Tensile properties of SiC/SiC obtained from epoxy‐encapsulated minicomposites
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The current study investigates the tensile behavior of SiC/SiC minicomposites, focusing on the efficacy of epoxy encapsulation in extracting the intrinsic fiber bundle response. Three minicomposite types were examined: two with Hi‐Nicalon Type‐S fibers and one with Tyranno ZMI fibers. Tensile tests were performed on minicomposites and fiber tows, both bare and epoxy‐encapsulated, whereas interface properties were measured via fiber push‐in tests. The results demonstrate that epoxy encapsulation partially mitigates non‐uniform loading in minicomposites with discontinuous matrices. Theoretical limits on fiber bundle strength, estimated using micromechanical models based on weakest‐link statistics and shear lag theory, are similar to measured encapsulated tow strengths when failure occurs within the elastic regime of the epoxy. In some cases, microstructural defects such as fiber–fiber contacts and debonded coatings play important roles in limiting composite strengths relative to theoretical values. Although encapsulation does not always directly improve properties, it provides useful context for evaluating composite performance and exposing microstructural limitations unaccounted for in idealized models.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced ceramic materials synthesis · Advanced materials and composites · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Materials Department University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara California USA
Funding
University of California, Santa Barbara
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/J.JMPS.2020.10390310.1016/J.JMPS.2020.103903 ↗
2. 10.1111/J.1151‐2916.1997.TB03087.X10.1111/J.1151‐2916.1997.TB03087.X ↗
3. 10.1111/J.1151‐2916.1999.TB01734.X10.1111/J.1151‐2916.1999.TB01734.X ↗
4. 10.1016/J.JEURCERAMSOC.2020.05.07710.1016/J.JEURCERAMSOC.2020.05.077 ↗
5. 10.1016/S0955‐2219(00)00064‐910.1016/S0955‐2219(00)00064‐9 ↗
6. 10.1016/S0266‐3538(00)00131‐710.1016/S0266‐3538(00)00131‐7 ↗
7. 10.1016/J.JEURCERAMSOC.2020.07.01210.1016/J.JEURCERAMSOC.2020.07.012 ↗
8. 10.1016/J.JMPS.2013.09.00110.1016/J.JMPS.2013.09.001 ↗
9. 10.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2011.02.00810.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2011.02.008 ↗
10. 10.1016/J.JEURCERAMSOC.2022.01.04710.1016/J.JEURCERAMSOC.2022.01.047 ↗
11. 10.1021/ACSOMEGA.0C03493/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/AO0C03493_0009.JPEG10.1021/ACSOMEGA.0C03493/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/AO0C03493_0009.JPEG ↗
12. 10.1016/B978‐1‐78242‐307‐2.00008‐710.1016/B978‐1‐78242‐307‐2.00008‐7 ↗
13. 10.1016/S0266‐3538(03)00230‐610.1016/S0266‐3538(03)00230‐6 ↗
14. 10.1016/J.ACTAMAT.2023.11958910.1016/J.ACTAMAT.2023.119589 ↗
15. Manno R · 2022
16. 10.1016/S1359‐6454(96)00224‐810.1016/S1359‐6454(96)00224‐8 ↗
17. 10.1016/J.JEURCERAMSOC.2015.06.00110.1016/J.JEURCERAMSOC.2015.06.001 ↗
18. 10.1111/J.1744‐7402.2010.02485.X10.1111/J.1744‐7402.2010.02485.X ↗
19. 10.1111/J.1151‐2916.1995.TB08047.X10.1111/J.1151‐2916.1995.TB08047.X ↗
20. 10.1016/J.JMPS.2019.07.01610.1016/J.JMPS.2019.07.016 ↗
21. 10.1111/JACE.1506210.1111/JACE.15062 ↗
22. 10.1111/JACE.1570910.1111/JACE.15709 ↗
23. 10.1146/ANNUREV‐MATSCI‐070115‐032127/CITE/REFWORKS10.1146/ANNUREV‐MATSCI‐070115‐032127/CITE/REFWORKS ↗
24. 10.1016/J.ACTAMAT.2021.11712510.1016/J.ACTAMAT.2021.117125 ↗
25. 10.1111/J.1551‐2916.2006.01162.X10.1111/J.1551‐2916.2006.01162.X ↗
26. De Meyere RMG · 2021
27. 10.1007/BF01143218/METRICS10.1007/BF01143218/METRICS ↗
28. 10.1016/0022‐5096(95)00045‐K10.1016/0022‐5096(95)00045‐K ↗
29. 10.1016/0020‐7683(89)90021‐810.1016/0020‐7683(89)90021‐8 ↗
30. 10.1016/J.JEURCERAMSOC.2023.01.06110.1016/J.JEURCERAMSOC.2023.01.061 ↗