Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:37:57.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fiber strength utilization in carbon/carbon composites: Part II. Extended studies with pitch- and PAN-based fibers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2011

Rafael J. Zaldivar ,
Gerald S. Rellick  and
J.M. Yang
Rafael J. Zaldivar
Affiliation:
Mechanics and Materials Technology Center, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California 90245-4694
Gerald S. Rellick
Affiliation:
Mechanics and Materials Technology Center, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California 90245-4694
J.M. Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024
Get access

Abstract

Measurements of fiber strength utilization (FSU) in unidirectional carbon/carbon (C/C) composites as a function of heat-treatment tempcrature (HTT) have been extended beyond the original group of DuPont pitch-based E-series fibers to include additional pitch- and PAN-based fibers. Fibers and composites were characterized by tensile strength, optical microscopy, SEM, fiber preferred orientation, and a single-fiber composite (SFC) fragmentation test to provide a relative measure of fiber-matrix interfacial shear strength (IFSS). Results show that fracture behavior and FSU are dominated by the degree of fiber-matrix bonding, as inferred from microscopic observations and measurements of IFSS. In the very high modulus pitch-based fibers, the behavior of the F,130 is strikingly different from that of the Amoco and Nippon Oil fibers, in that it retains good bond strength and high FSU even with HT to 2400 °C, in contrast to the other very high modulus pitch-based fibers that are already weakly bonded at the lowest HTT of 1100 °C. All PAN-based fibers and lower modulus pitch fibers are characterized by strong bonding, brittle fracture, and low FSU for the 1100 °C HTT. Subsequent heat treatment of these composites to 2150 and 2400 °C, in most cases, results in significant recovery of FSU, suggesting an optimum IFSS for each composite. It is suggested that the difference in bonding between the pitch-based E-series and P-series may be related to the similarity in fine structure between the E-fibers and high-modulus PAN-based fibers.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , March 1995 , pp. 609 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

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

1Zaldivar, R. J., Rellick, G. S., and Yang, J. M., J. Mater. Res. 8, 501–511 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Zaldivar, R. J., Rellick, G. S., and Yang, J. M., SAMPE J. 27, 29–36 (Sept/Oct 1991).Google Scholar
3Zaldivar, R. J., Kobayashi, R. W., Rellick, G. S., and Yang, J. M., Carbon 29, 1145–1153 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Zaldivar, R. J., Rellick, G. S., and Yang, J. M., in Extended Abstracts, 21st Biennial Conference on Carbon, Buffalo, NY (1993), pp. 52–53.Google Scholar
5Aveston, J., Cooper, G., and Kelly, A., in The Properties of Fiber Composites, Conf. Proc. (NPL, IPC Science and Tech. Press, 1971), pp. 15–26.Google Scholar
6Marshall, D. B. and Evans, A. G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 68 (5), 225–231 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Barsoum, M. W., Kangutkar, P., and Wang, A. S. D., Compos. Sci. Technol. 55, 257 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Kelly, A. and Tyson, W. R., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 13, 329 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Drzal, L. T., Rich, M. J., Camping, J. D., and Park, W. J., 35th Annual Tech. Conf. Reinforced Plastics/Composites Inst., Society of Plastics Indus., paper 20-C (1980).Google Scholar
10Drzal, L. T. and Herrera-Franco, P. J., in Engineered Materials Handbook, Vol. 3 (ASM INTERNATIONAL, Materials Park, OH, 1991), p. 391.Google Scholar
11Herrara-Franco, P. J. and Drzal, L. T., Composites 23, 2 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Mallon, J. J. and Adams, P. M., Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 231, 69 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Fitzgerald, J. D., Pennock, G. M., and Taylor, G. H., Carbon 29, 139 (1991).Google Scholar
14Lin, S-S., U. S. Army Materials Technology Laboratory, Report MTL TR-89–35, April 1989.Google Scholar
15Rellick, G. S. and Zaldivar, R. J., in Extended Abstracts, 21st Biennial Conf. on Carbon, Buffalo, NY (1993), pp. 68–69.Google Scholar
16Schulz, D. A., in Extended Abstracts, 18th Biennial Conf. on Carbon, Worcester, MA (1987), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
17Scala, E., Analysis of the Test Methods for High Modulus Fibers and Composites, ASTM STP 521 (ASTM, 1973), pp. 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Rellick, G. S., Chang, D. J., and Zaldivar, R. J., J. Mater. Res. 7, 2798–2809 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Zaldivar, R. J. and Rellick, G. S., Carbon 29, 1155–1163 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Rellick, G. S. and Adams, P. M., Carbon 32, 127 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Dresselhaus, M. S., Dresselhaus, G., Sugihara, K., Spain, I. L., and Goldberg, H. A., Graphite Fibers and Filaments (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Harvey, J., Kozlowski, C., and Sherwood, P. M. A., J. Mater. Sci. 22, 1585 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Pennock, G. M., Taylor, G. H., and Fitzgerald, J. D., Carbon 31, 591 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Endo, M., J. Mater. Sci. 23, 598 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Guignon, M. and Oberlin, A., Fiber Sci. Technol. 25, 231 (1986).Google Scholar
26Hoffman, W. P., in Extended Abstracts, 21st Biennial Conf. on Carbon, Buffalo, NY (1993), pp. 112–113.Google Scholar