Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:32:21.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

X-ray Elastic Constants for β-SiC and Residual Stress Anisotropy in a Hot-Pressed Al2O3/SiC(Whisker) Composite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Paul Predecki
Affiliation:
Engineering Deptartment, University of Denver, Denver CO
Alias Abuhasan
Affiliation:
Engineering Deptartment, University of Denver, Denver CO
Charles S. Barrett
Affiliation:
Engineering Deptartment, University of Denver, Denver CO
Get access

Abstract

X-ray elastic constants for the 511+333 and the 422 reflections of β-SiC were calculated from the single crystal data of Tolpygo using the Voigt-Reuss, Eshelby-Kroner and x-ray methods. Agreement was satisfactory for the 511+333, but less so for the 422. A hot-pressed α-Al2O3/ 29 vol % β-SiC (whisker) composite was investigated on its 3 principal faces. The total residual strains were found to be consistently anisotropic on all 3 faces suggesting that texture was present in the whiskers as a result of hot-pressing. Assuming no texture in the matrix, it was found possible to determine the average residual microstresses in the whiskers using the theory of Noyan and Cohen, without needing to know the whisker elastic constants or texture. The average microstresses were determined in each phase as well as the average residual macrostresses on each face.

Type
XII. Analysis of Stress and Fracture by Diffraction Methods
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1990

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. Predecki, P., Abuhasan, A. and Barrett, C. S.. Advances in X-rav Analysis 31, 231243 (1988).Google Scholar
2. Majumdar, S.. Kupperman, D. and Singh, J.. J. Am. Ceram, Soc. 71[10] 858-63 (1988).Google Scholar
3. Kuppernian, D., Majumdar, S. and MacEwen, S. R., 1987 Review of Progress in Quantitative NDE Vol.7B, pp.961-69, Plenum, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
4. Abuhasan, A. and Predecki, P., Advances in X-ray Analysis. 32, 471–79 (1989).10.1154/S0376030800020796Google Scholar
5. Abuhasan, A., Balasingh, C. and Predecki, P., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 73[8] 2474-84 (1990).Google Scholar
6. Li, Z. and Bradt, R. C., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 72[1] 7077 (1989).10.1111/j.1151-2916.1989.tb05956.xGoogle Scholar
7. Hsueh, C. H., Becher, P. F., and Angethni, P., J, Am. Ceram. Soc. 71[11] 929-33 (1988).Google Scholar
8. Kurita, M., Ihara, I. and Saito, A., Advances in X-ray Analysis. 32, 363–72 (1990).Google Scholar
9. Tolpygo, K. B., Sov. Phys.Solid State 2, 2367 (1961).Google Scholar
10. Dolle, H., J. Applied Cryst. 12, 489501 (1979).10.1107/S0021889879013169Google Scholar
11. Nye, J. F., “Physical Properties of Crystals”, Oxford (1960), p 134.Google Scholar
12. Noyan, I. C. and Cohen, J. B., Mater. Sri. Eng. 75, 179–93 (1985).Google Scholar
13. Cohen, J. B., Powder Diffraction. 1[2] 1521 (1986).10.1017/S0885715600011507Google Scholar
14. Abuhasan, A., PhD Thesis (Physics), University of Denver, Denver CO. (1990).Google Scholar
15. Noyan, I. C. and Cohen, J. B., “Residual Stress”, Springer-Verlag 1987, pp. 52 and 55.Google Scholar
16. Mura, T., “Micromechanics of Defects in Solids” 2nd Ed., Nijhoff 1987, p 395.10.1007/978-94-009-3489-4Google Scholar
17. Noyan, I. C.. Metall. Trans. A. 14A., 1907-14 (1983).10.1007/BF02645562Google Scholar