1、Designation: C1359 11Standard Test Method forMonotonic Tensile Strength Testing of Continuous Fiber-Reinforced Advanced Ceramics With Solid RectangularCross-Section Test Specimens at Elevated Temperatures1This standard is issued under the fixed designation C1359; the number immediately following the
2、 designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope*1.1 This test method covers
3、the determination of tensilestrength including stress-strain behavior under monotonic uni-axial loading of continuous fiber-reinforced advanced ceramicsat elevated temperatures. This test method addresses, but is notrestricted to, various suggested test specimen geometries aslisted in the appendix.
4、In addition, test specimen fabricationmethods, testing modes (force, displacement, or strain control),testing rates (force rate, stress rate, displacement rate, or strainrate), allowable bending, temperature control, temperaturegradients, and data collection and reporting procedures areaddressed. Te
5、nsile strength as used in this test method refers tothe tensile strength obtained under monotonic uniaxial loadingwhere monotonic refers to a continuous nonstop test rate withno reversals from test initiation to final fracture.1.2 This test method applies primarily to advanced ceramicmatrix composit
6、es with continuous fiber reinforcement: uni-directional (1-D), bi-directional (2-D), and tri-directional (3-D)or other multi-directional reinforcements. In addition, this testmethod may also be used with glass (amorphous) matrixcomposites with 1-D, 2-D, 3-D and other multi-directionalcontinuous fibe
7、r reinforcements. This test method does notdirectly address discontinuous fiber-reinforced, whisker-reinforced, or particulate-reinforced ceramics, although the testmethods detailed here may be equally applicable to thesecomposites.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as thestandard
8、and are in accordance with SI10-02 IEEE/ASTM SI10 .1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of
9、regulatory limitations prior to use. Refer to Section 7for specific precautions.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2C1145 Terminology of Advanced CeramicsD3878 Terminology for Composite MaterialsE4 Practices for Force Verification of Testing MachinesE6 Terminology Relating to Methods of Mecha
10、nical TestingE21 Test Methods for Elevated Temperature Tension Testsof Metallic MaterialsE83 Practice for Verification and Classification of Exten-someter SystemsE220 Test Method for Calibration of Thermocouples ByComparison TechniquesE337 Test Method for Measuring Humidity with a Psy-chrometer (the
11、 Measurement of Wet- and Dry-Bulb Tem-peratures)E1012 Practice for Verification of Test Frame and SpecimenAlignment Under Tensile and Compressive Axial ForceApplicationSI10-02 IEEE/ASTM SI 10 American National Standardfor Use of the International System of Units (SI): TheModern Metric System3. Termi
12、nology3.1 Definitions:3.1.1 Definitions of terms relating to tensile testing, ad-vanced ceramics, fiber-reinforced composites as they appear inTerminology E6, Terminology C1145, and TerminologyD3878, respectively, apply to the terms used in this testmethod. Pertinent definitions are shown in the fol
13、lowing withthe appropriate source given in parentheses. Additional termsused in conjunction with this test method are defined in 3.2.3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:3.2.1 advanced ceramic, nhighly engineered, high-performance predominately nonmetallic, inorganic, ceramicmaterial h
14、aving specific functional attributes. C11453.2.2 axial strain LL1, naverage longitudinal strainsmeasured at the surface on opposite sides of the longitudinal1This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C28 onAdvanced Ceramics and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee C28.07 o
15、nCeramic Matrix Composites.Current edition approved July 15, 2011. Published August 2011. Originallyapproved in 1996. Last previous edition approved in 2005 as C1359 05. DOI:10.1520/C1359-11.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serv
16、iceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.1*A Summary of Changes section appears at the end of this standard.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, Uni
17、ted States.axis of symmetry of the specimen by two strain-sensingdevices located at the mid length of the reduced section.E10123.2.3 bending strain LL1, ndifference between thestrain at the surface and the axial strain. In general, the bendingstrain varies from point to point around and along the re
18、ducedsection of the specimen. E10123.2.4 breaking force F, nforce at which fracture occurs.E63.2.5 ceramic matrix composite, nmaterial consisting oftwo or more materials (insoluble in one another), in which themajor, continuous component (matrix component) is a ceramic,while the secondary component(
19、s) (reinforcing component)may be ceramic, glass-ceramic, glass, metal, or organic innature. These components are combined on a macroscale toform a useful engineering material possessing certain proper-ties or behavior not possessed by the individual constituents.3.2.6 continuous fiber-reinforced cer
20、amic matrix composite(CFCC), nceramic matrix composite in which the reinforc-ing phase consists of a continuous fiber, continuous yarn, or awoven fabric.3.2.7 fracture strength FL2, ntensile stress that thematerial sustains at the instant of fracture. Fracture strength iscalculated from the force at
21、 fracture during a tension testcarried to rupture and the original cross-sectional area of thespecimen. E63.2.7.1 DiscussionIn some cases, the fracture strengthmay be identical to the tensile strength if the force at fractureis the maximum for the test.3.2.8 gage length L, noriginal length of that p
22、ortion ofthe specimen over which strain or change of length is deter-mined. E63.2.9 matrix-cracking stress FL2, napplied tensilestress at which the matrix cracks into a series of roughlyparallel blocks normal to the tensile stress.3.2.9.1 DiscussionIn some cases, the matrix crackingstress may be ind
23、icated on the stress-strain curve by deviationfrom linearity (proportional limit) or incremental drops in thestress with increasing strain. In other cases, especially withmaterials which do not possess a linear portion of the stress-strain curve, the matrix cracking stress may be indicated as thefir
24、st stress at which a permanent offset strain is detected in theunloading stress-strain (elastic limit) curve.3.2.10 modulus of elasticity FL2, nratio of stress tocorresponding strain below the proportional limit. E63.2.11 modulus of resilience FLL3, nstrain energy perunit volume required to elastica
25、lly stress the material from zeroto the proportional limit indicating the ability of the material toabsorb energy when deformed elastically and return it whenunloaded.3.2.12 modulus of toughness FLL3, nstrain energy perunit volume required to stress the material from zero to finalfracture indicating
26、 the ability of the material to absorb energybeyond the elastic range (that is, damage tolerance of thematerial).3.2.12.1 DiscussionThe modulus of toughness can also bereferred to as the cumulative damage energy and as such isregarded as an indication of the ability of the material to sustaindamage
27、rather than as a material property. Fracture mechanicsmethods for the characterization of CFCCs have not beendeveloped. The determination of the modulus of toughness asprovided in this test method for the characterization of thecumulative damage process in CFCCs may become obsoletewhen fracture mech
28、anics methods for CFCCs become avail-able.3.2.13 proportional limit stress FL2, ngreatest stresswhich a material is capable of sustaining without any deviationfrom proportionality of stress to strain (Hookes law). E63.2.13.1 DiscussionMany experiments have shown thatvalues observed for the proportio
29、nal limit vary greatly with thesensitivity and accuracy of the testing equipment, eccentricityof loading, the scale to which the stress-strain diagram isplotted, and other factors. When determination of proportionallimit is required, the procedure and sensitivity of the testequipment shall be specif
30、ied.3.2.14 percent bending, nbending strain times 100 di-vided by the axial strain. E10123.2.15 slow crack growth (SCG), nsubcritical crackgrowth (extension) which may result from, but is not restrictedto, such mechanisms as environmentally-assisted stress corro-sion or diffusive crack growth. C1145
31、3.2.16 tensile strength FL2, nmaximum tensile stresswhich a material is capable of sustaining. Tensile strength iscalculated from the maximum force during a tension testcarried to rupture and the original cross-sectional area of thespecimen. E64. Significance and Use4.1 This test method may be used
32、for material development,material comparison, quality assurance, characterization, reli-ability assessment, and design data generation.4.2 Continuous fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix compositesgenerally characterized by crystalline matrices and ceramicfiber reinforcements are candidate materials for
33、structuralapplications requiring high degrees of wear and corrosionresistance, and elevated-temperature inherent damage toler-ance (that is, toughness). In addition, continuous fiber-reinforced glass (amorphous) matrix composites are candidatematerials for similar but possibly less-demanding applica
34、tions.Although flexural test methods are commonly used to evaluatestrengths of monolithic advanced ceramics, the non-uniformstress distribution of the flexure test specimen in addition todissimilar mechanical behavior in tension and compression forCFCCs leads to ambiguity of interpretation of streng
35、th resultsobtained from flexure tests for CFCCs. Uniaxially-loadedtensile-strength tests provide information on mechanical be-havior and strength for a uniformly stressed material.4.3 Unlike monolithic advanced ceramics that fracture cata-strophically from a single dominant flaw, CFCCs generallyexpe
36、rience 8graceful (that is, non-catastrophic, ductile-likestress-strain behavior) fracture from a cumulative damageprocess. Therefore, the volume of material subjected to auniform tensile stress for a single uniaxially-loaded tensile testmay not be as significant a factor in determining the ultimates
37、trengths of CFCCs. However, the need to test a statisticallysignificant number of tensile test specimens is not obviated.Therefore, because of the probabilistic nature of the strengthsC1359 112of the brittle fibers and matrices of CFCCs, a sufficient numberof test specimens at each testing condition
38、 is required forstatistical analysis and design. Studies to determine the influ-ence of test specimen volume or surface area on strengthdistributions for CFCCs have not been completed. It should benoted that tensile strengths obtained using different recom-mended tensile test specimen geometries wit
39、h different vol-umes of material in the gage sections may be different due tothese volume differences.4.4 Tensile tests provide information on the strength anddeformation of materials under uniaxial tensile stresses. Uni-form stress states are required to effectively evaluate anynon-linear stress-st
40、rain behavior that may develop as the resultof cumulative damage processes (for example, matrix cracking,matrix/fiber debonding, fiber fracture, delamination, and soforth) that may be influenced by testing mode, testing rate,effects of processing or combinations of constituent materials,environmenta
41、l influences, or elevated temperatures. Some ofthese effects may be consequences of stress corrosion or subcritical (slow) crack growth that can be minimized by testing atsufficiently rapid rates as outlined in this test method.4.5 The results of tensile tests of test specimens fabricatedto standard
42、ized dimensions from a particular material orselected portions of a part, or both, may not totally representthe strength and deformation properties of the entire, full-sizeend product or its in-service behavior in different environmentsor various elevated temperatures.4.6 For quality control purpose
43、s, results derived from stan-dardized tensile test specimens may be considered indicative ofthe response of the material from which they were taken for theparticular primary processing conditions and post-processingheat treatments.4.7 The tensile behavior and strength of a CFCC aredependent on its i
44、nherent resistance to fracture, the presence offlaws, or damage accumulation processes, or both. Analysis offracture surfaces and fractography, though beyond the scope ofthis test method, is recommended.5. Interferences5.1 Test environment (vacuum, inert gas, ambient air, etc.)including moisture con
45、tent (for example, relative humidity)may have an influence on the measured tensile strength. Inparticular, the behavior of materials susceptible to slow crackgrowth fracture will be strongly influenced by test environ-ment, testing rate, and elevated temperature of the test.Conduct tests to evaluate
46、 the maximum strength potential of amaterial in inert environments or at sufficiently rapid testingrates, or both, to minimize slow crack growth effects. Con-versely, conduct tests in environments or at test modes, or both,and rates representative of service conditions to evaluatematerial performanc
47、e under use conditions. Monitor and reportrelative humidity (RH) and temperature when testing is con-ducted in uncontrolled ambient air with the intent of evaluatingmaximum strength potential. Testing at humidity levels 65 %RH is not recommended.5.2 Surface preparation of test specimens, although no
48、r-mally not considered a major concern in CFCCs, can introducefabrication flaws which may have pronounced effects on tensilemechanical properties and behavior (for example, shape andlevel of the resulting stress-strain curve, tensile strength andstrain, proportional limit stress and strain, and so f
49、orth).Machining damage introduced during test specimen prepara-tion can be either a random interfering factor in the determi-nation of ultimate strength of pristine material (that is, increasefrequency of surface-initiated fractures compared to volume-initiated fractures), or an inherent part of the strength charac-teristics to be measured. Surface preparation can also lead tothe introduction of residual stresses. Universal or standardizedmethods for surface preparation do not exist. In addition, thenature of fabrication used for
