journal article·2003-02

Strength of thermally exposed alumina fibers Part II bundle behavior

P. E. Cantonwine

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 38· Issue 3
Publisher page

Abstract

Non-ideal bundle models that predict the effect of filament slack, misalignment and bonding were compared to the predicted ideal bundle stress-strain response and the measured response of an Alumina tow (Nextel™ 610) as a function of exposure temperature. The ideal bundle model assumes that the filaments are perfectly aligned, independent, and filament strength is characterized by single filament tests; the non-ideal bundle models relax these assumptions. The Nextel™ 610 tow was found to behave ideally until the sintering bonds between filaments were strong enough to resist fracture during testing. When bonded filament clusters existed throughout testing, the weakest filament in the cluster likely caused failure of the entire cluster. Therefore, the assumption of independence was not valid, and the measured bundle strength was lower than the ideal bundle prediction. The assumption that the strength distribution of the bonded filaments was the same as the filaments removed from bonded filament clusters also appears to be invalid. It is hypothesized that the effective decrease in strength of bonded filaments is a result of induced shear stresses that form along the bond line when bonded filaments are either bent or twisted. However, within a composite this motion is limited. The modeling indicated that 10% clustering can be tolerated with little degradation in composite properties as long as the clusters remain independent from their neighbors.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced ceramic materials synthesis · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Cellular and Composite Structures

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (18)

Show source-provided references
1. B. W. Rosen, AIAA Journal 2(11) (1964) 1985.10.2514/3.2699 ↗
2. W. A. Curtin, J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 74(11) (1991) 2837.10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.tb06852.x ↗
3. F. T. Pierce, J. Text. Inst. 17T (1926) 355.
4. M. M. Platt, Text. Res. J. 20(1) (1950) 1.10.1177/004051755002000101 ↗
5. H. E. Daniels, Proc. Royal Soc. Lond. 183A (1945) 405.
6. B. D. Coleman, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 7 (1958) 60.10.1016/0022-5096(58)90039-5 ↗
7. R. R. Kieschke, H. E. Deve, C. McMullough and C. J. Griffin, in “Recent Advances in Titanium Metal Matrix Composites,” edited by F. H. Froes and J. Storer (TMS Publication, 1995) p. 3.
8. P. Cantonwine and H. Deve, in “Recent Advances in Titanium Metal Matrix Composites,” edited by F. H. Froes and J. Storer (TMS Publication, 1995) p. 201.
9. C. G. Levi, J. Y. Yang, B. J. Dalgleish, F. W. Zok and A. G. Evans, J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 81(8) (1998) 2077.10.1111/j.1151-2916.1998.tb02590.x ↗
10. P. Cantonwine, J. Mater. Sci. 38 (2003) 461.10.1023/A:1021867530979 ↗
11. S. Phoenix and R. Raj, Acta Metall. Mater. 40(10) (1992) 2813.10.1016/0956-7151(92)90447-M ↗
12. M. M. Vogel-Martin and D. M. Wilson, in Proceedings from the 16th Conference on Metal Matrix, Carbon and Ceramic Matrix Composites; NASA conference publication 3175 part 2 (1992) p. 519.
13. D. M. Wilson, personal communication.
14. S. L. Phoenix, Fibre Science and Technology 7 (1974) 15.10.1016/0015-0568(74)90003-7 ↗
15. J. M. Warren, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, 1994.
16. H. E. Exner and P. Bross, Acta Metall. 27 (1979) 1007.10.1016/0001-6160(79)90188-3 ↗
17. W. Zhang and J. H. Schneibel, J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 79(8) (1996) 2141.10.1111/j.1151-2916.1996.tb08948.x ↗
18. P. E. Cantonwine, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, August 1999.