arxiv:cond-mat/ v1 [cond-mat.dis-nn] 4 Feb 1999

Transcription

1 Structure-Proerty orrelations in Model omosite Materials A. P. Roberts and M. A. Knackstedt Deartment of Alied Mathematics, Research School of Physical Sciences, Australian National University, anberra, Australian aital Territory, 000 Australia (9 Aril 1996 arxiv:cond-mat/990071v1 [cond-mat.dis-nn] 4 Feb 1999 We investigate the effective roerties (conductivity, diffusivity and elastic moduli of model random comosite media derived from Gaussian random fields and overlaing hollow sheres. The morhologies generated in the models exhibit low ercolation thresholds and give a realistic reresentation of the comlex microstructure observed in many classes of comosites. The statistical correlation functions of the models are derived and used to evaluate rigorous bounds on each roerty. Simulation of the effective conductivity is used to demonstrate the alicability of the bounds. The key morhological features which effect comosite roerties are discussed.. NTRODUTON The rediction of effective roerties of heterogeneous systems such as orous media and two hase comosites is of considerable interest [1 3]. Understanding the inter-relationshis between rock roerties and their exression in geohysical and etrohysical data is necessary for enhanced characterisation of underground reservoirs. This understanding is crucial to the economics of oil and gas recovery, geothermal energy extraction and groundwater ollution abatement. Manufactured comosites such as foamed solids [4] and olymer blends [5] often exhibit a comlex microstructure. To otimize the roerties of these systems it is necessary to understand how morhology influences effective roerties. n general, the difficulty of accounting for microstructure has made exact rediction imossible in all but the simlest of cases. On the other hand, considerable rogress has been made in the derivation of rigorous bounds on a host of roerties [1,6]. For examle, relatively accurate bounds have been derived for the elastic moduli and conductivity of isotroic two-hase comosites [7 11]. To evaluate these bounds for a given system it is necessary to know the 3-oint statistical correlation function [1]. Due to the difficulty of measuring this information [13 15], a number of model media have been roosed for which the functions can be exlicitly evaluated. These include: cellular [16], articulate [1] and eriodic [17] materials (eg. Figs. 1(a&(b. The rincial roblem with these models is that they emloy over-simlified reresentations of the inclusion (or ore structure observed in many natural and manufactured comosite materials. Recently we derived the roerties of a model of amorhous materials [18] (e.g. Fig. 1(c based on level-cut Gaussian random fields [19] (GRF. Although the GRF model is alicable to many classes of non-articulate comosite materials, it cannot account for materials which remain ercolative at very low volume fractions. Porous rocks [3,0], olymer blends [5], solid foams [4] and membranes rovide examles of systems where a single hase remains connected down to low volume fractions. The ercolation threshold of a system is only one factor which determines its effective roerties: The shae of the ores/inclusions should also be considered [1 3]. Polystyrene foam, an examle of a highlyorous material, is shown in Fig.. (a (b (c FG. 1. Models of comosite microstructure. (a Periodic models - regular array of sheres; (b Particulate models - identical overlaing sheres (OS and; (c Gaussian random field (GRF models - single cut variant. None of the models can mimic the microstructure observed in ercolative low volume fraction materials (e.g. olystyrene foam - Fig.. Aeared in PHYSAL REVEW E, VOL. 54, PAGES , SEPTEMBER

2 derive the 3-oint correlation function for the -level cut Gaussian random field. n Section analogous results are derived for the identical overlaing sherical annuli (OSA or hollow shere model. n Sections V and V the microstructure arameters are calculated, and comuter simulations of the effective conductivity are comared with the resultant bounds. n section V we discuss the influence of morhology on the transort and mechanical roerties of comosites.. THE -LEVEL UT GRF MODEL FG.. Morhology of olystyrene foam. The comlex solid hase has a sheet-like character quite different to that found in cellular, articulate [1] and single level cut GRF [14,18] models (Fig. 1. t is clear that current models of comosite microstructure cannot account for the ercolative and morhological characteristics observed in orous rocks, solid foams, membranes and olymer blends. n this aer we describe models which do give a realistic reresentation of the microstructure observed in many classes of comosite materials, and which remain ercolative at very low volume fractions. Variational bounds and comuter simulation are used to estimate the influence of morhology on diffusive-transort and elastic roerties. The first model is an extension of the Gaussian random field (GRF model considered in a revious aer [18]. n this case the interface between the comosite hases is defined by two (rather than one level cut of a GRF [19,4 6]. The freedom in choosing the osition of the cuts (for a given volume fraction, and the sectra of the model, allows a rich variety of morhologies to be modelled. By qualitatively comaring these morhologies to those observed in hysical systems the models can be associated with classes of hysical comosites. A second highly orous model can be obtained by generalizing the well-known OS model [1] to include the case of arbitrarily thin hollow sheres. This model is alicable to a class of ceramics and foams fabricated from hollow sheres: a comosite which ossesses excellent uniformity and roerties [7]. To study the roerties of these media we evaluate bounds on the effective conductivity and elastic moduli. The key microstructure arameters (ζ 1 & η 1 which occur in the derivation of the bounds [1] are tabulated along with illustrations of the model morhologies. n addition we use a finite difference scheme to directly simulate the effective conductivity. This allows us to comment on the alicability of the bounds, and on their use for redictive uroses. The aer is organized as follows. n Section we As in [18] we take y(r as an isotroic Gaussian random field with a given field-field correlation function y(r i y(r j = g K (r ij. Here r ij = r i r j and for convenience we denote g K (r ij by g ij, or simly g if no ambiguity arises. Following Berk [19] it is ossible to define a comosite medium with hase 1 the region in sace where α y(r β. The remaining region is hase. n the limit β the 1-level cut GRF considered in Refs. [18,6] is recovered. The n-oint correlation function is given by n n (r 1,r,...,r n = [H(y i α H(y i β], (1 i=1 where H(y is the Heaviside function and y i = y(r i. The microstructure of the material is fully determined by secifying α, β and g K (r. The latter quantity is related to the sectral density of the field ρ K (k by a clied Fourier transform: g K (r = K 0 4πk ρ K (k sin kr dk. ( kr t was shown in [18] that few differences arise amongst the conductivity of the 1-level cut Gaussian random fields defined with differing sectra. Therefore we emloy two model materials which showed the greatest variation in roerties. n the notation of [18] these are Model : ρ(k = P 1 π ( (1 ν + k + 4ν 1 (3 lim r sin νr K(r = e K νr, (4 where P is a normalization constant chosen to ensure g K (0 = 1, and Model : 3 ρ(k = 4π(µ 3 [H(µ H(1] (µ > 1 1 (5 3 (sin µr µr cosµr sin r + r cosr g(r = r 3 (µ 3. 1 (6 No normalization constant is necessary in this model rovided that K µ. n following sections we emloy sectrum (ν = 0, K =, sectrum (ν = 0, K = 8 and sectrum (µ = 1.5. n this aer the hysical

3 arameters ν and µ are not varied and will no longer be exlicitly stated. n the notation of Aendix A the 1-oint correlation function (or volume fraction is just = Λ 1 (α Λ 1 (β = 1 β e 1 t dt. (7 π The -oint correlation function for the -level cut Gaussian random field can be defined as = + Λ (g, α, α Λ (g, α, β + Λ (g, β, β (8 α where we have used the fact that Λ (g, α, β = Λ (g, β, α and (g = 0 =. Now using Eqn. (A6 leads to [5] (g = + 1 g dt [ex ( α 1 t ( ex 1 π 0 α αβt + β (1 t + ex 1 + t ( β 1 + t Similarly the 3-oint correlation function is, ]. (9 FG. 3. The interface of the media (s=.5 at a volume fraction of = 0.. The dark region is given by 0.53 < y(r < Note the highly connected structures. 3 = 3 + Λ 3 (g, α, α, α Λ 3 (g, α, α, β Λ 3 (g, α, β, α Λ 3 (g, β, α, α + Λ 3 (g, α, β, β + Λ 3 (g, β, α, β + Λ 3 (g, β, β, α Λ 3 (g, β, β, β (10 where Λ 3 is given in Eq. A13 and g = (g 1, g 13, g 3. We could find no symmetries in these terms to allow analytical or comutational simlification of the results. For our uroses it is necessary to choose α and β for a given value of the volume fraction. There are many ways that this can be done. An obvious method is to require that an equivalent fraction of hase 1 lies on either side of a articular level cut y(r = γ. We classify these symmetric models by the arameter s = 1 e 1 t dt (11 π γ so that s [0, 1]. For a given volume fraction, α and β are defined through the relations = 1 π γ α e 1 t dt = 1 β e 1 t dt (1 π Materials defined in this manner are denoted by, for examle, (s=.5. This indicates that the sectrum of model is emloyed and that s = 0.5 (corresonding to the case α = β. For comarison with the 1-level cut case discussed in [18] it is also useful to define a - level cut GRF which reduces to the former model in a articular limit. This is done by fixing β and varying α such that a given volume fraction is achieved. These base -level models are secified by the value b = 1 e 1 t dt (13 π β γ FG. 4. The interface of the media (s=.5 with a ore volume fraction of = 0.. The light region corresonds to 0.53 < y(r < where b [0, 1]. Since β is fixed, α is calculated using Eqn. (7. n terms of nomenclature used to describe the sectra reviously these models are denoted, for examle, as (b=.3 or (b=0 (ie. β =. The latter case corresonds to the 1-level cut field. Deending on the sectra emloyed and the choice of α and β the -cut GRF scheme can model a wide range of morhologies observed in hysical comosites. The morhology of 1-cut fields is characterized by a random array of irregular inclusions interconnected by narrower necks [18] similar to a node/bond geometry (see 3

4 ositioned (i.e. uncorrelated sherical annuli. Now consider q n defined above. f, and only if, the center of an annulus is located within the volume Va (n U, then one (or more of the n oints will lie in the solid hase. Since each annulus is uniformly distributed the robability that its center will not fall in the volume Va (n U is (1 Va(n U /V. Now there are N such uncorrelated sheres so q n = lim N ( 1 ρva(n U N N ( = ex ρva (n U (15 FG. 5. The interface of the media (s=. at a volume fraction of = 0.. The dark region is given by 1.8 < y(r < Fig. 1(c. This tye of ore/inclusion shae has been observed in a range of materials including alloys [8] and sedimentary rocks [1]. Taking β= α in the -cut model (s = 0.5 leads to sheet-like structures (see Figs. 3 & 4 with differing degrees of roughness. The smooth-sheet like structures of model (s=.5 (Fig. 3 are similar to the ores observed in dolomitic limestone [9], and the connected matrix in solid foams [30] (see Fig. and olymer blends [31]. The rough sheet-like morhology evident in model (s=.5 (K = 8 (Fig. 4 is similar to the rough orous structures observed in ore-cast studies of sandstones [14,1]. Note that certain classes of sandstone have been shown to have a fractal ore surface with D s.5 [3]. This can be modelled by taking K in sectrum (Ax. B. Qualitatively different microstructures can be obtained in the -cut scheme if β α. For examle, the morhology of Model (s=. (Fig. 5 has both a node/bond and sheet-like quality.. OVERLAPPNG HOLLOW SPHERES A second low orosity model can be defined by generalizing the dentical Overlaing Shere (OS model to the case of overlaing annuli (OSA. For this model the robability that n oints r i chosen at random will fall in the void hase (ie. outside the hollow sheres is just q n = ex[ ρva (n U (r 1,...,r n ]. (14 Here Va (n U is the union volume of n sherical annuli with centers at r i, and ρ is the number density of the annuli. To see this consider a large region of the comosite material of volume V which contains N = ρv randomly where V, and hence N, has been taken to be infinitely large. This argument (for the sherical case is due to W. F. Brown [33,34]. By definition q n is just the n-oint void-void correlation function. To distinguish the correlation functions associated with the void and solid we refer to above model as the inverse OSA model (as the correlation function corresonds to the hase outside the annuli. The correlation functions for the OSA model ( n are then just linear combinations of q n, q n 1 etc. For examle, 1 = 1 q 1 and (r 1 = 1 q + q (r 1. Suose the inner and outer radii of the annuli are µ and ν, then the union volume of a single annulus is Va = Va (1 U = 4π(ν3 µ 3 /3. The number density of the annuli is related to the volume fraction of void (q by the formula ρ = logq/va. The higher order union volumes are derived in terms of the intersection volumes of sheres of different radii. For the union volume of two annuli a distance d aart we have Va ( U (d = Va Va( (d (16 where Va ( (d is the intersection volume of annuli. This function is given by Va ( (d = V ( νν (d + V ( µµ ( (d V µν (d (17 with V ( xy (d the intersection volume of two sheres of radii x and y (see Aendix. The union volume of the three annuli distances a, b & c aart is Va (3 U (a, b, c = 3Va Va( (a Va ( (b Va ( (c +Va (3 (a, b, c, (18 where the intersection volume of three annuli (Va (3 is Va (3 = V (3 ννν V (3 µµµ V (3 µνν V (3 νµν V (3 ννµ +V (3 µµν + V (3 µνµ + V (3 νµµ. (19 Here the function V (3 xyz (a, b, c is the intersection volume of three sheres of radii x, y and z with a the distance between the sheres of radii y & z, b the distance between the sheres of radii x & z and c the distance between the sheres x & y (see Aendix. 4

5 η 1 = 5ζ q 0 dr r 0 ds s 1 1 dup 4 (uf(r, s, t (1 FG. 6. The interface of the OSA model (r 0 = 0.8, r 1 = 1.0 at a volume fraction of = 0.. As in the -level cut GRF model there are two obvious ways of choosing the internal (r 0 = µ and external (r 1 = ν radii for a given volume fraction. n the first the internal radii of the sheres is held fixed and the number density of sheres is increased to achieve a given volume fraction. This model morhology corresonds to manufactured materials comrised of sintered similarly sized hollow sheres [7]. A lot of the interface for the OSA model is given for the case r 0 = 0.8 and = 0. in Fig. 6. Using results [1,35 37] develoed for overlaing solid sheres (ie. OS it is ossible to incororate a distribution of shere sizes in the hollow shere model. However, olydisersity effects have been shown to be quite small [38]. n the second model the number density of sheres is held fixed (so that the maximum volume fraction achievable is max and the internal radii is varied to achieve a given volume fraction. The ercolation thresholds of each hase of the OSA model a c (solid & q a c (void, can be easily derived from a knowledge of the threshold values of the standard OS model: s c 0.3 [39] and q s c 0.03 [40]. For the variable density model (r 0 fixed the ercolation thresholds are a c = 1 (1 s c 1 (r0/r13 and q a c = (qs c 1 (r0/r13 (so a c 0 & q a c 1 as r 0 r 1. For the fixed density model the OSA solid hase is ercolative if max s c and the void hase is ercolative if q min = 1 max q s c. V. MROSTRUTURE PARAMETERS Bounds have been calculated on the conductivity [7,10] and the bulk [8] and shear [9,11] moduli of comosite materials (reviewed in Ref. [1]. These can be exressed [1] in terms of the volume fractions and roerties of each of the hases and two microstructure arameters: ζ 1 = 9 q 0 dr r 0 ds s 1 1 dup (uf(r, s, t (0 where f(r, s, t = 3 (r, s, t (r (s/, t = r +s rsu and P n (u denotes the Legendre olynomial of order n. As we argued in Ref. [18] it only aears necessary to know broad microstructural information about a general comosite to successfully aly the bounds. This conclusion arose from the observation that the bounds are relatively insensitive to small variations in the microstructure arameters. Furthermore we found that the arameters ζ 1 and η 1 are insensitive to fine microstructural details within a class of comosites (e.g. the overlaing shere class, or the 1-level cut GRF class. An examle of this insensitivity is also seen when olydisersity effects of articulate models are considered [38]. n light of these facts the arameters calculated from models may well have alication to hysical comosites for which recise microstructural information is unavailable. n Fig. 7 we rovide a grahical summary of the wide range of isotroic comosites for which 3 (and hence the microstructure arameters can been exactly calculated. t is clear that the -cut GRF and overlaing hollow shere model considerably exand the classes of materials to which the bounds can be alied. We now reort calculations of the microstructure arameters for a variety of -level cut GRF and OSA models. Our method of calculating ζ 1 (and η 1 has been discussed reviously [18]. n addition we emloy an adative integration algorithm [41] to comensate for the fact that the sub-integrand 1 1 P n(uf(r, s, tdu varies raidly in the region r 0 and involves a considerable number of function evaluations. The error in the results is less than 1%. To model as wide a range of materials as ossible three qualitatively different sectra are used in the levelcut GRF scheme; models (K =, (K = 8 and (µ = 1.5. These sectra lead to surface-fractal, rough and smooth interfaces resectively. As we are rimarily interested in low volume fraction orous or solid media the microstructure arameters we reort are in the range 0.0 < 0.4. The results for ζ 1 and η 1 are given in Tables & and selected results are lotted in Figs. 8 & 9. The results for the two variants of the OSA model are given in Table and lotted along side the results for the -cut GRF models in Figs. 8 & 9. Due to the simle geometry of the OSA model it is ossible to calculate σ e to order (see Aendix D. This result can then be used to show ζ 1 =0 = (r 0 /r 1 3 (reresented by symbols in Fig. 8 in agreement with our numerical calculations of ζ 1. To comare the roerties of different media we lot (Fig. 10 the uer bound on the conductivity for one member of each class of comosite: -cut GRFs, hollow sheres, OS-voids [34] (or swiss-cheese, 1-cut GRFs [18] and OS [34] (or solid sheres. 5

6 (a OS, T=8 (b OS voids, T=8 (c OSA, r 0 =0.8, T=8 (d (b=0, T=4π (e (b=0, T=8π (f (b=0,ν=4,k=16, T=4π TABLE. The elasticity microstructure arameter η 1 for a range of materials generated using the symmetric GRF model. Mod., K =, K = 8 s η TABLE. The microstructure arameters for different versions of the OSA model. For the case r 0 = 0 the results are just those of the standard OS model (see Ref. [1]. (g (s=., T=4π (h (s=.35, T=4π (i (s=.5, T=4π (j (s=., T=8π (k (s=.35, T=8π (l (s=.5, T=8π FG. 7. A variety of microstructures (volume fraction 0% for which the third order statistics are known exactly: (a-(c OS and OSA models (r 1 = 1; (d-(f 1-level cut GRF s; (g-(l -level cut GRF s. Excet where noted Model has K = 8 & ν = 0 and Model µ = 1.5. Mod. r 0 = 0.5 r 0 = 0.9 max = 0.9 max = 0.7 ζ 1 η 1 ζ 1 η 1 ζ 1 η 1 ζ 1 η TABLE. The microstructure arameter ζ 1 for a range of materials generated from the symmetric GRF model. Mod., K =, K = 8 s ζ We have also evaluated bounds on the shear, bulk and Young s moduli of the models. n Ref. [30] we showed that the uer bound on Young s modulus was in good agreement with exerimental measurements for foamed solids. Model (s=.5 rovides a good model of olystyrene foam (comare Figs. & 3, and the OSA model accurately mimics the microstructure and roerties of sintered hollow glass sheres. n Fig. 11 the uer bound on the shear modulus is shown for each class of comosite considered above: the microstructure clearly has a strong influence on elastic roerties. The bulk and Young s moduli show similar behaviour. V. SMULATONS OF σ E n addition to bounding the roerties of comosite media and roviding qualitative information on these roerties, it has been observed that the bounds also have reasonable redictive ower [1]. To test the redictive utility of the bounds and rovide a direct 6

7 ζ max =0.9 r 0 =0.9 r 0 =0.5 r 0 =0.0 (OS OSA (s=.5 (s=.5 K=8 (s=. (s=.5 K= (b= FG. 8. The microstructure arameter ζ 1 for selected models. The OS model and model (b=0 are included to show the behaviour of ζ 1 for different classes of comosites (see Fig. 7. The solid symbols reresent analytic calculations of ζ 1 =0 for the OSA model η max =0.9 r 0 =0.9 r 0 =0.0 (OS OSA (s=.5 (s=.5 K=8 (s=. (b= FG. 9. The elasticity microstructure arameter η 1 for selected models. The OS model and model (b=0 are included to show the behaviour of η 1 for different classes of comosites (see Fig. 7. comarison between microstructure and roerties we use a finite-difference method to exlicitly calculate the conductivity of several -cut GRF s. The effective conductivity σ e of a comosite is defined as the ratio of the current density to the alied otential. We take T as the scale of the samle and M 3 as the number of nodes (so the satial resolution scale is x = T/M. The generation of random fields and the method for determining σ e were described in Ref. [18] for the case of 1-cut fields. A number of additional difficulties are encountered in the simulations of σ e for the -level cut GRF s. The major roblems are; (i discretisation effects which occur when the discretisation length scale x is insufficient to resolve the thin sheet-like structures which arise (e.g. Fig. 3 and (ii finite-scale effects which arise if T is not large enough to reresent an infinite medium. n ractice T should be several times the σ e (s=.5 (-cut GRF OSA (r 0 =0.9 OS-voids (b=0 (1-cut GRF OS-sheres FG. 10. The 3-oint uer bound [7] on the effective conductivity (contrast 1:0 of five different classes of microstructure. The data for the OS and 1-cut GRF models are from Refs. [34,18]. µ e (s=.5 (-cut GRF OSA (r 0 =0.9 OS-voids (b=0 (1-cut GRF OS-sheres FG. 11. The 3-oint uer bound [11] on the effective shear modulus (contrast 1:0 of five different classes of microstructure. The data for the OS and 1-cut GRF models are from Refs. [34,18]. correlation length of the microstructure (arox. unity. Discretisation effects can be reduced by increasing M or decreasing T (to increase the width of the sheets relative to x. However our comutational requirements dictate M 18 and decreasing T leads to noisy results. Thus T must be chosen to minimize each of these cometing errors. By erforming several numerical tests [41] a reasonable value of T was determined to ensure that simulations of σ e are accurate. As the sheets become 7

8 σ e.5 (s=.5 (s=. (s=.5 (b=0 σ e (s=.5 (s=. (s= FG. 1. The simulation data and bounds for three different -level cut GRF models at contrast σ 1, = 10, 1. The thick solid line corresonds to the bounds for the 1-level cut model (b=0. The bounds are clearly seen to differentiate the different classes of media at low. TABLE V. The effective conductivity of several -level cut GRF s for the case σ 1, = 10, 1. (s=. (s=.5 (s=.5 T/π σ e Err. T/π σ e Err. T/π σ e Err FG. 13. The simulation data and bounds for three different -level cut GRF models with conductivity σ 1, = 50, 1. TABLE V. The effective conductivity of several -level cut GRF s for the case σ 1, = 50, 1. (s=. (s=.5 (s=.5 T/π σ e Err. T/π σ e Err. T/π σ e Err thinner (ie. decreases it was found that smaller values of T are necessary to eliminate finite-scale effects. This can be exlained in terms of the faster decay of the correlations between the comonents of hase 1. We choose to study the effective conductivity of models (s=.5, (s=.5 (K = 8 and (s=.. The former models rovide examles of smooth and rough sheetlike ores. The latter model ((s=. has a morhology comrised of inclusions with both a sheet- and node/bond-like quality. The conductivity contrasts emloyed occur in hysical comosites and have been studied reviously, allowing comarisons to be made. n each of the cases we reort results averaged over five samles for a range of volume fractions n all cases the simulational data lie between the bounds. First we consider the conductivity contrast σ 1, = 10, 1. The results are tabulated in Table V, and lotted in Fig. 1 along with the bounds for each model, Here, and in subsequent calculations, the lower bound of Beran [7] and the uer bound of Milton [10] (see Ref. [18] are emloyed. The data for model (s=.5 ractically lies along the relevant uer bound. n contrast the effective conductivity of models (s=. and (s=.5 fall between the bounds, however the uer bound still rovides a reasonable estimate of σ e in each case. For uroses of comarison the bounds for the 1-level cut GRF model (b=0 are included in Fig. 1. At low the bounds clearly differentiate between the different classes of media. t is clear that the model (s=.5 is a significantly more efficient conductor than models (s=. or (s=.5 and those defined using a 1-level cut GRF in [18]. The simulation data for the contrast σ 1, = 50, 1 is reorted in Table V and lotted in Fig. 13. Qualitatively the results are the same as those discussed in relation to the case σ 1, = 10, 1. Note that the uer bound is again a good estimate for model (s=.5; less so for models 8

9 σ e 0.15 (s=.5 (s=. (s= σ e FG. 14. Simulation data and bounds for conductivity contrast σ 1, = 1,0. The models and contrast are relevant to solid-foams [30] and orous rocks [47]. TABLE V. The effective conductivity of several -level cut GRF s for the case σ 1, = 1, 0. (s=. (s=.5 (s=.5 T/π σ e Err. T/π σ e Err. T/π σ e Err (s=.5 (s= FG. 15. Simulations of σ e and the bounds for σ 1, = 0,1. This contrast is relevant to modeling transort in membranes. TABLE V. The effective conductivity of several -level cut GRF s for the case σ 1, = 0,1. (s=. (s=.5 T/π σ e Err. T/π σ e Err (s=. and (s=.5. n orous rocks and solid foams the conductivity of the medium surrounding the conducting athways has negligible (or zero conductivity. To model such systems the contrast σ 1, = 1, 0 is used. The data and comutational arameters used in the simulations are reorted in Table V. Each material is seen to be conductive at the lowest volume fraction considered = Discretisation effects rohibit accurate simulations of σ e at lower volume fractions. The simulation data and the uer bounds are lotted in Fig. 14. Even in this large contrast situation the uer bound for model (s=.5 agrees with the data. To consider the case of diffusive transort in membranes, we assume that the membrane has negligible diffusivity with resect to the surrounding fluid. Therefore the contrast σ 1, = 0, 1 is emloyed. For this system large discretisation effects rohibit the consideration of model (s=.5 and membrane/ore volume fractions of less than = The data is resented in Table V and Fig. 15. Note that the resence of a membrane occuying 10%- 0% of the total volume reduces the diffusivity by a factor of two. This is due to the tortuous athways through which the diffusing secies must migrate. n contrast to three cases considered above the uer bound does not rovide a good estimate of σ e for model (s=.5. V. EFFET OF MROSTRUTURE ON PROPERTES The recise role of microstructure in determining the macroscoic roerties of comosite media has been the subject of many studies. A number of simle models of ore-shae have roosed to determine, for examle, the effect of ore-size distribution [0], ore roughness [4] and ore geometry [1] on transort in orous rocks. Simle micro-mechanical models [43] have also been studied to ascertain, for examle, the effect of inclusion shae [44] and cell structure [4,45] on the mechanical roerties of comosites. n this section we investigate 9

10 TABLE V. Qualitative comarison of microstructure and macroscoic roerties. We consider the contrast 1:0 at a reresentative volume fraction = 0.. σ u, κ u, and µ u are uer bounds on the effective conductivity [7], bulk [8] and shear modulus [11] resectively. Model Microstructure c σ e ζ 1 η 1 σ u κ u µ u (s=.5 smooth, sheet-like (s=.5 K = 8 rough, sheet-like (s=. smooth, node/bond/sheet-like (s=.5 K = very rough, sheet-like (b=0 a K = very rough, node/bond-like (b=0 a K = 8 rough, node/bond-like (b=0 a smooth, node/bond-like OSA (r 0 = 0.9 hollow sheres OS-voids swiss-cheese.03 b c.518 d.416 d OS sheres.30 e d.148 d a Ref. [18] b Ref. [40] c Ref. [57] d Refs. [1,34] e Refs. [,39] how morhology influences the roerties of realistic model comosites. To simlify the discussion we summarize relevant data for a variety of GRF and articulate microstructure models in Table V. We consider systems of 1:0 contrast at = 0.. This case corresonds to a conducting (mechanically strong matrix in an insulating (weak medium (e.g. foamed solids [30]. This contrast also corresonds to low orosity conducting ores in an insulating medium (e.g. orous rocks. To gauge the effect of microstructure on material roerties we assume that the uer bound on each roerty rovides an estimate of its actual value. A comarison of σ u and σ e (where available shows that this is generally true [46]. Note, however, that if the difference between σ u for each of the models is small (e.g. OS-voids and model (s=. and examles in Ref. [18] such an assumtion cannot be made (σ a u > σb u but σa e < σb e. At a 1:0 contrast the effective roerties only differ from zero if the comosite is macroscoically connected (i.e. ercolative. At = 0. this condition is satisfied for all but one of the media (conducting sheres in an insulating medium. Above this threshold the magnitude of the macroscoic roerties is then governed by the shae of the inclusions. t is clear from the table that sheet-like structures rovide higher conductivity and mechanical strength than those with a node/bondlike character. To elucidate the role of inclusion shae we derive aroximate exressions for the effective conductivity of eriodic media with unit cells of each tye in Aendix E. For small volume fractions ( 1 the node/bond model has σ e σ 1 and the sheet-like model has σ e 3 σ 1 in qualitative agreement with the data. nterestingly the eriodic sheet model rovides a surrisingly good estimate of σ e = 30. = for model (s=.5 (σ e = From the table it also evident that interfacial roughness lays an imortant role in determining roerties. onsider the -cut fields (s=.5 and (s=.5. n Figs. 7(i and 7(l it is clear that both models contain sheet-like ores. The differences are then due to the interfacial roughness. This is confirmed by comaring the relative values of σ u for model in the cases K = 8 (smooth on scales below λ min = π/8 and K = (rough on all scales - see Ax. B. The effect of increasing K from 8 to 3 on the morhology of model (s=.5 can be seen by comaring Fig. 7(i & Fig. 16(a. n the rough model the sheet-like ores are thinner and a large roortion of ore sace is distributed in rotrusions. As these rotrusions contribute little to the overall conductance (or strength, this significantly reduces both conductivity and strength. This also exlains why Model is more conductive (stronger than Model. The much smaller effect of roughness on morhology of 1-level cut fields can be seen by comaring Fig. 7(d & Fig. 16(b: the basic inclusion shae is less affected than in the -cut case. Now consider the data for the sherical articulate media in Table V. The hollow shere model aears to be more conductive, or stronger, than the OS-voids (swisscheese model. This is due to the fact that the former model has an aroximately sheet-like character (Fig. 6 in contrast to the node/bond-like structures [] aarent in the inverse OS model. The OS model at = 0. does not have a sufficient density of sheres to rovide a ercolative athway. 10

11 V. ONLUSON n this aer we have derived the 3-oint statistical correlation functions for two models of random comosite media. The results were alied in the evaluation of bounds on the effective conductivity and elastic moduli of each model. n addition the exact effective conductivity was estimated for the -level cut GRF model by direct simulation. The models are alicable to hysical comosites which remain ercolative at very low volume fractions c < 1%. These include solid foams, orous rocks, membranes and sintered hollow glass sheres. n contrast, reviously emloyed models of microstructure have ercolation thresholds of order 10%. Microstructure was demonstrated to have a strong influence on the effective roerties of comosites. The relative variations amongst the -level cut, OSA and 1- level cut models were attributed to three morhological factors; ore-shae, interfacial roughness and the ercolation threshold of the material. Materials with sheet-like inclusions were shown to have a significantly greater conductivity/strength than materials with node/bond-like inclusions. By comaring the microstructure arameters of similar comosites with fractally rough and relatively smooth inclusions we found that interfacial roughness decreased comosite conductivity/strength. The observation was confirmed by directly comaring simulated values of σ e for Model (s=.5 (sheet-like and rough and Model (s=.5 (sheet-like and smooth. The behaviour was hysically attributed to the fact that the rotrusions of rough interfaces contribute little to effective roerties. The models discussed here considerably exand the range of systems to which bounds can be alied. To facilitate use of these bounds we have tabulated crosssections and microstructure arameters for a number of different variants of each model. Such bounds have two clear alications. Firstly they can be used to narrow the ossible microstructures of a comosite for which roerties are known; comosite materials may violate the bounds for a articular model system. ndeed for certain cases of realistic media the bounds are mutually exclusive (see Fig. 1. Secondly, the uer bound is often a very useful estimate of the actual roerty. ndeed for model (s=.5 the uer bound rovides an excellent estimate of the effective conductivity over the full range of volume fraction measured. The simulational data resented here allows comarison of model roerties with those of hysical comosites [30,41,47]. Furthermore the data can be used to assess both redictive theories for σ e, and higher order bounds. We note that the 4-oint correlation functions of the two models considered here can be calculated, and hence used to evaluate known 4-oint bounds [11,48]. Finally we remark that the generalization of the OS model to include the case of hollow sheres broadens the utility of the model as a bench-mark theoretical tool; as well as roviding a realistic model of certain comosites. APPENDX A: THE LEVEL UT GAUSSAN RANDOM FELD n this aendix several results are derived which are useful for calculating the n-oint correlation function of a material defined by level cut(s of a Gaussian random field [19,5,6]. The joint robability density (JPD of a Gaussian random field is P n (y 1 y... y n = ((π n G 1 ex( 1 yt G 1 y. where the elements of G are g ij = g(r ij = y(r i y(r j [49]. The function g has the roerties g(0 = 1 and lim r g(r 0. By definition we have n = β α dy 1... β α dy np n (y 1 y... y n. Note that, in this form, n is difficult to evaluate. For examle if g ij 1 for all i, j then G 0 (n > 1. t is ossible to avoid such roblems, and reduce the number of integrations required, by taking the following aroach. Exanding Eqn. (1 gives terms of the form, n Λ n (g,a = H(y i α i i=1 (A1 where g = (g 1,..., g (n 1n, a = (α 1,...,α n and the α i are equal to α or β. The analysis which follows relies on an integral reresentation of the Heaviside function, H(y α = 1 e iw(y αdw πi w (A where the contour lies along the real axis excet near the origin where it crosses the imaginary axis in the uer half lane. Now we turn to the evaluation of the terms Eqn. (A1. For the case n = 1 we have G = g 11 = 1 so Λ 1 = H(y 1 α 1 = 1 π α 1 e 1 t dt. (A3 Now consider Λ, in this case the matrix G in the JPD is [ ] [ ] g11 g G = 1 1 g =, (A4 g 1 g g 1 with g = g 1 = g 1 and G = 1 g. Using the Heaviside function and interchanging the order of integration gives, 1 Λ = G 1 (πi = 1 (πi dw 1 w 1 dw e iw T a w dy 1 dy e 1 yt G 1 y iw T y dw 1 w 1 dw w e iat w 1 w 1 w1wg 1 w. n this case we differentiate with resect to g 11

12 Λ g = 1 (πi Λ = 1 g (π 0 dw 1 dw e 1 at Ga+ia Tw, (A5 and erform the integrals with resect to w i. The result is simly integrated to give Λ (u to a constant. dt ( ex α 1 α 1α t + α 1 t (1 t (A6 The derivation of Λ 3 follows similar lines: The initial integration over the y i gives Λ 3 = 1 dw 1 dw dw 3 (πi 3 e 1 wt Gw+iw Ta. w 1 w w 3 (A7 For this case G = 1 g1 g13 g3 + g 1 g 13 g 3 and w T Gw = w1 + w + w 3 + w 1w g 1 + w 1 w 3 g 13 + w w 3 g 3. Taking the derivative of Eqn. (A7 with resect to g 1 gives Λ 3 = 1 g 1 (πi 3 dw 3 e 1 w w 3 3 iα3w3 (A8 dw 1 dw e 1 ŵt Ĝŵ+iŵ T u where ŵ = (w 1, w, u = (u 1, u = (α 1 + ig 13 w 3, α + ig 3 w 3 and [ ] 1 g1 Ĝ =. (A9 g 1 1 Performing the standard integrals with resect to w 1 and w gives, Λ 3 = 1 ( 1 ex α 1 α 1 α g 1 + α g 1 π 1 g 1 (1 g1 ( 1 πi where ν = G /(1 g 1 and dw 3 w 3 e 1 νw +iκw (A10 κ = α 3 α 1(g 13 g 1 g 3 α (g 3 g 1 g 13 1 g1. (A11 Now the remaining integral can be re-exressed to give Λ 3 = 1 ( 1 ex α 1 α 1α g 1 + α g 1 (π 1 g 1 (1 g1 1 π F 1 e 1 t dt (A1 where F 1 = κ/ ν. Similar exressions can be derived for Λ 3 / g 1, and Λ 3 / g 3. These are denoted by A ij (g,a = Λ 3 / g ij. With k i or j we can also write a general exression for F ij F ij = 1 gij G ( α k α i(g ik g jk g ij + α j (g jk g ik g ij 1 g ij The results can be formally integrated to give, u to a constant, Λ 3 (g,a = 1 0 dt [g 1 A 1 (tg,a +g 13 A 13 (tg,a + g 3 A 3 (tg,a]. (A13 The results for Λ i are emloyed in the text to derive the statistical correlation functions. APPENDX B: FRATAL SURFAE DMENSON Berk [5] has shown that the class of level-cut GRF models with sectra ρ(k a 4π k ǫ 3 as k (0 < ǫ < 1 have field-field correlation functions g(r 1 br ǫ and surface fractal dimension D s = 3 ǫ. Here a and b are related constants. n this aendix we show how the finite cut-off wave-number K effects the roughness (fractal roerties of a GRF interface. Through a very elegant argument Debye et al [50] showed that the surface to volume ratio (S/V of a orous solid was related to the two oint correlation function by 4 (0 = S V.. (B1 Now consider for the general -level cut Gaussian random field. The most instructive method of examining (0 is by generating an exansion for small r. Thus we write (r = 1 1 dt π f(t, (B 1 δ 1 t where δ(r = 1 g(r, and f(t is a suitably defined function. ntegrating by arts and retaining leading order terms gives (r δ(rf(1/π, (B3 with f(1 = ex( α / + ex( β /. Now if δ(r = O(r then the secific surface is well defined and (0 can be evaluated. However for the class of sectra considered by Berk [5] δ(r br ǫ so bf(1r ǫ /π. (B4 Therefore (0 and the secific surface (S/V are infinite. Bale and Schmidt [51] have shown that this tye 1

13 exansion are negligible and g K g (1 br ǫ /P (with P 1. n summary we have (r 3 k f(1 π r 0 r λ min ( b f(1 π r ǫ λ min r 1. ( 1 (B7 (a (s=.5, K=3, T=4π (b (b=0, K=3, T=4π FG. 16. ross sections of two models based on sectrum. This figure shows the roughness of the interface for large K (omare Figs. 7(i & (d. of singular behaviour imlies a fractal surface. The fractal dimension D s is given in terms of the correlation function through the relation (r cr 3 Ds with c some constant. We infer from Eqn. (B4 that our Model (ǫ = 1/ has a fractal surface with D s =.5. As discussed in [18] it is necessary to introduce a finitecutoff wave number K for comutational and hysical reasons. We now show how this arameter changes the microstructure. The wave-number K corresonds to a cut-off wavelength λ min = π/k which secifies the scale of the smallest riles on the surface. Thus we exect the surface area to scale as a fractal down to some length scale related to λ min. This can be confirmed mathematically by considering the small r behaviour of (g K (r. For arbitrary r, g K (r can be exressed in terms of the moments of k. Using a Taylor series exansion for sin kr in the definition of g K ( we have ( g K (r = 1 1 K 4πρ K (kk 4 dk r + O(K 3 r k r, where the latter aroximation is valid if r λ min. Substituting this result into the exansion for (B3 and using relation (B1 gives [19,6] S V = π k 3 ( e 1 α + e 1 β. (B5 Thus for r λ min the surface is behaving in a regular manner (D s = as anticiated. Note that for the case K and ǫ < 1 the moment k diverges and this aroximation does not aly. To examine the behaviour for r > λ min we can successively integrate ( by arts [18] to obtain g K (r g (r P a PK ǫ (B6 ( coskr K r + 3 sinkr K 3 r 3 + O(K 4 r 4. f Kr > 1 this exansion is asymtotic to g K [5]. Now in the region λ min r 1 the algebraic terms in the This demonstrates the regular (D s = nature of the surface in the former region, and the fractal behaviour (D s = 3 ǫ over the satial scales in the latter region. APPENDX : NTERSETON VOLUME OF TWO AND THREE SPHERES The intersection volume V ( µν (d of two sheres of radii µ and ν searated by a distance d is simle to calculate. With r 1 = min(µ, ν and r = max(µ, ν V ( = 4πr1 3/3 if 0 d < r r 1, V ( = 0 if r + r 1 d < and V ( = π(r r3 /3 π(r 1 x 1 + r x 1 3 x x3 (1 if r r 1 d < r + r 1. Here x 1 = (d + r 1 r /(d and x = d x 1. A comact form of the intersection volume of three sheres of equal radii (r = 1 has been derived reviously by Powell [53]. Several of the key simlifications in the derivation formula are not ossible when the sheres have different radii. However a less elegant but straight forward result can be determined. Suose the sheres have radii r A, r B and r and are distances a, b and c aart and that there exist two unique oints P and Q where the surface of the sheres meet. From Powell [53] the intersection volume of the three sheres is equal to twice the following exression (Powell s Theorem: The volume of the tetrahedron PAB The volume of the shere center A enclosed by the faces of the tetrahedron PAB which meet at A The volume of the shere center B enclosed by the faces of the tetrahedron PAB which meet at B The volume of the shere center enclosed by the faces of the tetrahedron PAB which meet at + The intersection volume of the sheres centered at B and enclosed by the two faces of the tetrahedron PAB which meet in B + The intersection volume of the sheres centered at and A enclosed by the two faces of the tetrahedron PAB which meet in A + The intersection volume of the sheres centered at A and B enclosed by the two faces of the tetrahedron PAB which meet in AB 13

14 (0,0 a a B (a,0 B b y (x,y P P P c B (a x b A A c A (b cos,-b sin (a (b r A E (b A c A d e f b F A FG. 17. Geometrical elements used in the calculation of the intersection volume of three sheres of different radii. The axis and nomenclature are those emloyed in the text. (a the tetrahedron base; (b the shere centered at A enclosed by three faces of the tetrahedron. The cases where there is no unique oint of intersection between the sheres is discussed below. We first define a coordinate system with origin at the center of shere as drawn in Fig. 17(a. By solving the equations of the three sheres simultaneously it is simle to show that x P = a r B + r a y P = b + ra r + b cosx P b sin z P = r x P y P. D ( (3 (4 t is also necessary to know the distances a B, a... given in Fig. 17(a. We have a = (a + r r B /(a, b A = (b + r A r /(b c B = (c + r B r A /(c, a B = a a, b A = b b and c A = c c B. The volume of the tetrahedron is V T = 1 6 ab sinz P. The solid angle φ A of the tetragonal wedge at A (see Fig. 17(b can be calculated by using the fact that φ A = (E + F + D π and cosd = cosd cosecosf sine sin f (similarly for cos E and cos F. This gives (5 (c (d FG. 18. Several of the toologically distinct cases which arise in the calculation of the intersection volume of three sheres of different radii. φ A = cos 1 ( c A cosab A sin A ra b A ( + cos 1 ra cosa b Ac A r A b A r A c A ( + cos 1 b A cosac A sina ra π. c A (6 (7 Similar results are obtained for the solid angles φ B,. t is critical to know whether the oint x P, y P lies inside or outside each of the faces of the triangle. This can be done by defining the variables s A = sgn( y P s B = sgn(cos y P + sin x P s = sgn(cos By P sin Bx P + a sin B. (8 (9 (10 Then for examle s A = ±1 as the oint (x P, y P is inside or outside face a of the triangle AB. n the case r A = r B = r = 1 (Powell [53] we have x P = a/ and y P = c cosa/ sin so that s A = sgn(cos A, s B = sgn(cosb and s = sgn(cos as they should. The wedge angle associated with the intersection volume of sheres B & is, ( r θ A = cos 1 s B a B z P A. (11 r B a B Similarly for the angles θ B & θ. Now the volume of a tetragonal wedge of solid angle φ is r 3 φ/3 and the intersection volume of sheres enclosed 14

15 in a wedge of angle θ is θv ( /π. Therefore, by Powell s theorem, V (3 xyz (a, b, c = V T 3 x3 φ A 3 y3 φ B 3 z3 φ (1 + θ A π V ( yz (a + θ B π V ( xz (b + θ π V ( xy (c. Here x = r A, y = r B & z = r. This formula is equivalent to Powell s result [53] in the case x = y = z = 1. Several other cases arise if the oint P does not exist. Some of these are illustrated in Fig. 18. Either two (or more of the sheres are disconnected (not illustrated, they are connected but V a (3 = 0 (b or the intersection volume is given by that of two of the sheres (c or some other formula (d. APPENDX D: DERVATON OF ζ 1 P=0 (OSA t is ossible to develo an indeendent check on the calculation of ζ 1 for the OSA model by direct calculation of σ e. Using the framework of Reynolds and Hough [54] gives σ e = σ + (σ 1 σ f 1 (D1 where f 1 = Ē1/Ē. Here Ē1 is the average of the field throughout hase 1 and Ē is the alied field. While the above formula is exact it is only ossible to evaluate E 1 aroximately. n the low concentration regime ( 1 E 1 is the field within a hollow shere (conductivity σ 1 embedded in an infinite medium (conductivity σ subject to an alied field Ē. To determine this field we consider a more general roblem where the conductivities of the innermost sherical region (0 r < r 0, the annulus (r 0 r < r 1 and the enclosing medium (r 1 r < are σ a, σ b and σ c resectively. The otential of the field satisfies Lalace s equation and charge conservation boundary conditions at hase boundaries. Using standard techniques it is ossible to show that, in each region, the otential has the form φ d = (A d r+b d r cosθ with d = a, b or c. Alying the aroriate boundary conditions on each of the faces of the hollow shere gives, A a = 9s 3 Ē/H; B a = 0; A b = 3s 3 Ē( + x/h; B b = 3r 3 1Ē(1 x/h; A c = Ē; B c = r 3 1Ē[(1 x(1 + y + s3 ( + x(1 y]/h. where H = (1 x(1 y+s 3 (+x(+y, x = σ a /σ b, y = σ b /σ c and s = r 1 /r 0. For the desired value of f 1, σ a = σ c = σ and σ b = σ 1. onsidering volume averages of the field lead to (f 1 z = A b Ē = 3s 3 σ (σ 1 + σ s 3 (σ 1 + σ (σ + σ 1 (δσ, (D where δσ = σ 1 σ and (f 1 x = (f 1 y = 0. Now exanding Eqn. (D1 in owers of δσ gives, h σ (a H σ 1 σ σ 1 FG. 19. Periodic cellular models: (a Sheet-like cell; (b Bond/node-like cell. Similarly Brown s formula [55] to the same order gives, x xm (b σ e σ + (δσ 1 (δσ ζ 1 (δσ 3. 3σ 9σ x (D4 Equating similar terms leads to ζ 1 =0 = s 3 = r 3 0/r 3 1. Points reresenting this result are lotted in Fig. 8 and confirm rior calculations of ζ 1. t should also be ossible to calculate the first order correction, ζ 1 / =0, by calculating σ e to O( [38,56]. Since ζ 1 is observed to have a linear behaviour over a wide range of [38] (see Fig. 8 this would rovide a good estimate of ζ 1. Also note that η 1 =0 can be derived using similar methods. APPENDX E: PEROD ELL MODELS To exlicitly demonstrate the effect of ore shae on effective conductivity we estimate σ e for several eriodic networks exhibiting sheet-like, grid-like and node/bondlike cells. onsider a structure comrised of eriodic reetitions of the unit cell shown in Fig. 19(a. Defining x = h/h the volume fractions of each hase are given by = 1 (1 x 3 3x and q = (1 x 3 1 3x. onsider the behaviour of the model if σ 1 σ. n this case most of the current would flow through the solid faces of the cell which are aligned in the direction of current flow. The volume fraction of these elements of the cell is 1 = x x. The remaining current would ass through a layer of hase 1 (volume fraction = x(1 x and the cell core of hase (volume fraction q. Treating each of these mechanisms as conductors in arallel we have σ e = 1 σ 1 + ( + qσ, where σ is conductivity of the central leakage athways. Assuming each of the elements of these athways act as conductors in series gives σ = ( + q( σ1 1 + qσ 1 1. This leads to σ e = (x x (1 x σ σ 1 + x(σ /σ 1 + (1 x σ + 3 σ 1 1 ( 3 σ 1 + σ σ 1 σ e σ + (δσ 1 (δσ + + s3 3σ 9s 3 σ (δσ 3. (D3 where the aroximation holds for 1. σ e 3 σ 1 in the case σ = 0. Finally, 15