Composite Interfaces, 2015

Vol. 22, No. 1, 51–65, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15685543.2015.985957

Homogenization of partial debond effect on the effective thermal

conductivities of FRP composite using finite element analysis
C. Mahesha*, K. Govindarajulub and V. Balakrishna Murthya
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, V.R. Siddhartha Engineering College, Vijayawada
520 007, India; bMechanical Engineering Department, JNT University Anantapur, Anantapur
521 501, India
(Received 3 June 2014; accepted 6 November 2014)

Accurate prediction of effective properties of composites prevents catastrophic fail-

ure of components designed, which depends on the non-similarities such as voids,
debond, cracks and fibre orientation. Prediction of effective properties of composites
with the inclusion of non-similarities in composites by micromechanics approach is
prohibitively expensive; Homogenization (macro-mechanics) approach solves the
problem by reducing computational capabilities. In this study, finite element models
are presented for predicting effective thermal conductivities of a partially debonded
unidirectional square-packed array composite. Partial debond angle effect and its
location effect are studied. Also applicability of Homogenization approach is tested
for three different cases and is found that maximum error between macro- and
micro-mechanics approaches (homogenization) is 2.1 %. Effective longitudinal ther-
mal conductivity of the composite is not affected by partial debond.
Keywords: FRP composites; partial debond; finite element method; Homogenization
approach

1. Introduction
From several decades, applications of composite materials are growing faster in many
fields of engineering such as lightweight structure thirst area – aerospace, high-tempera-
ture-exposed turbine rotor blades of power plants, heat sinks of electronic equipment,
whose reliability depends on temperature of components inside, high-performance insu-
lations, etc. Several researchers are working on the mechanical properties of the com-
posites structures, where as in those structures where the temperature gradient prevails,
heat conduction is also the area to be focused. Heat conduction of composite depends
on a very important property called effective thermal conductivity of composite. The
material characterization of composite structures is done by various methods like
experimental techniques, analytical models and computational methods. Several
researchers made valuable effort in studying micro-mechanical and thermal characteris-
tics of composite materials by micro-mechanics approach.
Composite materials macroscopically treated as homogeneous in nature but are micro-
scopically non-homogeneous. Analysis of a composite structure as in state of heterogene-
ity by providing the material properties of constituent materials is mathematically
complex, and therefore, theories such as micro-mechanics and macro-mechanics are

*Corresponding author. Email: mahesh.chindanuru@vrsiddhartha.ac.in

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

52 C. Mahesh et al.

developed for the theoretical analysis. The homogenized properties of a composite lamina
obtained from micro-mechanical theories are used for the macro-mechanical analysis of a
composite made of several individual laminas stacked in a specified manner.
The micro-mechanical theories select a particular portion of the composite known as
‘Representative Volume Element’ (RVE) and find the properties of RVE, which are con-
sidered to be lamina properties. In this approach, there are many assumptions such as
fibres arranged in a particular pattern (square/hexagonal) in a matrix, no voids in the
matrix, all fibres are of uniform cross section and perfectly aligned, and the interface
between the fibre and matrix is perfectly bonded or totally debonded and this leads to
much deviation of theoretical and experimental results. Numerical approaches such as
finite element method (FEM) are developed to overcome some of the assumptions of
micro-mechanical theories but still not explored, in addressing many complexities in
micro-mechanical approach. Though FEM is an approximate method, it can be effectively
used after proper mesh refinement and validation. When the domain of interest grows,
analysis by micromechanics approach also becomes very difficult due to limitations in
computational capabilities, which can be overcome by Homogenization approach.
Axial thermal conductivity (in the fibre direction) of a unidirectional aligned fibre
composite lamina is satisfactorily determined by Simple Rule of Mixtures Chawla.[1]
Prediction of through-thickness thermal conductivity is quite complex, yet this is impor-
tant, since heat sources on one side of the laminate often creates through-thickness tem-
perature gradient. Prediction of effective transverse thermal conductivity of fibre-
reinforced composites was made for several models, such as experimental determination
of effective thermal conductivity of aligned fibre composite of Chamis,[2] effect of
fibre orientation on the thermal conductivity of unidirectional aligned fibre composite
of Hasselman et al. [3] thermal conductivity of constituents of FRCL by backout
method of Faleh et al. [4] simple thermal resistance model of Springer and Tsai,[5]
transverse thermal conductivity of a composite material with continuous unidirectional
fibres packed in square array by finite element and statistical models of Grove,[6] theo-
retical conduction models of Lord Rayleigh,[7] filler size effects of Holotescu and Sto-
ian,[8] interface resistance models of Hasselman–Johnson, Farmer–Covert,
Mingqingzou et al. and Benveniste,[9–12] 2-D Numerical model of Md. Islam and Pra-
mila,[13] 2-D thermal contact resistance model of Ramani and Vaidyanathan,[14] and
homogenized model for totally debonded composite of Mahesh et al [15]. As per most
of the literatures, effect of partial debond on effective thermal conductivity of compos-
ite was not covered widely.
In the present analysis, a 3-D finite element models are proposed to study the effect
of variation in debond angle (θd) at micro-level, location (θL) effect of partial debond
between fibre and matrix in the unit cells at micro-level and developing equivalence
between macro- and micro-mechanical approaches. Cases under consideration for loca-
tion effect are as follows: case-(i) all the fibres having partial debond at same location,
case-(ii) alternate layers of fibres having partial debond at two different locations and
case-(iii) one set of four fibres having partial debond at different locations.

2. Problem modelling
2.1. Geometric modelling
Figures 1–3 represent the micro-level view and Figures 4–6 represent RVE of case-(i)
Composite with all the fibres having partial debond at same location, case-(ii)
 Composite Interfaces 53

Figure 1. Square unit cell of a composite with all the fibres having partial debond at same
location.

Figure 2. Square unit cell of a composite with alternate layers of fibres having partial debond at
two different locations.

Composite with alternate layers of fibres having partial debond at two different location
and case-(iii) Composite with one set of four fibres having partial debond at different
locations. For the present study, dimensions considered are side of square unit cell
w = 100 units and radius of fibres corresponds to volume fraction ranging from 0.1 to
0.7. Debond angle effect is studied at θL = 30°, whereas location effect at θd = 30°.
In Macro-mechanics approach for case-i and case-ii, two blocks are modelled one
over the other. For case (i), both the blocks represent fibres debonded at same location.
For case (ii), first block represents fibre debonded at one location and other block for
fibre debonded at different location, whereas for case (iii), four blocks are modelled in
square pattern. Four blocks represent fibres debonded at four different locations. Sur-
faces at the junction of blocks are merged for heat transfer connectivity without any
interfacial thermal barrier.
54 C. Mahesh et al.

Figure 3. Square unit cell of a composite with one set of four fibres having partial debond at
different locations.

Figure 4. Half model of unit cell of a composite with all the fibres having partial debond at
same location.

The problem is modelled in finite element software ANSYS 12 workbench.[16] For

discretization of composite constituents, a 20-node 3-D quadratic brick element with
single degree of freedom (Temperature) at each node, i.e. SOLID90, is used.
CONTA174 and TARGE170 elements of ANSYS software are used for studying partial
 Composite Interfaces 55

Figure 5. Half model of unit cell of a composite with alternate layers of fibres having partial
debond at two different locations.

Figure 6. Full model of unit cell of a composite with one set of four fibres having partial
debond at different locations.
56 C. Mahesh et al.

debond behaviour between fibre and matrix. Geometry and finite element mesh of a 3D
models are represented in Figure 7 for case i & case ii and Figure 8 or case iii. Mesh
for finite element models are refined and converged, then results obtained are validated
with theoretical models of Hasselman–Johnson [9] and Farmer–Covert [10] for perfect
bond and total debond cases.

2.2. Boundary conditions

Temperature difference (dT) of 100 °C is maintained on two isothermal surfaces per-
pendicular to heat flow direction, whereas all other surfaces are subjected to insulation
boundary conditions. For debond between fibre and matrix, thermal contact conduc-
tance (hc) is taken as 1E-6 W/m2 K.

2.3. Material properties

For the validation of models developed, in order to maintain Kf/Km = 10, the following
properties are taken:
Thermal conductivity of matrix Km = 1 W/m K
Thermal conductivity of fibre Kf = 10 W/m K
For all the other cases of study, matrix thermal conductivity (Km) is taken as 1 W/
m K and for the fibres, thermal conductivities (Kf ) ranges from 0.1 to 1E6 W/m K.

Figure 7. Geometry and FE mesh of a 3-D model for case-i & case-ii.
 Composite Interfaces 57

Figure 8. Geometry and FE mesh of a 3-D model for case-iii.

3. Results and discussion

For 1-D heat conduction, Fourier’s equation for homogeneous plane slabs is readily
available. However, for non-homogeneous materials such as fibre-reinforced composite
materials, the analytical solution for 1-D heat conduction is quite complex. Thus, the
numerical finite element models have been developed to suit the different cases consid-
ered for the study. The models are first tested for mesh-converged solution by applying
the boundary conditions stated in the above section. Heat flux is obtained by solving
the models in ANSYS software, then effective thermal conductivity of composite is
found by Fourier’s law of heat conduction,
dT
q ¼ K
dx
where dTdx is the temperature gradient between two isothermal surfaces and q is heat flux
W/m2.
FE model developed in ANSYS is first validated with the Hasselman–Johnson
model (H–J) [9] and Farmer–Covert model (F–C).[10] Figure 9 shows the comparison
of results between H–J, F–C and FEM models. Results predicted by FE model for per-
fect debond case exactly matches with that of H–J and F–C model over complete range
of volume fraction and up to 50 % for perfect bond condition and then deviation from
H–J model is due to assumptions made in the model and is quite coherent with the
higher order F–C model.
Figures 10 and 11 show heat flow vectors and temperature distribution for compos-
ite with perfect bond and partial debond between fibre and matrix.
Figure 12 shows heat flow vector and temperature distribution in composite with
one set of four fibres having partial debond at different locations.
58 C. Mahesh et al.

Transverse thermal
Perfect Bond F-C
3

conductivity
Perfect Bond H-J

2 Perfect Bond FEM

Full Debond F-C

1
Full Debond H-J
0
Full Debond FEM
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Volume fraction (Vf)

Figure 9. Comparison of H–J, F-C and FEM models for perfect and fully debonded
composites.

Figure 10. Heat flow vectors and temperature distribution for composite with perfect bond
between fibre and matrix.

Figure 11. Heat flow vectors and temperature distribution for composite with partial debond
between fibre and matrix.

Figures 13 and 14 show variation in transverse thermal conductivities with respect

to debond angle (θd) for volume fraction ranging from 0.1 to 0.7.
 Composite Interfaces 59

Figure 12. Heat flow vectors and temperature distribution in composite with one set of four
fibres having partial debond at different locations.

4.0
For θL= 30o 0.1
3.5
0.2
3.0
K2/ Km

0.3
2.5
0.4
2.0
0.5
1.5
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Debond Angle (θd)

Figure 13. K2 function of debond angle (θd) for different volume fraction of composite.

4.0
0.1
3.5 For θL= 30o
3.0 0.2
K3/ Km

2.5
0.3
2.0
1.5 0.4
1.0 0.5
0.5
0.0 0.6
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
0.7
Debond Angle (θd)

Figure 14. K3 function of debond angle (θd) for different volume fraction of composite.

Figure 17 shows variation in longitudinal thermal conductivity with respect to vol-

ume fraction for all the cases.
Figures 18 and 19 show variation in transverse thermal conductivities with respect
to volume fraction and thermal conductivity ratios (σ) for case-i.
60 C. Mahesh et al.

Figures 20 and 21 show variation in transverse thermal conductivities with respect

to volume fraction and thermal conductivity ratios (σ) for case-ii.
Figures 22 and 23 show variation in transverse thermal conductivities with respect
to volume fraction and thermal conductivity ratios (σ) for case-iii.
Table 1 represents % error between micro- and macro-mechanics approaches for
case-i.
Table 2 represents % error between micro- and macro-mechanics approaches for
case-ii.
Table 3 represents % error between micro- and macro-mechanics approaches for
case-iii.
Heat conduction phenomenon in composites is better understood by Figures 10
and 11, which depicts the heat flux vectors are parallel to heat flow direction for perfect
bonded case whereas for debond case, they take diversion at debond portion and travel
in low thermal-resistance path. Temperature is symmetric about x-axis for perfect
bonded case whereas temperature is unsymmetric about x-axis and temperature is low
at debond portion as heat flux vectors take diversion. Same phenomenon is visualized
and portrayed for case-iii in Figure 12.
For case under study, from Figures 13 and 14, it is clear that, as debond angle (θd)
increases, K2 & K3 decrease for all volume fractions, since no heat flow through de-
bond portion to the adjacent vicinity. It is observed that K2 is nearly same up to 120°,
from there it drops rapidly to 240°, then it is asymptotic in nature; similar trend is
observed for K3, that is nearly same up to 30°, then dips rapidly up to 150° and its
behaviour is asymptotic. Usually, with fibre dominant case, for perfect bond condition,
when Vf increases, thermal conductivity of composite increases, whereas for full
debond case, increase in Vf results in decrease of composite thermal conductivity
(Figure 7). But K2 for the case, θL = 30° & θd = 195° and K3 for case θL = 30° & θd =
112.5° a peculiar behaviour is observed, that thermal conductivity remains nearly same
and equal to that of matrix for all volume fractions. This is due to fibre area contribut-
ing to thermal conductivity of composite balances the increase or decrease of Vf. This
phenomenon can be easily understood by Figures 15 and 16 in which two fibres of dif-
ferent radii are superimposed. For low Vf, fibre area (A1) and for higher Vf fibre area

Figure 15. Composite superimposed by two fibres of different radii for K2 direction study.
 Composite Interfaces 61

Figure 16. Composite superimposed by two fibres of different radii for K3 direction study.

(A2) parallel to heat flow path contribute heat to make composite thermal conductivity
equal to that of matrix.
Figure 17 represents the variation in effective longitudinal thermal conductivity and
is identical for all the cases of present study, as there is no resistance to heat flow in
axial direction for debond condition. For all the cases, K1 matches with simple rule of
mixtures and increases in linear fashion with the increase in volume fraction. As the
focus of this paper is to compare micro- and macro-mechanics approaches, plots for

For θL= 30o

60 = 10 Micro
= 10 Macro
K1/ Km

40 = 100 Micro
= 100 Macro
20

0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Volume fraction (Vf)

Figure 17. K1 function of Vf for a composite with all the fibres having partial debond at same
location.
62 C. Mahesh et al.

7
For θd= 30o = 0.1Micro
6
= 0.1Macro
5

K2/ Km
= 10 Micro
4 = 10 Macro
3 = 100 Micro
2 = 100 Macro
1 = 1000 Micro
= 1000 Macro
0
= α Micro
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 = α Macro
Volume fraction (Vf)

Figure 18. K2 function of Vf for a composite with all the fibres having partial debond at same
location.

For θd= 30o = 0.1 Micro

6 = 0.1 Macro
= 10 Micro
K3/ Km

4 = 10 Macro
= 100 Micro
2 = 100 Macro
= 1000 Micro
0 = 1000 Macro
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 = Micro
Volume fraction (Vf) = Macro

Figure 19. K3 function of Vf for a composite with all the fibres having partial debond at same
location.

7 = 0.1 Micro
For θd= 30o
6 = 0.1 Macro
5 = 10 Micro
K2/ Km

4 = 10 Macro
= 100 Micro
3
= 100 Macro
2 = 1000 Micro
1 = 1000 Macro
0 = α Micro
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 = α Macro
Volume fraction (Vf)

Figure 20. K2 function of Vf for a composite with alternate layers of fibres having partial
debond at two different locations.

thermal conductivity ratios (σ) 10 and 100 are made, since low and high σ prevent bet-
ter visibility of the plot. Also, for all the three cases, % error between micro- and
macro-mechanics results is zero, so % error table for effective longitudinal thermal con-
ductivity is not shown.
In all the three cases, for low thermal conductivity ratio (σ = 0.1), transverse ther-
mal conductivities K2 and K3 decrease linearly with increase in Vf and for higher ther-
mal conductivity ratios (σ > 1) vary non-linearly with the variation in Vf. At low values
 Composite Interfaces 63

of Vf, a gradual rise in K2 and K3 and at higher Vf beyond 0.6, a steep rise in K2 & K3
is observed (Figures 18–23). % error between macro- and micro-mechanics approaches
for K2 and K3 lies between 0.01 and 2.1 for case-i (Table 1), 0.01–0.96 for case-ii
(Table 2) and 0.01–0.48 for case-iii (Table 3).

= 0.1 Micro
For θd= 30o = 0.1 Macro
6
= 10 Micro
= 10 Macro
4
K3/ Km

= 100 Micro
= 100 Macro
2 = 1000 Micro
= 1000 Macro
0 = α Micro
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 = α Macro
Volume fraction (Vf)

Figure 21. K3 function of Vf for a composite with alternate layers of fibres having partial
debond at two different locations.

7 = 0.1 Micro
6 For θd= 30o = 0.1 Macro
5 = 10 Micro
K2/ Km

4 = 10 Macro
= 100 Micro
3 = 100 Macro
2 = 1000 Micro
1 = 1000 Macro
0 = α Micro
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 = α Macro
Volume fraction (Vf)

Figure 22. K2 function of Vf for a Composite with one set of four fibres having partial debond
at different locations.

o
= 0.1 Micro
For θd= 30
6 = 0.1 Macro
= 10 Micro
K3/ Km

= 10 Macro
4
= 100 Micro
= 100 Macro
2 = 1000 Micro
= 1000 Macro
0 = α Micro
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 = α Macro
Volume fraction (Vf)

Figure 23. K3 function of Vf for a Composite with one set of four fibres having partial debond
at different locations.
64 C. Mahesh et al.

Table 1. % Error between macro- and micro-mechanics approaches for case-(i) composite with
all the fibres having partial debond at same location.

σ = 0.1 σ = 10 σ = 100 σ = 1000 σ=α

K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 %
Vf Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error
0.1 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
0.2 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02
0.3 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.03
0.4 0.05 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.16 0.01 0.18 0.01
0.5 0.08 0.04 0.28 0.02 0.36 0.01 0.37 0.02 0.35 0.01
0.6 0.04 0.15 0.69 0.02 0.95 0.02 0.95 0.01 0.98 0.02
0.7 0.04 0.15 1.30 0.01 1.95 0.03 2.09 0.03 2.10 0.03

Table 2. % Error between macro- and micro-mechanics approaches for case-(ii) composite with
alternate layers of fibres having partial debond at two different locations.

σ = 0.1 σ = 10 σ = 100 σ = 1000 σ=α

K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 %
Vf Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error
0.1 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03
0.2 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02
0.3 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01
0.4 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.06
0.5 0.05 0.03 0.12 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.13 0.08
0.6 0.06 0.04 0.32 0.11 0.41 0.12 0.41 0.13 0.41 0.12
0.7 0.05 0.15 0.67 0.17 0.91 0.17 0.95 0.15 0.96 0.15

Table 3. % Error between macro- and micro-mechanics approaches for case-(iii) composite with
one set of four fibres having partial debond at different locations.

σ = 0.1 σ = 10 σ = 100 σ = 1000 σ=α

K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 % K2 % K3 %
Vf Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error
0.1 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.04
0.2 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
0.3 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02
0.4 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01
0.5 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.14 0.04 0.18 0.07 0.26
0.6 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.07
0.7 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.36 0.04 0.48 0.04 0.49

4. Conclusions
In this study, effects of partial debond on the effective thermal conductivities of
composites and applicability of Homogenization approach are proposed by using finite
element method. The results obtained by Homogenization approach are tested with
micro-mechanics approach for all the three cases, which suggests Homogenization
approach is acceptable since error between macro- and micro-mechanics approaches
found to be maximum of 2.1 % for Vf ranging from 0.1 to 0.7 and thermal conductivity
ratio (σ) from 0.1 to α.
 Composite Interfaces 65

Nomenclature
K1 Effective longitudinal thermal conductivity of composite axial direction
K2 Effective transverse thermal conductivity of composite in x-axis direction
K3 Effective transverse thermal conductivity of composite in y-axis direction
R Radius of the fibre in the composite
σ Kf/Km = Fibre to matrix thermal conductivity ratio
θd Angle over which debond between fibre and matrix (i.e. debond angle)
θL Angle referred from positive x-axis at which debond angle (θd) starts
θL1 Angle referred from positive x-axis at which debond angle (θd) starts in first
quadrant
θL2 Angle referred from positive x-axis at which debond angle (θd) starts in second
quadrant
θL3 Angle referred from positive x-axis at which debond angle (θd) starts in third
quadrant
θL4 Angle referred from positive x-axis at which debond angle (θd) starts in fourth
quadrant

References
[1] Chawla KK. Composite Materials: science and engineering. New York (NY): Springer
Verlag; 1987.
[2] Christos CC. Simplified composite micromechanics equations for hygral, thermal, and
mechanical properties. NASA Technical Memorandum-83320. 1983;1–17.
[3] Hasselman DPH, Bhatt H, Donaldson KY, Thomas JR. Effect of fiber orientation and sample
geometry on the effective thermal conductivity of a uniaxial carbon fiber-reinforced glass
matrix composite. J. Compos. Mater. 1992;26:2278–2288.
[4] Faleh A, Sulaiman AL, Yaagoub N, Nassar AL, Esmail Mokheimer MA. Prediction of the
thermal conductivity of the constituents of fiber-reinforced composite laminates: voids effect.
J. Compos. Mater. 2006;40:797–814.
[5] Springer GS, Tsai SW. Thermal conductivities of unidirectional materials. J. Compos. Mater.
1967;1:166–173.
[6] Grove SM. A model of transverse thermal conductivity in unidirectional fibre-reinforced
composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 1990;38:199–209.
[7] Rayleigh L. On the influence of obstacles arranged in rectangular order upon the properties
of a medium. Philos. Mag. 1982;34:481–502.
[8] Holotescu S, Stoian FD. Evaluation of the effective thermal conductivity of composite polymers
by considering the filler size distribution law. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A. 2009;10:704–709.
[9] Hasselman DPH, Johnson LF. Effective thermal conductivity of composites with interfacial
thermal barrier resistance. J. Compos. Mater. 1987;21:508–515.
[10] Farmer JD, Covert EE. Transverse thermal conductance of thermosetting composite materi-
als during their cure. AIAA 34th SDM Conference Paper; La Jolla (CA). 1993;93:2337.
[11] Zou M, Yu B, Zhang D. An analytical solution for transverse thermal conductivities of unidi-
rectional fibre composites with thermal barrier. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2002;35:1867–1874.
[12] Benveniste Y. Effective thermal conductivity of composites with a thermal contact resistance
between the constituents: non-dilute case. J. Appl. Phys. 1987; 61:2840–2843.
[13] Islam MR, Pramila A. Thermal conductivity of fiber reinforced composites by the FEM. J.
Compos. Mater. 1999;33:1699–1715.
[14] Ramani K, Vaidyanathan A. Finite element analysis of effective thermal conductivity of
filled polymeric composites. J. Compos. Mater. 1995;29:1725–1740.
[15] Mahesh C, Govindarajulu K, Balakrishna Murthy V. Modelling of hybrid materials and
interface defects through homogenization approach for the prediction of effective thermal
conductivity of FRP composites using finite element method. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.
2013;147693:1–7.
[16] ANSYS 12.0. Help Licensed Software DVDs at V.R. Siddhartha Engineering College, 2012.
Copyright of Composite Interfaces is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.