Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:08:02.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microstructural and mechanical characterization of carbon coatings on SiC fibers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

K. L. Kendig ,
R. Gibala  and
D. B. Miracle
K. L. Kendig
Affiliation:
Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433–7817
R. Gibala
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109–2136
D. B. Miracle
Affiliation:
Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433–7817
Get access

Abstract

A series of carbon coatings was deposited on a 1040 SiC monofilament using chemical vapor deposition, and failure of the fiber-matrix interfacial region under transverse tension was studied. Deposition substrate temperatures were approximately 920, 1000, and 1080 °C, and all other deposition parameters were held constant. The microstructures of these carbon-coated fibers were examined using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). TEM observations were made using bright-field imaging, dark-field imaging, selected-area diffraction, and high-resolution lattice imaging. Tensile testing of single-fiber composite samples was performed transverse to the fiber axis to determine the stress required to cause debonding of the fiber from the titanium alloy matrix. Adhesion experiments were used to examine differences in bond strength of the SiC–C interfaces of the three coatings. A systematic increase in the grain size of the SiC substrate fiber within 3 μm of the SiC–C interface with increasing deposition temperature was observed. The crystallographic texturing of the basic structural units of carbon within the coatings was also found to increase with increasing deposition temperature. The SiC–C interface strength increased with increasing deposition temperature and correlates with the microstructural changes in both the SiC and carbon at the interface. The overall composite transverse strength was not affected by the change in deposition temperature, although the fracture location was affected. The carbon coating with the lowest SiC–C interface strength failed at this interface, and the coatings with more highly textured carbon failed within the coating, where the proportion of weak van der Waals bonds parallel to the tensile direction was correspondingly higher.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 16 , Issue 12 , December 2001 , pp. 3366 - 3377
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2001

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

REFERENCES

1.Titanium Matrix Composites: Mechanical Behavior, edited by Mall, S. and Nicholas, T., (Technomic Publishing, 1998), pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
2.Nutt., S.R. and Wawner., F.E., J. Mater. Sci. 20, 1953 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Debolt, H. and Henze, T., Silicon carbide filaments and method, U.S. Patent. No. 4 068 037 (1978).Google Scholar
4.Schoenberg, T., Engineering Materials Handbook, Vol. 1 (ASM International, 1987), pp. 58–59.Google Scholar
5.Ohring, M., The Materials Science of Thin Films (Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1992) pp. 147–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Shatwell., R.A., Mater. Sci. Technol. 10, 552 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Ning., X.J. and Pirouz, P., J.Mater. Res. 6, 2234 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Gundel., D.B., Warrier., S.G., and Miracle., D.B., Acta Mater. 45, 1275 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Gundel., D.B. and Miracle., D.B., Comp. Sci. Technol. 58, 1571 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Gundel., D.B. and Miracle., D.B., Appl. Compos. 5, 95 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Shi, R., Li., H.J., Tang, Z., and Kang., M.K., Carbon 12, 1789 (1997).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Johansson, A. and Carlsson, J., Thin Solid Films 261, 52 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.MacKay., R.A., Brindley., P.K., and Froes., F.H., JOM 43(5), 23 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Oberlin, A., in Chemistry and Physics of Carbon, edited by Thrower., P.A., (Dekker, New York, 1989), Vol. 22, pp. 128–135.Google Scholar
15.Oberlin, A. and Guigon, M., in Fibre Reinforcements Composite Materials, edited by Bunsell, A.R.., (Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988), pp. 149–210.Google Scholar
16.Cullity., B.D., Elements of X-ray Diffraction (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978), pp. 81–106.Google Scholar
17.Peakfit, , Jandel Scientific and AISN Software, Version 3.0 (Jandel Scientific, San Rafael, CA, 1991).Google Scholar
18.Gundel., D.B., Majumdar., B.S., and Miracle., D.B., Scripta Mater. 33, 2057 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Warrier., S.G., Gundel., D.B., Majumdar., B.S., and Miracle., D.B., Scripta Mater. 34, 293 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Kendig., K.L., P h.D. Dissertation., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (1999).Google Scholar
21.Warrier., S.G., Gundel., D.B., Majumdar., B.S., and Miracle., D.B., Metall. Trans. A, 27A, 2035 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Rangaswamy, P., Revelos., W.C., and Jayaraman, N., in Residual Stresses in Composites: Measurement, Modeling, & Effects on Thermo-mechanical Behavior, edited by Barrera, E.V.. and Dutta, I. (TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1993), pp. 227–237.Google Scholar
23.Majumdar., B.S., UES Inc., 4401 Dayton-Xenia Rd., Dayton, OH (unpublished, 1999).Google Scholar
24.Kendig, K., Gibala, R., and Miracle., D.B. (unpublished).Google Scholar
25.Kanari, M., Tanaka, K., Baba, S., and Eto, M., Carbon 35, 1429 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.CRC Handbook of Materials Science, edited by Lynch., C.T. (CRC Press, New York, 1975), Vol. 3, pp. 493–495.Google Scholar
27.Vaßen, R. and Stöver, D., J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 92–93, 77 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Hong., J.D., Davies., R.F., and Newbury., D.E., J. Mater. Sci. 16, 2485 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Hong., J.D. and Davies., R.F., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 63, 546 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Evans., A.G. and Hutchinson., J.W., Acta Mater. 43, 2507 (1995).Google Scholar
31.Nabarro, F.R.N., Acta Mater. 39, pp. 1681 (1998).Google Scholar
32.Smith., J.R., Raynolds., J.E., Roddick., E.R., and Srolovitz., D.J., in Proceedings of the 1996 Engineering Foundation Conference, edited by Stoloff, N.S.. and Jones, R.H.. (TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1997), pp. 37–48.Google Scholar