Thermal expansion behaviour of ultra-high modulus carbon fibre reinforced magnesium composite during thermal cycling
- 219 Downloads
The thermally induced strain response of unidirectional P100S/AZ91D carbon fibre-reinforced magnesium composite was studied over five cycles in the ±100 °C temperature range. A temperature-dependent one-dimensional model was employed to predict the anticipated response to the cycling thermal environment. Strain hysteresis was observed during cycling and attributed to matrix yielding. First cycle residual plastic strains were modelled with reasonable agreement. Experimental results deviated from predictions during subsequent cycles with continued thermal ratcheting shifting the hysteresis loops to higher strains with increasing cycles. This was thought to be associated with interfacial debonding and frictional sliding at fibre/matrix interfaces. The effect of thermal treatment on composite expansion behaviour was investigated and the results discussed in terms of minimising thermally induced deformations during anticipated service conditions. Treatments were found to affect the first cycle behaviour, reducing in particular residual plastic strain generation. Matrix yield strength was exceeded over the thermal cycle due to a lack of sufficient hardening, and since interfacial conditions were unaltered, interfacial sliding and thermal ratcheting could not be eliminated. The potential for improvement of C/Mg composite thermal strain response was explored in the light of the current findings.
KeywordsThermal Cycle Thermal Strain Discontinuous Precipitate Fibre Matrix Interface Thermal Expansion Behaviour
The authors wish to thank P. Allen, Hexcel Composites, Duxford, England for kindly allowing the use of the Linseis cryogenic dilatometer and J. Reiter (LKR) for the fabrication of C/Mg specimens. Thanks are also due to P. Schulz (LKR) for his valuable discussions.
- 1.Maclean BJ, Misra MS (1982) In: Proc Symp Mechanical Behaviour of Metal Matrix Composites. AIME, Dallas, TX, pp 195–212Google Scholar
- 2.Wolff EG, Kendall EG, Riley WC (1980) In: Proc 3rd Int Conf Comp Mater Paris 26–29 August. Pergamon Press, pp 1140–1152Google Scholar
- 6.Min BK, Crossman FW (1981) In: Hahn TA (ed) Proc 8th Int Thermal Expansion Symp. National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland; Plenum, New York, pp 175–188, June 1981Google Scholar
- 7.Kiehn J, Bohm E, Kainer KU (1997) In: Proc 1st Int Conf Ceramic and Metal Matrix Composites, vol 127. pp 861–867Google Scholar
- 11.Tompkins SS (1989) In: Johnson WS (ed) Metal matrix composites: testing, analysis, and failure modes – ASTM STP 1032. ASTM, Philadelphia, pp 54–67Google Scholar
- 12.Tompkins SS, Sharpe GR (1986) In: Proc 18th Int SAMPE Technical Conf. SAMPE, pp 623–637Google Scholar
- 25.Beffort O, Hausmann C (2000) Magnesium alloys and their applications. Wiley-VCH, Munich, Germany, pp 215Google Scholar
- 28.Polmear IJ (1981) Light alloys—metallurgy of the light alloys. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 29.Chin ESC, Nunes J (1987) J Met 39(10):A32Google Scholar