–4942 (2005)Google Scholar
  54. Serra, J.: Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology, Academic (1982)Google Scholar
  55. Seul, M., O’Gorman, L. and Sammon, M.J.: Practical Algorithms for Image Analysis, Cambridge University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  56. Shan, Z. and Gokhale, A.M.: Digital image analysis and microstructure modeling tools for microstructure sensitive design of materials. Int. J. Plasticity 20, 1347–1370 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smit, R.J.M., Brekelmans, W.A.M. and Meijer, H.E.H.: Prediction of the mechanical behavior of nonlinear heterogeneous systems by multi-level finite element modeling. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 155(1–2), 181–192 (1998)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spitzig, W.A., Kelly, J.F. and Richmond, O.: Quantitative characterization of second-phase populations. Metallography 18, 235–261 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spowart, J.E., Mayurama, B. and Miracle, D.B.: Multiscale characterization of spatially heterogeneous systems: Implications for discontinuously reinforced metal-matrix composite microstructures. Mater. Sci. Eng. A307, 51–66 (2001)Google Scholar
  60. Swaminathan, S., Ghosh, S. and Pagano, N.J.: Statistically equivalent representative volume elements for composite microstructures, Part I: Without damage. J. Compos. Mater. 7(40), 583–604 (2006)Google Scholar
  61. Swaminathan, S. and Ghosh, S.: Statistically equivalent representative volume elements for composite microstructures, Part II: With damage. J. Compos. Mater. 7(40), 605–621 (2006)Google Scholar
  62. Terada, K. and Kikuchi, N.: Simulation of the multi-scale convergence in computational homogenization approaches. Int. J. Solids Struc. 37, 2285–2311 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tewari, A., Gokhale, A.M., Spowart, J.E. and Miracle, D.B.: Quantitative characterization of spatial clustering in three-dimensional microstructures using two-point correlation functions. Acta Mater. 52, 307–319 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Torquato, S.: Random Heterogeneous Materials: Microstructure and macroscopic properties, Springer, New York (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  65. Unser, M., Aldroubi, A. and Eden M.: Fast B-spline transforms for continuous image representation and interpolation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Int. 13, 277–285 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Valiveti, D.M. and Ghosh, S.: Domain partitioning of multi-phase materials based on multi-scale characterizations: A preprocessor for multi-scale modeling. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 69(8), 1717–1754 (2007)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  67. Vemaganti, K. and Oden, J.T.: Estimation of local modeling error and goal-oriented adaptive modeling of heterogeneous materials, Part II: A computational environment for adaptive modeling of heterogeneous elastic solids. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 190, 6089–6124 (2001)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang, Q.G., Caceres, C.H. and Griffiths, J.R.: Damage by eutectic particle cracking in Aluminum casting alloys A356/357. Metall. Mater. Trans. A. 34A, 2901–2912 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang, Q.G.: Microstructural effects on the tensile and fracture behavior of Aluminum casting alloys A356/357. Metall. Mater. Trans. A. 34A, 2887–2899 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weissenbek, E., Boehm, H.J. and Rammerstoffer, F.G.: Micromechanical investigations of fiber arrangement effects in particle reinforced metal matrix composites. Comp. Mater. Sci. 3, 263–278 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Xia, Z., Curtin, W.A. and Peters, P.W.M.: Multiscale modeling of failure in metal matrix composites. Acta Mater. 49, 273–287 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yang, N., Boselli, J. and Sinclair, I.: Simulation and quantitative assessment of homogeneous and inhomogeneous particle distributions in particulate metal matrix composites. J. Microscopy 201, 189–200 (2000a)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  73. Yang, S., Gokhale, A.M. and Shan, Z.: Utility of microstructure modeling for simulation of micro-mechanical response of composites containing non-uniformly distributed fibers. Acta Mater. 48, 2307–2322 (2000b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yeong, C.L.Y. and Torquato, S.: Reconstructing random media. Physical Rev. E. 57, 495–505 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  75. Yotte, S., Riss, J., Breysse, D. and Ghosh, S.: PMMC cluster analysis. Comp. Model. Eng. Sci. 5, 171–187 (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  76. Zohdi, T.I. and Wriggers, P.: A domain decomposition method for bodies with heterogeneous microstructure based on material regularization. Int. J. Solids Struct. 36, 2507–2525 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations