Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-20T08:18:00.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Stick-Slip, Steady-State and Roughness Dominated Sliding in Fiber-Reinforced Composites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Thomas J. Mackin
Thomas J. Mackin*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1206 W. Green St., Urbana, IL 61801
Get access

Abstract

The mechanical properties of fiber reinforced composites depends strongly upon the properties of the fiber/matrix interface. Enhanced fracture resistance and strain to failure are synonymous with debonding and sliding of the reinforcement phase. Thus, the two key properties of the composite are the interfacial toughness and the post-debond sliding stress. After debonding a variety of interfacial sliding phenomena are noted, including: stick-slip, steady-state, and roughness dominated sliding. The interfacial properties, including the coefficient of friction, the radial clamping pressure, asperity amplitude, the elastic properties of the constituents, and the compliance of the test machine, each play a role in the operative sliding phenomenon. Experiments have been conducted to explore each of these phenomena. In addition, models have been developed that rationalize all of the observed behavior.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 365: Symposium M – Ceramic Matrix Composites–Advanced High-Temperature Structural Materials , 1994 , 237
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

1. Aveston, J., Cooper, G. A. and Kelly, A., “Single and Multiple Fracture,” Conference Proceedings, National Physical Laboratory, pp. 15–26, 1971.Google Scholar
2. Drzal, L. T., Rich, M. J. and Lloyd, P. F.,“Adhesion of Graphite Fibers to Epoxy Matrices: I. The Role of Fiber Surface Treatment,” J. Adhesion, Vol. 16, pp. 1–30, 1982.Google Scholar
3. Kelly, A. and Tyson, W. R., “Tensile Properties of Fiber-Reinforced Metals: Copper/Tungsten and Copper/Molybdenum,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 13, pp. 329–250, 1965.Google Scholar
4. Kerans, R. J., Hay, R. S., Pagano, N. J. and Parthasarathy, T. A.,“The Role of the Fiber-Matrix Interface in Ceramic Composites,” Ceramic Bulletin, Vol. 68, No. 2, 1989.Google Scholar
5. Curtin, W. A.,“Theory of Mechanical Properties of Ceramic-Matrix Composites,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 74[11], 2837–45, 1991.Google Scholar
6. Evans, A. G., “The Mechanical Properties of Fiber-Reinforced Ceramic, Metal and Intermetallic Matrix Composites,” High Performance Composites for the 1990's.” Eds. Das, S. K., Bullard, C. P. and Marikar, F., The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 1991.Google Scholar
7. Mackin, T. J., Warren, P. D., and Evans, A. G., “Effects of Fiber Roughness on Interface Sliding in Composites,” Acta Metall. Mater. Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 1251–1257, 1992.Google Scholar
8. Jero, P. D. and Kerans, R. J., “The Contribution of Interfacial Roughness to Sliding Friction of Ceramic Fibers in a Glass Matrix,” Scripta Met. et Mat., 24, 2315–18 (1990).Google Scholar
9. Jero, P. D., Kerans, R. J., and Parthasarathy, T. A., “Effect of Interfacial Roughness on The Frictional Stress Measured Using Push-out Tests,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., V74, pp 2793–801, Nov. 1911.Google Scholar
10. Carter, W. C., Butler, E. P., and Fuller, E. R., “Micro-Mechanical Aspects of Asperity-Controlled Friction in Fiber-Toughened Ceramic Composites,” Scripta Met. et Mat. Vol. 25, pp. 579–584, 1991.Google Scholar
11. Mackin, T. J., Yang, J. Y., Levi, C. G. and Evans, A. G.,“Environmentally compatible double coating concepts for sapphire fiber-reinforced γ-TiAl,” Mat. Sci and Eng., A161(1993) 285–293.Google Scholar
12. Warren, P. D., Mackin, T. J. and Evans, A. G., “Design, Analysis and Application of an Improved Push-Through Test For Measuring Interface Properties in Composites,” Acta Metall. Mater. Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 1243–1249, 1992.Google Scholar
13. Kerans, R. J. and Parthasarathy, T. A., “Theoretical Analysis of the Fiber Pull-out and Push-out Tests,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 74[1]585–96,1991.Google Scholar
14. Bright, J. D., Danchaivijit, S., and Shetty, D. K., “Interfacial Sliding Friction in Silicon CarbideBorosilicate Glass Composites: A Comparison of Pullout and Pushout Tests,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 74[1]115–22, 1991.Google Scholar
15. Hutchinson, J. W. and Jensen, H. M., “Models of Fiber Debonding and Pullout in Brittle Composites Wiith Friction,” Mechanics of Materials, 9, 139,1990.Google Scholar
16. Gao, Y.-C., Mai, Y.-W. and Cotterell, B., “Fracture of Fiber-Reinforced Materials,” J. Appl. Math and Phys. (ZAMP), 39, 550–572, 1988.Google Scholar
17. Walls, D., Bao, G., and Zok, F., “Effects of Fiber Failure on Fatigue Cracking in a Ti/SiC Composite,” Scripta Met. et Mat. Vol. 25, pp. 911–916, 1991.Google Scholar
18. Mackin, T. J., Yang, J. Y., and Warren, P. D., “Influence of Fiber Roughness on the Sliding Behavior of Sapphire Fibers in TiAl and Glass Matrices,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 75[12] 3358–62 (1992).Google Scholar
19. The Science of Fractal Images edited by Peitgen, H.-O. and Saupe, D., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
20. Cook, R. F., Thouless, M. D., Clarke, D. R., and Kroll, M. C., “Stick-Slip During Fibre Pullout," Scripta Met., Vol. 23, pp. 1725–1730, 1989.Google Scholar