J. Mech. Phys. Solids Vol. 40, No. I, pp. 69- 73, 1992. 0022 5096/9255.00+0.

00
Printed in (~reat Britain. ,~- 1991 Pergamon Press pie

ON THE RANGE OF VALIDITY OF THE MORI-TANAKA

METHOD

R. CHR|STENSEN, H. SCHANTZ t and J. SHAPIRO~

Department of Applied Science, University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A., t University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A. and
++Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A.

(Received 23 August 1990 ; & revised /brm 16 October 1990)

ABSTRACT

THE RANGEof validity is displayed for results predicted by the Mori Tanaka micro-mechanics model. The
general model type is that of spherical inclusions in a continuous matrix phase, for a polydisperse (size)
suspension. The elastic shear modulus is the quantity of evaluation, using the generalized self-consistent
method to give a rigorous result.

INTRODUCTION

Tnls WORK is an addendum to that of CHmSTENSEN (1990). In that work a detailed

evaluation was given for the use of the differential method, the Mori-Tanaka method
and the generalized self-consistent method (GSCM) for micro-mechanics predictions
of mechanical properties. The elastic shear modulus was used in assessing behavior
under non-dilute and even concentrated suspension conditions. The validity of the
GSCM was established. The differential method was found to give erroneous and
misleading predictions. The Mori-Tanaka method was found to lack a rigorous
theoretical basis and to break down under very concentrated conditions. However, it
was indirectly shown that under certain conditions, the Mori-Tanaka method gave
results close to those of the GSCM.
The purpose of the present note is to show the range of useful validity of the Mori-
Tanaka method. This is of some practical importance since the Mori-Tanaka method
results are especially simple. The range of validity will be established by taking the
GSCM results as a rigorous result. In the following displays, the term error refers to
the deviation of the Mori-Tanaka prediction from that of the GSCM. In the previous
work only the case of perfectly rigid inclusions was considered since it is the most
severe condition. The present work broadens the range of behavior to include finite
stiffness inclusions with data for the range where the inclusions are less stiff than the
matrix as well as the opposite.
69
70 R. CHRISTENSENel aL

RESULTS

In all cases the spherical inclusion Poisson's ratio is taken as vi = 1/3. The matrix
Poisson's ratio is taken as 1/2 and 1/3, respectively in Figs 1 and 2. The suspension
type considered here is that of two phases where the volume fraction of the spherical
inclusions, c, can go to 1 meaning full conversion to the inclusion material. The error
in the M o r i - T a n a k a prediction is shown as a function of the volume fraction, c, of
inclusions and the ratio of inclusion and matrix shear moduli,/~i//~,,, expressed in terms
of log to the base 10. It is seen from Figs 1 and 2 that the range of useful validity of
the M o r i - T a n a k a method goes far beyond the usual dilute suspension range. Of
course the range of validity depends upon the amount of error that can be tolerated.
It is also seen from Figs 1 and 2 that the incompressible matrix case provides a far
more strenuous condition for the M o r i - T a n a k a method than does the compressible
matrix case at v,, = 1/3. The result is consistent with that of CHRISTENSEN (1990) from
which all these results are obtained.
An alternative and perhaps more revealing way of displaying the data are given in
Figs 3 and 4. The contours shown are at the various error levels. For example at

M0ri Tanaka vs. GSCM vi = i/3 ; vm = 1/2

45
40
30
20
o i0
-2.00
0
.50
-I0
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Z.UU
oo o o o o o o o o ~ o

o o cD o cD c:~ c) o c:) ,-~

Volume Fraction Inclusion (c)

FI~. I. P e r c e n t e r r o r in M o r i - T a n a k a m e t h o d vs G S C M , v~ = 1/3, vm = 1/2.
 Validity o f the M o r i - T a n a k a m e t h o d 71

Morl Tanaka vs. GSCM vi = 1/3 ; vm = 1 / 3

~4
0 34.2
30,0
25.0
g
oA
20.0
15.0 -:.00
.50
I0.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-i0.0
-15.0
-19.0
A.UV
oo ~ o o ~ o o o o ~ oo
,=, ,::; o o o o ,=; o o ,=:
Volume F_,-acti0n inclusl0n (c)
FiG. 2. Percent e r r o r in M o r i - T a n a k a m e t h o d vs G S C M . v, = 1/3. v,, = 1/3.

v,,, = 1/2, the Mori Tanaka method error will always be less than 10% if the volume
fraction is less than c = 0.4 and if the inclusion to matrix shear moduli falls within
the range 0.02 < 14/14,, < 10. As a second example, for v,,, = 1/3, and for the case of
inclusions being stiffer than the matrix, if up to 20% error is acceptable, the Mori-
Tanaka result is usable over the full volume fraction range if/~i//4,, < 100.
The present results are restricted to the case of spherical inclusions. It is evident,
however, that the application of the M o r i - T a n a k a method to other inclusion shapes
will have a range of validity considerably beyond the usual dilute range, but also well
restricted by regions where the error would be unacceptably large.
Finally, it should be recorded that the M o r i - T a n a k a model is equivalent to certain
other models. BENVENISTE (1990) has shown the equivalence between the Mori-
Tanaka model and WILUS' (1984) closure approximation model and LEVIN'S (1976)
model, under certain conditions. References to earlier work are given in these last
three references.
For more detailed comparisons, one should refer to the theoretical derivations and
formulas given in the previous work, CHRISTENSEN (1990). It should be noted that
with regard to this reference, a factor of 4 was inadvertently omitted in the asymptotic
72 R. CHRISTENSEN et al.

Per(:enl. l[rr ur
l'le~, L - T o , ~ a k a v s . GSCI'I
o. vL - I 1 3 ; vm- I/2
~J

, ~2Z2~
o . "2O _ ~

Lr~

J .

7"-

fi,
0.0 O. 2 rL4 0.6 0,8 1.0
VoLume F r o c L L o n ] n c l . us{c~n Icl

FiG. 3. C o n t o u r s o f error, v~ = 1/3, v,,, = I/2.

formula (43). That is, the coefficient 1/16 in (43) should be 1/4. The same factor
carries into formula (44) and the corresponding formula in Table 1 [Christensen
(1990)]. This recognition emerged in helpful discussions with SCHAPERY who had
performed related computations in recent work (SCHAPERY, 1986).

~r-CeNL [rror
IflorL-Tanaka vs, GSCI~I
o
vu - 1 / 3 ; vm - I/3
rxl

u~

-10~ "
",2 ~-
LD

E O

0
~c3

o
f "-~
i

tc~

0.0 0.2 0 "4 O I fi ~ i8 I " f]

VoLume P'rocLLon IncLusLan [cl

FI6.4. Contours o f e r r o r , vj = 1/3, v,, = 1/3.
 Validity of the Mori-Tanaka method 73

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory under contract number W-7405-ENG-48.

REFERENCES

BENVENISTE, Y. 1990 J. Appl. Mech. 57, 474.

CHRISTENSEN,R. M. 1990 J. Mech. Phys. Solids 38, 379.
LEVIN, V. M. 1976 Mechs. Solids 11, 119.
SCHAPERY,R. A. 1986 Engng Fracture Mech. 25, 845.
WILLIS, J. R. 1984 J. Math. Phys. 25, 2116.