1

METAL MATRIX COMPOSITE FILAMENT WINDING

Brian Gordon, Senior Program Manager E-mail: blg@trl.com

METAL MATRIX COMPOSITE FILAMENT WINDING

Brian Gordon, Senior Program Manager E-mail: blg@trl.com

2007 Insensitive Munitions and Energetic Materials Technology SymposiumCo

pyr

igh

t 2

00

7 T

ou

ch

sto

ne

Re

sea

rch

La

bo

rato

ry, L

td

2

OutlineOutlineTechnology Overview Metal Prepregs MMC Consolidation Methods

MMC Filament WindingRecent Results Hydrostatic Burst Testing Axial Tension and Torsion Testing Attachment Testing Impact Testing Pinned Closure Testing

MMC Design Tool DevelopmentConclusions and Future Work

Technology Overview Metal Prepregs MMC Consolidation Methods

MMC Filament WindingRecent Results Hydrostatic Burst Testing Axial Tension and Torsion Testing Attachment Testing Impact Testing Pinned Closure Testing

MMC Design Tool DevelopmentConclusions and Future Work

3

Metal Prepreg Tape and Pultruded Shapes

Metal Prepreg Tape and Pultruded Shapes

Tape Width 0.25 to 1.50Tape Thickness 0.007 to 0.020Tubing 0.25 OD, 0.015 wallAngle 0.375 per leg, 90

angle

Other sizes and shapes possible

Tape Width 0.25 to 1.50Tape Thickness 0.007 to 0.020Tubing 0.25 OD, 0.015 wallAngle 0.375 per leg, 90

angle

Other sizes and shapes possible

4

Metal Prepreg Tape PropertiesMetal Prepreg Tape Properties

Material = Al2 O3 fibers in pure AlTemperature = RTEnvironment = AirDirection = [0]

Standard Tape:Fiber volume of 50%Width of 0.5 inchThickness of 0.015 inch

Material = Al2 O3 fibers in pure AlTemperature = RTEnvironment = AirDirection = [0]

Standard Tape:Fiber volume of 50%Width of 0.5 inchThickness of 0.015 inch

Vf Density(lb/in3)

Width(in)

Thickness(in)

F1tu

(ksi)E1t

(Msi)1tu

(%)

Mean 0.50 0.119 0.377 0.0134 210 33 0.63

Tensile Sample #712

Modulus = 36.13MsiR2 = 0.9999

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007

Strain (in/in)

Stre

ss (k

si)

5

MMC Consolidation MethodsMMC Consolidation Methods

PROCESSINGMETHODS

Vacuum FurnacingVacuum Bagging

Tape/Fiber Placement Hot Pressing

Filament Winding

Hand lay-upWeighted fixtureGood for small partsGood for attachments

Hand lay-upEvacuated fixtureLarger components

Hand lay-upControlled atmosphereThicker componentsHigher fiber volumeFlat and curved panels

Automated lay-upCut/add/feed headLarge complex componentsOut-of-autoclave

Automated lay-upHigher fiber volumeLarge simple componentsOut-of-autoclave

Adhesive BondingHand lay-upRoom temperature cureBag and autoclave

6

Metal Prepreg Filament WindingMetal Prepreg Filament Winding

Analogous to PMC wet winding Based on MetPreg metal prepreg technology Spools of fiber are put on creel Tension is built into each tow Fiber bundle is dipped into the liquid matrix (molten

aluminum) to impregnate Impregnated fiber bundle is laid onto the mandrel

Low-cost, flexible processing for MMCs

Analogous to PMC wet winding Based on MetPreg metal prepreg technology Spools of fiber are put on creel Tension is built into each tow Fiber bundle is dipped into the liquid matrix (molten

aluminum) to impregnate Impregnated fiber bundle is laid onto the mandrel

Low-cost, flexible processing for MMCs

7

MMC Filament Wound Components

MMC Filament Wound Components

8

Fiber and Matrix Typical PropertiesFiber and Matrix Typical PropertiesProperty Units Fiber Matrix

Chemical Composition wt. % >99 Al2 O3 99.99 Al

Melting Point CF

20003632

6601220

Filament Diameter min (10-4)10-124-5 -

Crystal Phase - Al2 O3 -

Density g/cm3

lb/in33.9

0.1412.7

0.098

Tensile Strength MPaksi3100450

40-506-7

Tensile Modulus GPaMsi38055

629

Elongation % 0.7-0.8 50-70

Thermal Expansion (100-1100C) ppm/Cppm/F8.04.4

2514

9

Axial Tension Test ResultsAxial Tension Test Results

Sample Number E22 (Msi) 22

(ksi) Strain @ Max Stress (%)

1 16.894 11.84 0.340

2 16.704 11.90 0.327

3 15.428 10.70 0.233

Average 16.34 11.48 0.300

Std. Dev. 0.80 0.67 0.058

Cv (%) 4.88 5.9 19.5

10

Tension Test Stress-Strain CurvesTension Test Stress-Strain Curves

nn

o

o

o

1

1

)(

+

=

11

Torsion Test ResultsTorsion Test Results

Sample Number G12 (Msi) 12

(ksi) Strain @ Max Stress (%)

1 4.494 11.59 4.396

2 7.890 11.30 4.329

3 4.026 11.44 4.361

Average 5.47 11.44 4.362

Std. Dev. 2.11 1.45 0.034

Cv (%) 38.55 1.3 0.8

12

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Shear Strain (%)

Stre

ss (P

SI)

Sample 1 - TorsionSample 2 - TorsionSample 3 - Torsion

Torsion Test Stress-Strain CurvesTorsion Test Stress-Strain Curves

13

Uniaxial Hydroburst TestingUniaxial Hydroburst Testing

14StrengthFiber lTheoretica

StrengthFiber DeliveredEfficiencyn Translatio

StrengthFiber Delivered

Strength Lamina Delivered

=

=

=

ftVpr

tpr

80% Translation Efficiency

80% Translation Efficiency

Uniaxial Hydroburst Test ResultsUniaxial Hydroburst Test ResultsWall

Thickness(in)

Length(in)

InnerRadius

(in)

FiberVolumeFraction

BurstPressure

(psi)

DeliveredLaminaStrength

(psi)

DeliveredFiber

Strength(psi)

Hoop Only[89]4

0.051 6.000 2.000 0.33 2700 105,882 320,856

15

Biaxial Hydroburst TestingBiaxial Hydroburst Testing

16

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050

Strain (in/in)

Stre

ss (p

si)

Cylinder Stress-Strain Response [45/89/89/45] Biaxial Hydroburst

Cylinder Stress-Strain Response [45/89/89/45] Biaxial Hydroburst

Failure Driven by Hoop StressFailure Driven by Hoop Stress

10 Gage10 Gage

17

Process DevelopmentsProcess DevelopmentsLow-angle helical winding - 20Low-angle helical winding - 20

Integrally Wound Domes and SkirtsIntegrally Wound Domes and Skirts

18

Attachment TestAttachment Test

19

Attachment Test SummaryAttachment Test Summary

WallThickness

(in)

FiberVolumeFraction

BurstPressure

(psi)

DeliveredHoopStress(psi)

HoopFiberStress(psi)

Translation Efficiency

(%)

Recent Cylinder Tests

0.050 0.43 2812 111,843 263,174 66

MIG 0.051 0.42 2235 87,087 207,349 52

Pulse MIG 0.052 0.42 2030 78,839 189,989 48

20

Bolt Hole TestBolt Hole Test

CylinderID

BurstPressure

(psi)

Delivered HoopStress(psi)

Hoop FiberStress(psi)

Translation Efficiency

(%)

100505 1078 40,679 104,306 26

101005 1257 50,280 125,700 31

21

Impact TestImpact Test6-ply cylinders2-lb weight0.625-inch indenterDrop heights of 6 and 12 inchesHydroburst testing after impact

6-ply cylinders2-lb weight0.625-inch indenterDrop heights of 6 and 12 inchesHydroburst testing after impact

CylinderID

DropHeight

(in)

BurstPressure

(psi)

Delivered HoopStress(psi)

Hoop FiberStress(psi)

TranslationEfficiency

(%)

100405 6 1686 64,846 162,115 41

100605 12 1065 40,189 100,472 25

22

Pinned Closure TestPinned Closure Test

23

Pinned Closure Test SummaryPinned Closure Test Summary

Tests were to establish baseline propertiesDetailed stress analysis not yet completedAT 1000 psi internal pressure, the stress in the MMC near each hole would be over 56 ksiThis is comparable to a quasi-isotropic PMCLower helical angle would dramatically effect the results

Tests were to establish baseline propertiesDetailed stress analysis not yet completedAT 1000 psi internal pressure, the stress in the MMC near each hole would be over 56 ksiThis is comparable to a quasi-isotropic PMCLower helical angle would dramatically effect the results

0200400600800

10001200

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (sec)

Pres

sure

(psi

)

24

MMC Design Tool DevelopmentMMC Design Tool DevelopmentDesign tool for modeling MMC behavior is being developed for predicting properties of cylindersFiber strength adjusted to match burst pressure from uniaxial hydroburst tests (first row of table)Model predictions show good agreement with biaxial experimental data when the failure mode is hoop fiber failure (rows two and four)Other failure modes, such as helical fiber or matrix failure, show slight discrepancy from experimental results (row three)Model validation and modification is on-going

Design tool for modeling MMC behavior is being developed for predicting properties of cylindersFiber strength adjusted to match burst pressure from uniaxial hydroburst tests (first row of table)Model predictions show good agreement with biaxial experimental data when the failure mode is hoop fiber failure (rows two and four)Other failure modes, such as helical fiber or matrix failure, show slight discrepancy from experimenta