Determination of interfacial mechanical properties of ceramic composites by the compression of micro-pillar test specimens
Source abstract
Abstract
A novel method to determine the fiber-matrix interfacial properties of ceramic matrix composites is proposed and evaluated; where micro-pillar samples containing inclined fiber/matrix interfaces were prepared from a SiC fiber-reinforced SiC matrix composites and then compression-tested using the nano-indentation technique. This new test method employs a simple geometry and mitigates the uncertainties associated with complex stress state in the conventional single-filament push-out method or tensile unloading–reloading hysteresis loop analysis method for the determination of interfacial properties. Based on the test results using samples with different interface orientations, the interfacial debond shear strength and the internal friction coefficient are explicitly determined and compared with values obtained by other test methods. SEM observation showed that micro compression caused an adhesive type of debonding between the fiber and the pyrolytic carbon interface. The results suggest that the debonding/failure behavior of the micro-pillars followed the Coulomb fracture criterion. The determined interfacial debond shear strength is ~100 MPa, which appears to be smaller than that determined from fiber push-out test for similar composite systems. The difference can be explained by the effect of normal stress (clamping stress) on the apparent interfacial debond shear strength.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced ceramic materials synthesis · Advanced materials and composites · Aluminum Alloys Composites Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (21)
Show source-provided references
1. Naslain R (2004) Compos Sci Technol 64(2):15510.1016/S0266-3538(03)00230-6 ↗
2. Evans AG, Marshall DB (1989) Acta Metall 37(10):256710.1016/0001-6160(89)90291-5 ↗
3. Naslain RR, Pailler RJF, Lamon JL (2010) Int J Appl Ceram Technol 7(3):26310.1111/j.1744-7402.2009.02424.x ↗
4. Hsueh CH (1990) Mater Sci Eng A Struct 123(1):110.1016/0921-5093(90)90203-F ↗
5. Rebillat F, Lamon J, Naslain R, Lara-Curzio E, Ferber MK, Besmann TM (1998) J Am Ceram Soc 81(4):96510.1111/j.1151-2916.1998.tb02434.x ↗
6. Domergue JM, Vagaggini E, Evans AG (1995) J Am Ceram Soc 78(10):272110.1111/j.1151-2916.1995.tb08047.x ↗
7. Oliver WC, Pharr GM (2004) J Mater Res 19(1):310.1557/jmr.2004.19.1.3 ↗
8. Oliver WC, Pharr GM (1992) J Mater Res 7(6):156410.1557/JMR.1992.1564 ↗
9. Uchic MD, Dimiduk DA (2005) Mater Sci Eng A Struct 400:26810.1016/j.msea.2005.03.082 ↗
10. Uchic MD, Dimiduk DM, Florando JN, Nix WD (2004) Science 305(5686):98610.1126/science.1098993 ↗
11. Lee CJ, Huang JC, Nieh TG (2007) Appl Phys Lett 91(16):16191310.1063/1.2800313 ↗
12. Shin C, Jin HH, Kim WJ, Park JY (2012) J Am Ceram Soc 95(9):294410.1111/j.1551-2916.2012.05346.x ↗
13. Shim S, Bei H, Miller MK, Pharr GM, George EP (2009) Acta Mater 57(2):50310.1016/j.actamat.2008.09.033 ↗
14. Handin J (1969) J Geophys Res 74(22):534310.1029/JB074i022p05343 ↗
15. Besmann TM, Kupp ER, Lara-Curzio E, More KL (2000) J Am Ceram Soc 83(12):301410.1111/j.1151-2916.2000.tb01676.x ↗
16. Nozawa T, Katoh Y, Snead LL (2007) J Nucl Mater 367:68510.1016/j.jnucmat.2007.03.096 ↗
17. Hsueh CH (1991) Mat Sci Eng A Struct 145(2):13510.1016/0921-5093(91)90242-F ↗
18. Nozawa T, Katoh Y, Snead LL (2009) J Nucl Mater 384(3):19510.1016/j.jnucmat.2008.11.015 ↗
19. Hsueh CH (1993) J Am Ceram Soc 76(12):304110.1111/j.1151-2916.1993.tb06607.x ↗
20. Deyneka-Dupriez N, Herr U, Fecht HJ, Pfrang A, Schimmel T, Reznik B, Gerthsen D (2008) J Mater Res 23(10):274910.1557/JMR.2008.0339 ↗
21. Lara-Curzio E, Ferber MK, Lowden RA (1994) Ceram Eng Sci Proc 15(5):98910.1002/9780470314555.ch46 ↗