Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:33:45.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Elevated Temperature Exposure of Composites on the Strength Distribution of the Reinforcing Fibers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

M. L. Gambone  and
F. E. Wawner
M. L. Gambone
Affiliation:
Wright Laboratory/MLLM, 2230 Tenth St. Ste. 1, WPAFB, OH 45433-7187
F. E. Wawner
Affiliation:
University of Virginia, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Thornton Hall, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Get access

Abstract

Unidirectionally-reinforced Timetal® 21S composite specimens were subjected to elevated temperature heat treatments. The SiC fibers were then chemically extracted from the matrix, and their tensile strengths were measured at room temperature. A Weibull statistical analysis of fiber strength distribution was performed to compare the Weibull parameters of fibers from the as-consolidated and heat-treated composites. Fractographic analysis of the tested fibers was used to identify the flaws which caused failure in each condition. Surface flaws were found to initiate low strength failures in all conditions, and the number of surface initiated failures increased with an increase in severity of heat-treatment. A relationship between the fiber/matrix chemical reaction and surface flaw development is demonstrated. A fracture mechanics analysis that explains the relationship between surface flaw size, fiber fracture toughness, and the measured tensile strengths is suggested.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 350: Symposium U – Intermetallic Matrix Composites III , 1994 , 111
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Wawner, F. E. and Gundel, D. B., NASA Tech. Report, Grant No. NAG-1–745 (1991), pp. 34–47.Google Scholar
2. Draper, S. L., Brindley, P. K., Nathal, M. V., Met. Trans. A, 23A, 2541 (1992).Google Scholar
3. Bania, P. J. and Parris, W. M., presented at the 1990 TDA International Conference, Orlando, FL, 1990 (unpublished).Google Scholar
4. Wawner, F.E., in Fibre Reinforcements for Composite Materials, edited by Bunsell, A. R. (Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, 1988), pp. 371–425.Google Scholar
5. Nutt, S. R. and Wawner, F. E., J. Mat. Sci. 20, 1953 (1985).Google Scholar
6. Ning, X. J. and Pirouz, P., J. Mater. Res. 6 (10), 2234 (1991).Google Scholar
7. Weibull, W., J. Appl. Mech. 18, 293 (1951).Google Scholar
8. Trustrum, K. and Jayatilaka, A. de S., J. Mat. Sci. 14, 1080 (1979).Google Scholar
9. Porter, J.R., in Intermetallic Composites II, edited by Miracle, D. B., Anton, D. L., and Graves, J. A. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 273, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992) pp. 315–324.Google Scholar
10. Goda, K. and Fukunaga, H., J. Mat. Sci. 21, 4475 (1986).Google Scholar
11. Johnson, L. G., The Statistical Treatment of Fatigue Experiments. (Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, 1964), p. 37.Google Scholar
12. Jakus, K., Ritter, J. E. Jr., Service, T., Sonderman, D., Comm. of Am. Cer. Soc. 1981, C-174.Google Scholar
13. Trumbauer, E. R., Hellmann, J. R., Shelleman, D. L., Koss, D. A., to be published in J. Amer. Cer. Soc. (1994).Google Scholar
14. Gambone, M. L. and Wawner, F. E., submitted to J. Mat. Sci. (1994).Google Scholar
15. Atwell, W. H., et al. Final Report on Air Force Contract No. WRDC-TR-89–4050, Vol.1, 1989, pp. 105–112.Google Scholar
16. Raju, I. S. and Newman, J. C., in Fracture Mechanics: Seventeenth Volume. ASTM. STP 905, edited by Underwood, J. H., et al. (ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1986) pp. 789–805.Google Scholar
17. Broek, D., Elementary Erigineering Fracture Mechanics, 4th ed. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, MA, 1986), pp. 88–90.Google Scholar