Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 2 1005-5066 

ARL-TR-2430 March 2001 

Tensile Strengths of Silicon Carbide (SIC) 

Under Shock Loading 

Dattatraya P. Dandekar and Peter T. Bartkowski 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
Abstract 

The present work was initiated to measure and compare tensile strengths (i.e., spa11 

thresholds) of five different types/varieties of silicon carbide materials. Two of these 

materials were sintered, and the remaining three were hot-pressed. Three types of silicon 

carbides (one sintered by Sohio and. the other two hot-pressed by Cercom) were 

manufactured in the United States. The remaining two varieties of silicon carbides were 

manufactured in France. Spa11 strengths of these five different silicon carbide materials 

were measured by performing plane shock wave experiments to a maximum impactgenerated stress level of 17 GPa on the light gas-gun facility at the U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory (ARJ2). The single most important result of this investigation is that spa11 

strength of silicon carbide, irrespective of its manufacturing process, improves initially to 

a certain impact stress level before it begins to deteriorate under higher impact stress. 

The decline in the spa11 strength of both sintered materials and Cercom SIC-B begin at an 

impact stress between 3-5 GPa. SIC-N data have a very large scatter. Spa11 strength of 

the French sintered and hot-pressed material increases to an impact stress of 11.7 GPa. 

Its spa11 strength increases from 0.8 GPa at an impact stress of 1.6 GPa to 1.8 GPa at an 

impact stress of 11.7 GPa. In terms of spa11 strength, the French sintered and hot-pressed 

materials show the least scatter and largest increase with an increase in the impact stress. 

The results of the present work thus offer new challenges to modeling ceramic materials. 

4 

ii 
Table of Contents 

Page 

List of Figures _______........f..f..f...._______.___f_._.. ee . . . . . . . . .._.___._____.__________..ff..ff..............f._.f.__ v 

List of Tables . . ..f...ff._f_____._...~~...............-----..-..-..-.-~.......................-.--............- : ____. __..+. vii 

1. Introduction ._____f..f....f..f._._____~_f........~.......____.______._________.......f........f...... _ ..._...._._.___ 1 

2. Materials . .._._. ___ __ ______-.. e ff.......f..f._._. ._. . ._ ._.. . -... . . . . . ..-.-. . . . . . . ..__..__. .._....__......... 2 

2.1 

2.1.1 

2.1.2 

2.1.3 

2.2 

U.S. Materials .................. . ................................................................................... 

Sohio Material: Sintered SiC ........................................................................ 

Hot-Pressed Sic Sic-B .................................................................................. 

Hot-Pressed Sic Sic-N .................................................................................. 

French Sic ........................................................................................................... 

3. Material Properties ____.__________.ff....f.........ff..._._______________._______________..f._._ + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.3.1 

3.3.2 

Elemental Composition ........................................................................................ 

Microstructure ...................................................................................................... 

Density and Elastic Constants .............................................................................. 

Density ........................................................................................................... 

Elastic Constants ........................................................................................... 

4. Design of Shock Experiments ________..~......~........f........________________.______________.__.

11 

5. Results f_____f.._.f...f.........f.._......___________________ff.. e ....f...f......f.._.. -_ f..._..............._....._....._.. 13 

5.1 

5.2 

5.2.1 

5.2.2 

5.2.2.1 

5.2.2.2 

5.2.3 

5.2.4 

5.2.4.1 

5.2.4.2 

5.2.4.3 

5.2.4.4 

Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 

Results of Spa11 Experiments ......................................................... . ...................... 

Sintered Sic ................................................................................................... 

Hot-Pressed SiC ............................................................................................. 

Sic-B ........................................................................................................ 

Sic-N ........................................................................................................ 

French Sintered and Hot-Pressed SiC ........................................................... 

Summary ______.____ff.f....f..f_...f..f.,ff._.._.__.___________________. _ _...............+....,..... _ _..._..._._ 

Spa11 Strength Variation Trend. . . . . . . ...+.. ,*... .f.f... . __ . .. . . _.__ ______ _. _._ . . __........... 

Sohio Material fffff_.f_________________.___._._._.__.I._._..f...f...ff.....f.f,f.________.____

Spa11 Threshold Increase ..ffff.,..f._ff_.________________________..__..__.._...f...f..f.f__.f.

Free-Surface Velocity Decline........... . . . . . . + ++.. +++ . . .. . . . .._________________________....ff 

13 

19 

19 

21 

25 

25 

26 

30 

30 

30 

31 

31 

. . . 

111 
6. 

7. 

8. 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 

Future Work.. ........................................................................................................... 

References ................................................................................................................. 

Distribution List.. ..................................................................................................... 

Report Documentation Page ................................................................................... 

3 1 

34 

37 

39 

45 

iv 
List of Figures 

. 

Fiwe 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

1X. 

Microphotograph of Sohio Sintered Sic .................................................................... 

Microphotograph of French Sintered Sic .................................................................. 

Microphotograph of Hot-Pressed SiC-B .................................................................... 

Microphotograph of Hot-Pressed Sic-N .................................................................... 

Microphotograph of French Sintered and Hot-Pressed SIC ....................................... 

Variation in Ultrasonic Wave Velocities as a Function of Density in SIC ............... 

Two Configurations of Symmetric Transmission Experiments With a PMMA 

Window and Without a PMMA Window. _____._____________.___: ......................................... 

A Schematic of Stress vs. Particle Velocity for Shock, Release, and Tensile Paths 

in an Elastic-Plastic Material for Analyzing Wave Profile Data ............................... 

Free-Surface Velocity in Profiles in Sic, Impact Velocity 0.08 km/s ....................... 

Velocity Profiles in Sic, Impact Velocity 0.6 km/s ................................................... 

Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of Sohio Sic. .......................................................... 

Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of French Sintered Sic. ................................... 1...._. 

Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of SIC-B. ................................................................ 

Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of Sic-N. ................................................................ 

Free-Surface Velocity Profiles in SIC-N .................................................................... 

Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of French Sintered and Hot-Pressed Sic ................ 

Free-Surface Velocity Profiles in French Sintered and Hot-Pressed Sic .................. 

Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of French Sintered and Hot-Isostatically-Pressed 

SIC and Hot-Pressed Sic ........................................................................ . .................. 

m 

6 

6 

7 

7 

8 

10 

12 

13 

15 

15 

20 

21 

25 

26 

27 

29 

29 

34 

V 
* 

INTENTIONALLY LEFTBLANK 

vi 
List of Tables 

Table 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

Elemental Compositions of Sic Materials ................................................................. 

Density and Ultrasonic Wave Velocities of Five Sic Materials.. .............................. 

Elastic Constants of Sic Materials ............................................................................ 

Data From Transmission Experiments on Sohio Sintered Sic.. ................................ 

Smnrnary of the Results of Transmission Experiments on Sohio Sintered SIC. ....... 

Data From Transmission Experiments on French Sintered Sic ................................ 

Summary of the Results of Transmission Experiments on French Sintered SIC ....... 

Data From Transmission Experiments on Sic-B ....................................................... 

Summary of the Results of Transmission Experiments on SIC-B. ....... .._._..__._...*.____ . 

Data From Transmission Experiments on SIC-N. ..................................................... 

Summary of the Results of Transmission Experiments on SIC-N. ............................ 

Data From Transmission Experiments on French Sintered and Hot-Pressed Sic.. ... 

Summary of the Results of Transmission Experiments on French Sintered and 

Hot-Pressed Sic. ........................................................................................................ 

& 

S 

8 

10 

16 

16 

17 

17 

18 

22 

23 

24 

28 

28 

vii 
? 

INTENTIONAUY~BLANK 

,.. 

vlll 
1. Introduction 

r 

Materials play an important role in the design of an armor system. An advanced armor 

system is composed of a complex combination of different materials. These materials include 

ceramic, metal, and polymer matrix composites. The primary function of ceramic is to 

reduce/disintegrate the impacting projectile through rupture, blunting, and erosion. Ceramic 

materials are attractive because of their low density, high hardness, high elastic modulii, low 

compressibility, and good weathering and erosion resistance property. However, it is not yet 

clear what combination of mechanical and physical properties under a given geometrical 

configuration will make ceramics relatively impenetrable to a given projectile at a given impact 

velocity. However, since materials used in an armor system are subject to high strain rates of 

deformation. at and around the impact locations, it is necessary to measure relevant mechanical 

and physical properties of the materials under similar loading conditions in the laboratory. In 

other words, experiments must be conducted to determine properties of the materials under welldefined impact conditions. 

Under plane shock wave loading, the properties of a material under inertial confinement are 

measured under shock wave-induced stress and one-dimensional strain (1-D) in the direction of 

wave propagation. Thus, the properties of a material measured under plane shock wave loading 

reflect the best performance that the material is expected to display in an impact loading 

condition (in terms of its compressibility, shear strength, and tensile strength) because it is not 

influenced by the geometry of the material configuration. Earlier works on ceramics have shown 

that compressive and shear strength of a polycrystalline armor ceramic do not seem to deteriorate 

under single shock (Dandekar and Benfanti 1993) and release or under repeated shock-release 

loading cycle (Dandekar 1994a, 19944). On the other hand, tensile strengths (i.e., spa11 

threshold) degrade significantly both when subjected to increasing magnitude of impact stress 

under single shock and release and under repeated shock-release cycle (Dandekar 1992, 

Dandekar and Benfanti 1993; Dandekar and Bartkowski 1994). Additionally, it has been 

suggested that the presence of minor void-volume fraction and microcracks in ceramics do not 

1 
degrade their compressive properties significantly @wart and Dandekar 1994). The tensile 

strengths of these materials, however, are very sensitive to the presence of voids and 

microcracks. Briefly, as long as a ceramic is under compression under uniaxial strain condition, 

these flaws do not significantly reduce its compressibility or shear strength, but, as soon as a 

flawed material is subjected to tensile loading condition, propagation of microcracks degrade 

tensile strength of the material significantly. 

The present work was initiated to measure and compare tensile strengths (i.e., spa11 

thresholds) of five different types/varieties of silicon carbide (SIC) materials. Three types of Sic 

were manufactured in the United States. The remaining two varieties of Sic were manufactured 

in France. Spa11 strengths of these five different Sic materials were measured by performing 

plane shock wave experiments to a maximum impact-generated stress level of 17 GPa on the 

light gas-gun facility at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL). It is planned to recover 

shock-deformed material in future experiments to determine the statistics of microcracks in order 

to investigate their role in the observed spa11 strength. The results of the present work also offer 

new challenges to modeling ceramic materials since the tensile strength (measured spa11 

strengths) of SIC initially increases with an increase in the impact stress before showing a decline 

at higher impact stresses. 

2. Materials 

2.1 U.S. Materials. Sic materials were produced either by sintering or by hot-pressing SIC 

powder. The sintered SIC was manufactured by Sohio, and the remaining two hot-pressed 

materials, Sic-B and Sic-N, were manufactured by Cercom, Inc. The processing of Sic being 

proprietary, the details of processing are not disclosed by the manufacturers. Mechanical 

properties of Sic produced by either of the aforementioned two means are dependent on grain 

size of the powder, processing temperature, sintering aids, powder-blending process, and 

elemental composition and stoichiometry of the compounds present in the processed materials. 

All powders have some metallic impurities. These are introduced during the powder 

2 
manufacturing process In addition, SIC cannot be consolidated without sintering aids. The 

conventional sintering aids for consolidating Sic powder are boron, carbon, and aluminum 

nitride: -. 

2.1.1 Sohio Material: Sintered Sic. The Sohio sintered material is produced from SIC 

powder mixed with sintering aids. The mixed powder is precompacted to roughly 70% of the 

theoretical density of fully compacted Sic or single-crystal density. The precompact material is 

then heated to 2,023-2,473 K for sintering. Since sintered material uses thermal energy for 

densification, the resultant material never achieves the theoretical density and has a porosity in 

the range of 2-5%. The gram size varied between 2 and 15 urn, with an average grain size of 

4 pm. 

2.1.2 Hot-Pressed Sic Sic-B. Sic-B material uses aluminum nitride as an sintering aid. 

This material has a unique microstructure. All impurities segregate in small, well-dispersed 

clusters along the Sic grain boundaries. The blended powder, containing SIC and sintering aid, 

is loaded into a graphite die and then hot-pressed at around 2,273 K under 1X MPa. Since 

2,273 K is higher than the melting temperature of the metallic impurities, the melted metals can 

aggregate to form inclusions in the consolidated SIC. Sintering aids promote formation of these 

inclusions through creating favorable environs to wet Sic grain, surfaces, thus spreading the 

melt. The average grain size of this material is 4 pm with the size ranging between 2-10 urn. 

2.1.3 Hot-Pressed Sic Sic-N SIC-N is a refined product of SIC-B, with a proprietary 

powder homogenization and use of organic binder. The organic binder burns out during the hotpressing of the powder, leaving behind some carbon, which depletes the oxide layer on the 

powder. The net effect is to reduce the glassy oxide phase in the fmal consolidated product. The 

average grain size of SIC-N is 4 pm. The range of grain sizes lies between l-8 pm. Shih (1998) 

provides additional details about the manufacturing of these two Cercom SIC. 

I 3 
2.2 French SIC. Ceramiques & Composites Society manufactured sintered French material 

by the pressureless sintering process. The pore volume fraction in the material is 4.2%. The 

> 

mean pore size is l-2 pm. SIC grains are equiaxed with a mean grain diameter being 6 urn. 

Sintering was facilitated by the addition of carbon and boron, which led to formation of boron 

carbide in the material. The mean size of boron carbide particles are 3.0 f 1.8 urn. Free carbon 

particles are also present in the materials. I 

Sintered material, described previously, was hot-pressed to obtain French sintered and M 

hot-pressed Sic. The hot processing reduced the pore volume fraction in the hot-pressed 

material to 2.5%. The mean grain size, the composition, and the crystallographic configuration 

remained the same as in the sintered material. 

3. Material Properties 

The following properties were determinedlinvestigated before shock wave experiments were 

performed: elemental composition, average grain size and microstructure, density, ‘and elastic 

constants. 

3.1 Elemental Composition. The elemental compositions of the five Sic materials (in 

weight percentage) are given in Table 1. These five materials have comparable impurities 

contained in them. These minor differences themselves may possibly influence the tensile 

strength of these materials only through the presence of glassy phase and pore volume fraction in 

the materials serving as the weak links in the cohesivity of the materials. 

3.2 Microstructure. Micrographs showing the grain structure of each of the five materials 

are given in Figures l-5. Micrographs were taken at 1,000x. These figures display no 

significant difference in the microstructures of these materials at the magnification shown, except 

that the sintered materials have larger porosity than the hot-pressed materials. The Sohio and 

French sintered and hot-pressed materials showed evidence of elongated grain growth in their 

4 
Table 1. Elemental Compositions of Sic Materials (in Weight Percentage) 

B 10.81 - <o-o1 - 

W 183.85 - - 10.01 

micrographs. These micrographs do not indicate a significant population of cracks or 

microcracks. 

3.3 Density and Elastic Constants. The densities of five materials were measured by 

Archimedes method. Their elastic constants were obtained from the measured ultrasonic 

longitudinal and shear wave velocities. The wave velocities were measured by wave overlap 

technique (Papadakis 1967). The ultrasonic longitudinal and shear wave velocities were 

performed at 10 and 5 MHz, respectively. The average values of density and wave velocities are 

given in Table 2. 

5 



the density of Sic implies that the sintered Sic made by Sohio has relatively less void volume 

than the French sintered material. 

‘ Belayt and Cottenot (1996) reported that French SIC material is primarily in 6H polytype 

phase though 4H polytype is also found to be present. They report density values of the French 

? sintered and sintered and hot-pressed materials to be 3.13 and 3.17 Mg/m3. Table 2 shows that 

these are in good agreement with this report’s measurements of densities of these materials. The 

1 densities of Sic-B and SIC-N indicate them to be fully dense, but the French sintered and HIP 

material appears to have estimated porosity measured by void-volume fraction to be 3.7%. 

3.3.2 Elastic Constants. The measured values of ultrasonic wave velocities as a function of 

density of these materials are shown in Figure 6. The longitudinal wave velocities vary between 

12.04 and 12.26 Ms. The shear wave velocities vary between 7.66 and 7.77 km/s. The 

variation of the wave velocities with density is linear. Beylayt and Cottenot (1996) reported the 

longitudinal and shear wave velocities for the sintered material as 11.8 and 7.6 km/s, 

respectively. The measurement of the longitudinal wave velocity reported here is reported here 

slightly higher than their measurement, but the differences are in all probability not significant. 

Shear wave velocity measurements are in very good agreement with one another. They also 

report the values of the longitudinal and shear wave velocities for the sintered and hot-pressed 

Sic to be 12.1 and 7.7 km/s, respectively. These values agree with the measurements given in 

Table 2. A detailed analysis of this variation of velocity with density using an existing model 

dealing with the variation of elastic properties of materials with porosity is under preparationThe values of elastic constants of SiCs calculated from the measured densities and ultrasonic 

wave velocities are presented in Table 3. This table shows that the values of elastic constants of 

sintered materials are relatively smaller in magnitude than those of hot-pressed materials, but 

these values are within the precision of these measurements for each type. In other words, the 

elastic constants of three hot-pressed and two sintered materials do not differ from one another 

significantly for similarly produced materials. Poisson’s ratios of the five materials appear to be 

process independent and vary between 0.160 and 0.164. 

9 
Longitudinal 

Shear 

n Sohio 

0 French Sintered 

A Sic-B 

+ Sic-N 

X French Sintered & HIP 

3.12 3.16 3.18 3.20 3.22 3.24 

Density (Mg/m3) 

Figure 6. Variation in Ultrasonic Wave Velocities as a Function of Density in Sic. 

Table 3. Elastic Constants of Sic Materials 

Property Sintered Hot Pressed 

Sohio French French SIC-B SIC-N 

Density (Mg/m3) 3.164 f 0.004 3.137 f 0.001 3.184 f 0.003 3.215 * 0.002 3.227 zt 0.001 

Modulus 

GW 

Shear 1X5.8 f 0.7 184.6 f 0.3 190.3 f 0.4 193.0 l 0.9 195.0 f 0.2 

Bulk 211.2AO.6 209.8 f 0.5 219.1 f 1.0 221.1 k-1.8 225.2 f 0.3 

Young 431.2 f 0.9 428.1 f 0.9 442.5 f 1.3 448.4 f 2.1 454.0 * 0.6 

Poisson’s Ratio 0.160 f 0.001 0.160 k 0.001 0.163 * 0.002 0.162 f 0.003 0.164 &O.OOl 

10 
4. Design of Shock Experiments 

Two configurations used to perform spa11 experiments on SIC are shown in Figure 7. The 

experiment consists of impacting a stationary plate of Sic with a thinner plate of one of the 

following: Sic, z-cut sapphire, or tungsten carbide (WC) at a given impact velocity. In one case, 

the particle velocity profile is recorded at the stationary plate poly-methyl-meth-acrylate 

(PMMA) window interface (Figure 7a): In the second case, the free-surface velocity profile of 

the stationary plate is monitored (Figure 7b). The wave velocity profiles were recorded by means 

of a 4-beam velocity interferometer system for any reflector (VISAR) (Barker and Hollenbach 

1972). In symmetric impact configuration (Figure 7), the impactor disk was generally half the 

thickness of the target disk, creating a spa11 plane in the center of the target disk. The flyers and 

targets were 3.949 * 0.077 mm and 7.944 f 0.098 mm in thickness, respectively, yielding a pulse 

width of 0.641 4 0.033 ps. A few experiments were done where the impactors were either z-cut 

sapphire or WC. In these cases, the pulse width deviated from those in symmetric experiments 

on SIC. These experiments have been identified in the relevant tables, where the summary of 

shock wave experiments on various Sic are presented. All specimens were 39.5 * 0.5 mm in 

diameter. Sic disk faces were lapped and polished flat to 5 pm, while the opposing disc faces 

were mutually parallel to within one part in 104. 

The stress-particle velocity diagram for the aforementioned experiment is shown in Figure 8. 

The figure depicts deformation of an elastic-inelastic material. Upon impact, stress-particle 

velocity coordinates defining the shock state of the material are (ol, ur) in Figure 8. For the 

configuration Figure 7a, the measured particle velocities correspond to (~3, 04, and 05 on the 

PMMA Hugoniot in Figure 8. These correspond to initial compression, release from the initial 

compressed state, and reshock from the release state of the window material (i.e.: PMMA). In 

addition, the data analysis for this configuration is carried out assuming that the shock, release, 

and reshock response of PMMA can be represented by its initial shock response and its 

properties are time independent. The Hugoniot determined by Barker and Hollenbach (1972) is 

used. It should be noted that, for a linear elastic material, the points uy and us. will be coincident. 

11 
Sic 

Sic 

Sic 

Figure 7. Two Configurations of Symmetric Transmission Experiments (a) With a PMMA 

Window and (b) Without a PMMA Window. 

For the configuration Figure 7b, free-surface velocities measured correspond to ~2, ug, and ~9. 

Further, as in the previous case, free-surface velocities corresponding to u2 and ug are the same 

for a linear elastic material. 

When PMMA was used as a window material in an experiment, aluminum was 

vapor-deposited at the Sic-PMMA interface to enhance reflectivity for the VISAR beam. In the 

absence of a PMMA window, a Sic specimen surface was polished to reflect the VISAR beam 

The flyer disk impact velocity was varied to produce impact stresses between 1.57 and 16 GPa. 

12 
U 

Figure 8. A Schematic of Stress vs. Particle Velocity for Shock, Release, and Tensile Paths 

in an Elastic-Plastic Material for Analyzing Wave Profile Data. 

Impact velocity of the flyer disk was recorded by means of shorting four sets of electrically 

charged pins located immediately in front of the target. Pin distances are premeasured, and time 

between pins is measured during the experiment so that velocity of impact can be calculated. 

The precision of impact velocity measurements are within 0.5%. Impact tilt was less than 

0.5 mrad. The precision of particle velocity measurements using the VISAR is 1%. 

f 

5. Results 

5.1 Data Analysis. The spa11 strength of Sic as a function of impact stress was determined 

by the technique described previously by Bartkowski and Dandekar (1996). The technique uses 

the recorded VISAR particle velocity wave profiles of the pull back and steady stresses before 

13 
and after spallation to calculate spa11 stress. Shock and tensile paths during the impact event are 

schematically shown in the stress vs. particle velocity plot of Figure 8. The spa11 threshold is 

calculated using the peak steady particle velocity recorded before spallation and the pull-back 

signal from spallation. For the experiment configuration (Figure 7a), the spa11 strength 

(CT-~‘, UT’) is calculated by the intersection of states (c 3, ~3) and (04, uq) using the elastic 

impedance of the SIC. Using the buffered VISAR configuration offers a second method of 

calculating the spa11 strength. The spa11 strength can also be calculated from ‘the intersection of 

lines from (0, ~5’) and (64, LI& where (0, us’) is determined from the recorded state (05, us) using 

the elastic impedance for Sic. Under linearly elastic response, the intersection of lines from 

steady states before (03, ~3) and after spa11 ((~5, us) with the particle velocity axis will be identical 

with coordinate (0, us?- The linear assumption is valid for a linearly elastic material. In other 

words, any difference in the calculated values of spa11 stress by these two methods provides some 

indication that the material is not linearly elastic. The other implicit assumption is that initial 

shock response of PMMA is representative of its release and reshock response. Recent studies 

by Dandekar and coworkers (Dandekar et al. 1988; Bartkowski and Dandekar 1997, 1999) throw 

doubts on the validity of latter assumption about the shock response of PMMA when impact 

induced stress exceeds its Hugoniot elastic limit (HEL) (i.e., 0.7 GPa). 

For the configuration shown in Figure 7b, the spa11 state (ok, UT) is determined by the 

intersection of lines from the peak steady state (0, ~2) and pull-back state (0, ug) using Sic elastic 

impedance. Similar to the previous case, u2 and ug are equal in magnitude for a linear elastic 

material. Representative wave profiles recorded for these five SIC materials in experiments 

performed at impact velocities of 0.08 and 0.6 km/s are shown in Figures ‘9 and 10. The wave 

profile for Sohio material at 0.6 km/s was recorded at PMMA-SIC interface. Hence, the 

magnitude of particle velocity related to impact-induced shock is less than the magnitude of 

impact velocity. These wave profiles show no clear-cut evidence of inelastic deformation in 

these five SIC. Further, the magnitude of free-surface velocity due to release of shock and 

recompression following the spallation in these material do not differ significantly or 

systematically with the impact velocity for these materials (Tables &8), indicating an elastic 

14 
80 

60 

0 

-0.40 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 

Time (ps) 

Figure 9. Free-Surface Velocity in Profiles in Sic, Impact Velocity 0.08 km/s. 

. 

4.40 0.00 0.40 0*80 1.20 l.txl 200 240 

TfillE w 

Figure 10. Velocity Profiles in Sic, Impact Velwity (I.6 km/s. 

15 
Table 4. Data From Transmission Experiments on Sohio Sintered Sic 

Experiment Thickness Impact Velocity Pulse Width Fr&e-Surfauz/ParUcle Velocity 

Cm) (kmls) w (km/s) 

Flyer Target Shock spall Recompression 

404” 3.948 8.012 0.6021 0.636 0.535 1 0.4212 0.4449 

413” 3.965 8.002 0.0826 0.662 0.0760 0.0353 0.0630 

421” 3.997 7.966 0.2939 0.650 0.2673 0.1892 0.2180 

423 4,018 7.95 1 0.1907 0.657 0.1922 0.1414 0.1900 

433” 4.009 7.950 0.0804 0.671 0.0733 0.0261 0.0635 

441 I 3.993 7.973 0.4523 0.650 0.4575 0.4307 0.4600 

443 3.944 7.770 0.1483 0.653 0.1535 0.1180 0.1524 

447 3.932 7.964 0.4956 0.640 0.5093 0.4730 0.5044 

4S2 3.981 7.977 0.0804 0.6S9 0.0806 0.0480 0.08213 

* In this experiment, a 6-mm-thick PMMA disk was bonded to the Sic target and par tide velocity proMe was monitored at the PMMA-Sic interfhce. 

Table 5. Summary of the Results of Transmission Experiments on Sohio SMered Sic 

Experiment Impact Shock State Release spau strength 

V&city Mass Velocity strms Impedewe l/2 Pull-Back Change stress (1) stress (2) 

NW 0 @Pa) (Gg/m2*s) mm @Pa) (GW 

’ In this experiment, a 6-mm-thick PMMA disk was bonded to the Sic target and particle velocity profile was monitored at the PMMA-SiC interface. 
4 II .‘ II 

. 

IL 

Table 6. Data From Transmission Experiments on French Sintered SIC 

% Experiment 

528 

530 

531 

802 (WC’) 

Thickness 

Target 

3.973 8.014 

3.969 8.003 

3.953 7.998 

2.008 6.016 

Impact Velocity Pulse Width Free-Surface Veiocity 

(kmw w (km 

Shock spall 1 Recompression 

0.6098 0.659 0.5993 0.5736 0.5993 

0.1853 0.658 0.1804 0.1472 0.1743 

0.0808 0.656 0.0846 0.0593 0.0800 

0.527 0.570 0.7644 0.7505 0.762 

807 2.034 6.016 0.5934 0.337 0.595 1 0.5788 0.5921 

812 4.006 6.015 0.384 0.665 0.3774 0.3585 0.3756 

824- I 

TabIe 7. Summary of the Results of Trmsmission Experiments on French Sintered Sic 

Experiment Shock Release SpaH Strength 

Impact Velocity Mass Velocity Stress Impedence 112 Pull-Back Change Stress 

(kmls) em @Pa) (Gg/m2*s) mm @Pa) 
Table 8. Data From Transmission Experiments OR WC-B 

6-mm-thick PMMA disk bonded to the SiC target and par title velocity profile was monitoml at the PMMA-SiC interhe. 
response. Dandekar (1996) measured the tensile impedance of Sic-B to be 40.0 f 1.1 Gg/m**s. 

The value of its elastic impedance from the ultrasonic longitudinal wave velocity measurement and 

density is 39.2 + 0.1 Gg/m%. In view of the aforementioned, the spah threshold values for these 

materials are calculated using their respective elastic impedances. 

5.2 Results of SpaU Experiments. Results of spalI experiments are described by grouping 

the materials according to the marmfacturing process rather than the country of origin. 

. 

5.2.1 Sin&red Sic. The results of shock wave experiments performed on sintered Sic 

manufactured in the United States and France are su mmarized as tollous.. Tables 4 and 6 give the 

data collected for shock wave experiments conducted on sintered Sic. Tables 5 and 7 give the 

values of impact stress, associated particle velocity, release impedance calculated from impact 

stress, measured particle velocity and release particle velocity, half the pull-back change in the 

particle velocity, and spall strength of sintered Sic. Impact stresses were calculated by 

multiplyhg the longitudinal impedance of a material by the appropriate value of the particle 

velocity. In case of symmetric experiments, it was simply half the magnitude of the impact 

velocity. In other cases, it was determined from the known Hugoniot of the impactor and 

assumed elastic deformation of Sic. This is a reasonable procedure because the free-surface 

velocity profiles do not show compelling evidence of inelastic or irreversible deformation suffered 

by Sic in the range of impact stress generated in these experiments. 

The data for Sohio sintered Sic shows that it deforms elastically when shocked to 11.5 GPa. 

The evidence for this comes from the measured pulse widths (Table 4) ,and values of release 

impedance, varying between 36 and 40 Gg/m2.s (the elastic impedance being 

38 Gg/m2*s), and free-surface velocity being equal to the impact velocity (Table 5). The 

discrepancy in the values of spall strength calculated from measured values of (as, u3) and (Q, 

u& and (05, US) and (04, ~4) for experiment 404 may arise from the assumption that the response 

of PMMA under initial shock, also represents its response under subsequent release 

and reshock, and possibly the reshock following the spall is not elastic. All other pairs of 

19 
calculated spall strength values agree with one another. Figure 11 shows the variation in the 

values of the spaJl strength of Sohio Sic with impact stress. It is clear from the figure that the 

variability in the spall strengths of Sohio sintered Sic with impact stress exceeds the precision of 

measurements, thereby suggesting that, even though its response under shock compression and 

release is elastic within the precision of these reported measurements, its tensile strength is 

influenced by material variability. The material variability may be either due to processing 

variation from batch to batch or difference in the evolution of microcracks and/or other defects. 

Additionally, a clear trend for a gradual decline in its spall strength with an increase in impact 

stress is evident from Figure 11. Experiments were not able to be performed in this material at 

higher stresses to determine the impact stress at and beyond which it has no spall strength. 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

l- I l SPaUl) 

u Spall(2) I 

2 

3 

2 0.8 

B 

; 0.6 

$ 

# 

0.4 - 

6 

0.2 1 I I I I 1 I I I I , I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 mo 10.0 12.0 

Impact Stress (GPa) 

Figure 11. SpaU Strength Strength vs. Impact Stress of Sohio Sic. 

The general characteristics of the deformation of French sintered Sic under shock 

compression (Figure 12) is similar to that of Sohio sintered Sic. However, two observations 

pertaining to this material are worth pointing out: (1) the magnitude of spall strength at each 

c 

20 
5.00 10.0 

Impact Stress (GPa) 

15.0 

Figure 12. Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of French Sintered SIC. 

comparable stress is smaller than the corresponding values of spa11 strength of Sohio SIC and 

(2) two experiments conducted at impact stress of 11.2 and 11.5 GPa show that reduction of 

pulse width actually lowers its spa11 strength. It is difficult to explain such a behavior unless the 

specimens used in these experiments had drastically different population of microdefects. 

5.2.2 Hut-Pressed Sic. The results of shock wave experiments on SIC-B and SIC-N are 

summarized in Tables 8-11. As mentioned earlier, SIC-N is a refined product of SIC-B, with a 

proprietary powder homogenization and use of organic binder. The organic binder bums out 

during the hot-pressing of the powder, leaving behind some carbon, which depletes the oxide 

layer on the powder. The net effect is to reduce the glassy oxide phase in the final consolidated li I product. Thus, it is expected that difference in the spa11 behavior of these two hot-pressed 

materials will be partly due to lesser amount of glassy phase in SIC-N compared to in SIC-B. An 

: 

implicit assumption in this statement is that batch-to-batch variations in these two Sic materials 

are insignificant and do not affect the shock response significantly. 

21 
Table 9. Summary of The Results of Transmission Experiments on Sic-B 
Table 10. Data From Transmission Experiments on Sic-N 

II Impact Pulse 

Experiment Thickness Velocity Width Free-Surface Velocity W-4 

Flyer 1 Targe 

(km@ 1 w NW -1 I 1 :t Spa11 1 Recompression I =inocK 

II 519 1 3.987 1 8.009 0.1683 i 0.650 0.1748 I 0.1474 I 0.1711 II 

r 

520 3.985 7.992 0.6049 0.650 0.6062 0.5389 0.5895-0.6000 

522 3 962 7.975 0,0809 0.646 0.0809 0.0352 0.0807 

525 3.983 7.994 ] 0.4014 0.650 0.3973 0.3638 0.3947 

528 3.958 55.99 1 0.6098 0.646 0.6049 OS383 0.6019 

607 3.986 5.937 1 0.1311 0.713 0.1463 0.093 1 0.1451 

6 17 (Sapphire) 3.996 5.016 0.2903 0.715 0.303 1 0.2681 0.303 1 

621 4.001 7.354 0.3912 0.653 0.4211 0.3533 0.4204 

628 3.961 5.989 0.2889 0.646 0.2885 0.2478 O-2885-0.2854 

636 (Sic-B) 2.108 4.008 0.1499 0.346 0.1498 0.1026 0.1509 

824-2 4.022 5.983 0.3042 0,656 0.3069 0.2598 0.3071 
Table 11. Summary of the Results of Transmission Experiments on Sic-N 

Experiment 

519 

520 

522 

525 

528 

607 (Sapphire) 

617 (Sapphire) 

621 

628 

636 (Sic-B) 

824-2 
5.2.2.1 SC-B. The pulse widths in all the experiments except experiment 607, were 

0.61-0.64 ps. The pulse width in experiment 607 was 0.33 us. Its spa11 strength also shows a 

trend similar to the one showed by sintered Sic previously mentioned. The spall strength 

increases from 0.9 to 1.1 GPa at 1.6-GPa impact stress to 1.3-GPa spa11 strength at 3%GPa 

impact stress and, upon further increase in the impact stress, it begins to decline (Figure 13). Its 

value (spa11 strength) at impact stress of 12 GPa is 0.82 GPa. The results of experiments 437 and 

607 show that the spa11 strength of Sic-B at 2.6 GPa remains unchanged, even though the pulse 

widths in these experiments were 0.64 and 0.33 us, respectively. Extrapolation of the observed 

trend in spa11 strength of this material implies that it may not have measurable spall strength 

when shocked to 18 GPa. This needs to be confirmed through future experiments. 

1.5 

0.5 

0.00 

I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.0. 12.0 

Impact Stress (GPa) 

Figure 13. Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of Sic-B. 

5.2.2.2 Sic-N. Eleven experiments were conducted on Sic-N. The pulse width in eight of 

these experiments was 0.65 us. The variation in the value of spa11 strength with impact stress in 

SIC-N is shown in Figure 14. The pulse widths in experiments 607 and 617 were 0.71 us and the 

pulse width in experiment 636 was 0.35 ps. The values of spa11 strength vary between 0.54 and 

25 
150 - 

2 A 

& 

I 

,4 %, p+fy 

x 

h&k ll;Pq *4/~dl*‘~~b’,rmSJ~~~~tCII,UIYII~U,~ 

-5 I / \; 7 

3 100 - I I 

I 

> I I I 

0” I 

ci I I 

2 

I 

I I 

I 

8 50 - I 

I 

2 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

m 

I 

; 

OW f 

I I I ,,,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 

Figure 14. Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of Sic-N. 

1.3 GPa. However, there is no discernible trend in the variation of its spa11 strength values with 

the impact stress, as observed in the previous three materials. Further, there is a large scatter in 

the measured values of spa11 strength of this material. For example, the values of spa11 strength 

of Sic-N in three experiments (i-e., 617, 628, and 824-2 at impact stress around 6 GPa) are 

determined to be 0.69, 0.81, and 0.93 GPa, respectively. Whereas the pulse width in experiment 

617 was 0.72 us, the pulse widths in the experiments 628 and 824-2 were 0.65 and 0.66 us, 

respectively. Similarly, the values of spa11 strength and associated pulse widths in three 

experiments performed at impact stresses between 2.7 and 3.3 GPa do not seem to follow any 

pattern. The spa11 strength and associated pulse width in these three experiments (namely, 519, 

607, and 636) are 0.54 GPa, 0.65 us; 1.05 GPa, 0.72 us; and 0.93 GPa, 0.35 us, respectively. 

The wave profiles of these experiments are shown in Figure 15. 

5.2.3 French Sintered and Hot-Pressed SiC Five experiments were performed on this 

material, generating impact stresses between 1.5 and 16.8 GPa. The pulse widths in these 

26 
1.40 1.60 

Time (ps) 

Figure 15. Free-Surface Velocity Profiles in SIC-N. 

experiments varied between 0.58 and 0.67 us. The results of shock wave experiments on the 

French sintered and hot-pressed Sic are given in Tables 12 and 13. The values of spall strengths 

of the French sintered and hot-pressed material as a function of impact stress are plotted in 

Figure 16. The first feature one notices is the lack of scatter in the data compared to that 

observed in the other four Sic materials. Second, it shows that spa11 strength of this material 

continues to increase with an increase in the impact stress to 11.7 GPa and then shows a decline 

in its spa11 threshold at an impact stress of 16.8 GPa. Its spa11 strength at 16.8 GPa is determined 

to lie between 0.34 and 0.50 GPa. Figure 17 shows the free-surface velocity profiles in this 

material at impact stresses of 11.7 and 16.8 GPa. This large variation in the spa11 strength at 16.8 

GPa is due to an observed deceleration in its free-surface velocity profile from a peak value of 

0.863 km/s to 0.855/km/s (Figure 17). Thus, though these two values of the free-surface 

velocities are within 1% of each other, they lead to the aforementioned magnitudes of spa11 

strength at 16.8 GPa. However, such a slowing down of free-surface velocity is not seen in any 

other experiments performed on this material. Irrespective of the origin of this deceleration, it is 

27 
Table 12. Data From Transmission Experiments on French Sintered and Hot-Pressed SIC 

II Experiment Thickness Free-Surface Velocity II 

(mm) (km/s) NW 

Flyer 1 Target Shock Spa11 ] Recompression 

520 4.013 7.99 0.6046 0.659 0.6118 0.5160 0.6126 

522 3.99 8.003 0.0809 0.655 0.0813 0.0400 0.0831 

525 3.972 7.998 0.401 0.652 1 0.4067 0.3415 0.4041 

11 820 (WC) 1 2.029 1 6.011 1 0.5865 1 0.576 t 0.8630 1 0.8370 1 0.8558 11 

820 iWCj 

I 

2,029 6.011 0.5845 0.576 1 0.8546 0.8370 0.8558 

822 (FSISiC) 4.025 6.014 0.2059 0.668 1 0.2062 0.1553 0.2044-o. 1998 

822 (FSISiCI I 4.025 1 6.014 0.2010 I 0.1553 0.2044-O. 1998 

Table 13. Summary of the Results of Transmission Experiments on French Sintered and Hot-Pressed MC 

Experiment Impact 

Velocity ml c;ize 112 Pull-Back C~~~estrength Stress 

I 

d.604; 

I \- ~~~ -I I \ -- --I 

520 ! 1 0.3023 1 11.729 1 37.90 0.0479 

I &m/s~ I hm/sl I (GPal J (Gg/m2-s) 1 (km4 Wa) 4 I 

1.858 I 

II 522 ! 0.0809 1 0.0405 1 1.569 I 38.42 ! 0.0207 

I 820 525 (WC‘) 0.4015865 0.20054330 I 1 16.802 7.779 37.739.08 0.0326130 

820 (WC) 0.5865 0.4330 16.802 41.78 0.0088 

822 (FSISX) 0.2059 0.1016 3.943 37.71 0.0254 

822 (FSISiCI 0.2059 0.11)lh I ? 94? ?9hX 0.0228 
c 

2 

0.4 

10.0 

Impact Stress (GPa) 

Figure 16. Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of French Sintered and Hot-Pressed SIC. 

- Experiment 520; 11.7 GPa 

- r - Experiment 820; 16.8 GPa 

500 

400 

1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 

Time (ps) 

Figure 17. Free-Surface Velocity Profiles in French Sintered and Hot-Pressed Sic. 

29 
clear that spa11 threshold value drops precipitously when this material is shocked between 

11.7 and 16.8 GPa. The increase in the value of spa11 threshold from 0.80 GPa at an impact 

stress of 1.6, to 1.85 GPa at an impact stress of 11.7 GPa, is impressive and unprecedented for a 

ceramic material. 

5.2.4 Summaq~ The results of the experiments on five types of SIC may be summarized as 

follows. 

5.2.4.1 Spa11 Strength Variation Trend. The trend in the variation of spa11 strength with 

impact stress in sintered (Sohio and French), SIC-B, and French sintered and hot-pressed 

materials show similarities. Spa11 strengths of these four materials appear to peak at some 

specific impact stress and then decline when the specific impact stress is exceeded. Thus, spa11 

threshold in the first three materials increases until an impact stress between 3.7 .and 5 GPa is 

reached, and then they begin to decline. For French sintered and hot-pressed material, the spa11 

threshold increases up to an impact stress of 11.7 GPa and then begins to decline at higher impact 

stresses- Sic-N does not show such an unambiguous trend in the variation of its spa11 threshold 

with impact stress. 

5.2.4.2 Sohio Material. Sohio material has relatively higher spa11 threshold than French 

sintered material. In general, hot-pressed materials, including the French material, which was 

both sintered and hot pressed, show a higher value of spa11 threshold than the materials that are 

sintered but not hot pressed. For instance, SIC-B has a spa11 strength of 0.90 GPa at an impact 

stress of 1.6 GPa, then peaks with a spa11 strength of 1.3 GPa at an impact stress of 3.75 GPa. 

Between an impact stress of 3.75 and 12.1 GPa, the spa11 strength declines to 0.90 GPa. Sohio 

Sic exhibits similar behavior, having spa11 strengths of 0.65, 0.95, and 0.40 GPa at impact 

stresses of 1.6, 3.6, and 11.5 GPa, respectively. The spa11 strength of French sintered material is 

0.5 GPa at an impact stress 1.5 GPa and goes through a maximum value a of 0.63 GPa between 

3.5-5.8 GPa. Upon further increase in impact stress, the spa11 strength decreases to 0.5 GPa at an 

impact stress of 11.5 GPa. In the case of the French sintcred and hot-pressed material, spa11 

30 
threshold value continues to increase from 0.8 GPa at 1.6 GPa to 1.8 GPa at an impact stress of 

< 11.7 GPa. Its value decreases to 0.3-0.5 GPa at an impact stress of 16.8 GPa. 

5.2.4.3 Spall l%-eshold Increase. The unprecedented increase in the spa11 threshold 

observed in the French sintered and hot-pressed Sic with an increase in impact stress is unique. 

5.2.4.4 Free-Surface VelociQ Decline. The gradual decline in the recorded free-surface 

velocity at 16.8 GPa in the French sintered and hot-pressed material suggests an increase in its 

mechanical impedance. Whether this is significant or not is an open question. 

6. Discussion 

Spa11 strength of a ceramic is generally a time-dependent process; it is always fracture 

initiated and dominated. Polycrystalline ceramic invariably contains impurities and micropore 

sites. It may also contain glassy phase or phases dispersed throughout its bulk. These sites and 

phases are favorable locations for the nucleation and growth of microcracks or microfissures 

during the propagation of shock waves. Possibly, release wave propagation also contributes to 

this growth The number of microfractures generated will be sensitive to the number of these 

sites and the extent of glassy phase in the material, as well as duration of shock compressive 

pulse and its magnitude. This implies that, if nucleation and growth of microcracks in the 

material are time dependent at a given magnitude of shock-induced stress, then its spa11 strength 

will be pulse dependent. If, on the other hand, nucleation and growth of microcracks in the 

material are dependent on the magnitude of impact stress only, then its spa11 strength will not be 

influenced by the time duration of the shock. Since SIC materials that were unambiguously from 

the location undergoing the uniaxial strain changes in the wave propagation direction were 

unable to be recovered, it is not yet possible to ascertain a specific factor responsible for the spa11 

values obtained on the five Sic investigated here. However, if the variability in the magnitudes 

of spa11 thresholds at a given stress with a specific value of pulse width exceeds the precision of 

the measurements, then it can be attributed to variation in the quality of the samples. Under the 

31 
attributed to variation in the quality of the samples. Under the aforementioned condition, 

depending on the generated population of microfractures, the spa11 strength of the material 

could be foreseen to vary significantly under shock-induced tension. 

Both sintered materials show an initial increases in their spa11 strengths to 3-5 GPa and 

decline when shocked to higher stresses. The initial value of spa11 strength of Sohio material 

is higher than of French sintered material. The role of microstructure in the observed 

increase in the values of their respective spa11 strengths is unclear and lacks an explanationThe decrease in the spa11 strength with an increase in the impact stress is understandable in 

view of generation and extension of microcracks under shock and release. Earlier 

investigations on titanium diboride by Dandekar (1992, 1994a), Dandekar and Benfanti 

(1993), Ewart and Dandekar (1994), and Winkler and Stilp (1992a) showed that its spa11 

strength decreased with an increase in the impact stress. Further studies to probe the nature 

of the first cusp observed in titanium diboride around 4-6 GPa found it to be associated with 

its elastic deformation. As a consequence, its spa11 strength under single shock and release, 

and under repeated shock and release below the first cusp, remained constant around 0.35 

GPa. However, when titanium diboride was shocked to 6.8 GPa, beyond the first cusp level, 

its spa11 strength under single shock and release reduced to 0.18 GPa. Spa11 strength under 

repeated shock and release was decreased to 0.07 GPa. The microstructural studies of the 

recovered titanium diboride materials by Ewart and Dandekar (1994) showed that defects 

generated during the shock wave experiments were responsible for the observed decrease in 

its spa11 strength. Winkler and Stilp (1992a) came to similar conclusions from their 

investigation on titanium diboride. None of the Sic material investigated in this work show a 

first cusp in their wave profile as observed in titanium diboride. Yet, only repeated 

shock-release experiments, as done earlier on titanium diboride (Dandekar and Benfanti 

1993), combined with careful microstructural examination of shock-recovered materials can 

lead to understanding the observed initial increase in the spa11 strengths of these materials 

with an increase in the impact stress. 

32 
The spa11 strength of Sic-B shows a trend similar to those shown by the two sintered silicon 

carbide materials. An increase in its spa11 strength is observed up to around 3 GPa, and when I 

shocked beyond this stress level, the spa11 strength begins to decline. The spa11 strength of Sic-N 

does not show an unambiguous trend in the variation of its spa11 strength with impact stress. The 

scatter in the experimental data is very puzzling. The best guess is that observed scatter in the 

; data is probably because Sic-N material quality varied widely. The highest value of spa11 

strength 1.32-1.34 GPa is obtained at impact stress between 8 and 12 GPa. 

w 

The spa11 strength of French sintered and hot-pressed SIC shows very little scatter in the data. 

Spa11 strength increases from around 0.8 GPa at an impact stress of 1.6 GPa to 1.86 GPa when 

shocked to 11.7 GPa. When shocked to 16.8 GPa, the spa11 threshold reduces to 0.3-O-5 GPa. In 

an earlier investigation on a hot-pressed Sic, Winkler and Stilp (1992b) also found the spa11 

strength of their material increasing with an increase in the impact stress. The data from their 

experiments on Sic is plotted in Figure 18. It shows that the spa11 strength of hot-pressed Sic 

increases from 0.6 GPa at an impact stress of 0.7 GPa to 1.1 GPa at 11.4 GPa and then begins to 

decline, with a value of 0.7 GPa at an impact stress of 20 GPa. The flyers used by Winkler and 

Stilp in these experiments are as follows: for 0.7-GPa experiment, a 0.7~mm-thick PMhU was 

used; for l-3-GPa impact stress experiment, a 1.6~mm-thick aluminum flyer was used; the 

remaining experiments use an Armco iron flyer, with either l-mm or 1.6-mm thickness. Sic 

targets were 5.5-6 mm thick. Winkler and Stilp (1992b) report the HEL of their Sic to be 

between 13 and 14.7 GPa. Since they do not report the errors associated with their 

measurements of spa11 strength, it is difficult to state whether or not the difference in the values 

of the spa11 thresholds 0.5 and 0.7 GPa at impact stresses 12 and 20 GPa, respectively, are 

-;- significantly different from one another. 

. In the present experiments, the variation of spa11 strength with impact stress in Sic does not 

exhibit behavior similar to other ceramics. For example, titanium diboride has a spa11 strength 

that is constant at 0.33 GPa up to an impact stress of 5.9 GPa. Above 5.9 GPa, the spa11 strength 

decreases to nearly 0 at its HEL of 13.5 GPa. On the other hand, Coors AD995 

33 
0.00 5.00 10.0 

Impact Stress (GPa) 

15.0 20.0 

Figure 18. Spa11 Strength vs. Impact Stress of French Sintered and Hot-IsostaticallyPressed Sic and Hot-Pressed Sic, From Winkler and Stilp (1992b). 

alumina has a constant spa11 threshold of 0.45 GPa beyond its HEL of 6.7 GPa. The rate of 

growth of defects increases with duration of impact stress in AD995, evident by the decrease in 

spa11 strength with increase in impact stress pulse width. 

7. Future Work 

The single most important result of this investigation is that spa11 strength of Sic, irrespective 

of its manufacturing process, improves initially to a certain impact stress level before it begins to 

deteriorate under higher impact stress. In terms of spa11 strength, the French sintered and hotpressed material shows least scatter and largest increase with an increase in the impact stress. Ln 

view of the aforementioned, it will be very useful to conduct spa11 experiments subjected to 

repeated shock and release, as done earlier on titanium diboride (Dandekar and Benfanti 1993) 

34 
combined with careful microstructural examination of shock recovered materials to understand 

the observed initial increase in the spa11 strengths of these materials with an increase in the 

impact stress. 
-0NALLY LEFTBLANK 

36 
8. References 

Barker, L. M., and R. E. Hollenbach. “Laser Interferometer for Measuring High Velocities of 

Any Reflecting Surface.” .Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 43, pp. 46694680, 1972. 

Bartkowski, P., and D. P. Dandekar. “Spa11 Strengths of Sintered and Hot Pressed Sic.” Shock 

Compression of Condensed Matter-1995, pp. 535-539, S. C. Schmidt and W. C. Tao 

(editors), American Institute of Physics, New York, NY, 1996. 

Bartkowski, P., and D. P. Dandekar. “Effects of PMMA Hugoniot on Calculated Spa11 Strength 

of AD995 Alumina.” Presented at 1997 Topical Conference on Shock Compression of 

Condensed Matter, 27 July-l August 1997, Amherst, MA, 1997. 

Bartkowski, P., and D. P. Dandekar. Unpublished data. 1999. 

Belay& L., and C. E. Cottenot. ‘Post-Mortem Microstructural Characterization of Sic Materials 

After Interaction With a Kinetic Ener,T Projectile.” Structures Under Shock and Impact IV, 

pp. 459468, N. Jones, C. A. Brebia, and A. J. Watson (editors), Computational Mechanics 

Publications, Boston, MA, 1996. 

Dandekar, D. P. “Effect of Shock-Re-Shock on Spallation of Titanium Diboride.” Shock 

Compression of Condensed Matter-1991, pp. 487-490, S. C. Schmidt, R. D. Dick, 

J. W. Forbes, and D. G. Tasker (editors), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992. 

Dandekar, D. P. “‘Response of Ceramics Under Shock-Wave Loading.” High-Pressure Science 

and Technolom-1993, pp+ 729-732, S. C. Schmidt, J. W. Shaner, G. A. Samara, and 

M. Ross (editors), American Institute of Physics, New York, NY, 1994a. 

Dandekar, D. P. “Response of Protective Ceramics Under Single and Multiple Impacts.” Wave 

Propagation and Emerging Technologies, AMD vol. 188, pp. 133-141, V. H. Kinra, 

R. J. Clifton, and G. C. Johnson (editors), New York, NY: ASME Press, 1994b. 

Dandekar, D. P. “Experimental Technique to Measure Tensile Impedance of a Material Under 

Plane Shock Wave Propagation.” Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-l 995, 

pp. 947-950, S. C. Schmidt, and W. C. Tao (editors), American Institute of Physics, New 

York, NY, 1996. 

Dandekar, D. P., and P. Bartkowski. “Shock Response of AD995 Alumina.” High-Pressure 

Science and Technology-I993, pp. 733-736, S. C. Schmidt, J. W. Shaner, G. A. Samara, and 

M. Ross (editors), American Institute of Physics, New York, NY, 1994. 

37 
Dandekar, D. P., and D. C. Benfanti. “Strength of Titanium Diboride Under Shock Wave 

Loading.” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 73, pp. 673-679, 1993. 

Dandekar, D. P., P. J. Gaeta, and Y. Horie. “Double Shock and Release Experiments in PMMA 

and Z-Cut Sapphire.” Shock Compression in Condensed Matter-1987, pp- 281-284, 

S. C. Schmidt and N. C. Holms (editors), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988. 

Ewart, IL., and D. P. Dandekar. “Relationship Between The Shock Response and Microstructural 

Features of Titanium Diboride (TiBl).” High-Pressure Science and Technology-l 993, 

pp. 1201-1204, S. C. Schmidt, J. W. Shaner, G. A. Samara, and M. Ross (editors), 

American Institute of Physics, New York, NY, 1994. 

Papadakis, E. P. “Ultrasonic Phase Velocity by the Pulse-Echo-Overlap Method Incorporating 

Diffraction Phase Corrections.” JournaZ of Acoustic Society of America, vol. 40 pp. 1045- 

1051,1967. 

Shih, 5. “Dynamic Deformation of Sic.” Doctoral Thesis, University of California, San Diego, 

CA, 1998. 

Winkler, W. T., and A. J. Stilp. “Pressure Induced Macro- and Micromechanical Phenomena in 

Planar Impacted TiB2. Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-1991, pp. 555-558, 

S. C. Schmidt, R. D. Dick, J. W. Forbes, and D. G. Tasker (editors), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 

1992a. 

Winkler, W. T., and A. 5. Stilp. “Spallation Behavior of TiB2, Sic, and B& Under Planar 

Impact Stresses.” Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-1991, pp. 475478, 

S. C. Schmidt, R. D. Dick, J. W. Forbes, and D. G. Tasker (editors), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 

1992b. 

38 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

2 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

INFORMATION CENTER 

DTIC DDA 

8725 JOHN J KLNGMAN RD 

STE 0944 

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

1 HQDA 

DAM0 FDT 

400 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON DC 203 1 O-0460 

1 OSD 

OUSD(A&T)/ODDDR&E(R) 

RJTREW 

THE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON DC 20301-7100 

1 DPTY CG FOR RDA 

US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

AMCRDA 

500 1 EISENHOWER AVE 

ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

1 MST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

THE UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

PO BOX 202797 

AUSTIN TX 78720-2797 

1 DARF’A 

B KASPAR 

3701 N FAIRFAX DR 

ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714 

1 US MILITARY ACADEMY 

MATH SC1 CTR OF EXCELLENCE 

MADNMATH 

MAJ HUBER 

THAYERHALL 

WEST POINT NY 109961786 

1 DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL D 

DRSMITH 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-l 197 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

1 DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL DD 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-I. 197 

1 DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL CI AI R (RECORDS MGMT) 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-l 145 

3 DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL CI LL 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-l 145 

1 DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL CI AP 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-l 197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 

4 DIR USARL 

AMSRL CI LP (BLDG 305) 

39 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

1 CECOM 

SP & TRRSTRL COMMCTN DIV 

AMSEL RD ST MC M 

H SOICHER 

FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5203 

1 PRTN DPTY FOR TCHNLGY HQ 

US ARMY MATCOM 

AMCDCGT 

R PRICE 

500 1 EISENHOWER AVE 

ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

1 PRIN DPTY FOR ACQUSTN HQS 

US ARMY MATCOM 

AMCDCGA 

D ADAMS 

5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-00001 

NCi OF 

COPIES 

1 

1 

3 

2 

1 DPTY CG FOR RDE HQS 

US ARMY MATCOM 

AMCRD 

5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-00001 

4 

1 ASST DPTY CG FOR RDE HQS 

US ARMY MATCOM 

AMCRD 

COL S MANESS 

5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-00001 

3 AIR FORCE ARMAMENT LAB 

AFATL DLJW 

w COOK 

D BELK 

J FOSTER 

ELGI-N AFB FL 32542 

1 DPTY ASSIST SCY FOR R & T 

SARD TT 

THE PENTAGON RM 3E479 

WASHINGTON DC 203 1 O-01 03 

40 

1 

1 

ORGANIZATION 

DARPA 

L STOTTS 

370 1 N FAIRFAX DR 

ARLINGTON VA 22203-l 7 14 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL CS AL TA 

2800 POWDER MILL ROAD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-l 145 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY ARDEC 

AMSTA AR FSA E 

WPDUNN 

J PEARSON 

E BAKER 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

US ARMY TARDEC 

K BISHNOX 

D TEMPLETON 

AMSTRA TR R MS 263 

WARREN MI 48397-5000 

COMMANDER 

US ARMY BELVOIR RD&E CTR 

STRBE N WESTLICH 

STRBE NAN 

S G BISHOP 

J WILLIAMS 

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5 166 

COMMANDER 

US ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE 

A RAJENDRAN 

PO BOX 12211 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

27709-22 11 

NAVAL RESEARCH LAB 

A E WILLIAMS 

CODE 6684 

4555 OVERLOOK AVE SW 

WASHINGTON DC 20375 
. 

NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES 

10 DIRECTOR 

SANDIA NATL LABS 

E S HERTEL JR MS 0819 

J ASAY MS 1811 

R BRANNON MS 0820 

L CHHABILDAS MS 18 11 

D CRAWFORD MS 082 1 

M FURNISH MS 0821 

P TAYLOR ORG 1432 

M KIF’P MS 0820 

P YARRINGTON MS 0820 

M FORRESTAL DIV 155 1 

PO BOX 5800 

ALBUQURQUE NM 87185-0307 

10 DIRECTOR 

LLNL 

MJMURPHY 

J AKELLA 

N C HOLMES 

W TAO L282 

J FORBES 

PURTIEWL282 

A HOLT L290 

J E REAUGH L290 

W J NELLIS L299 

J B CHASE LO99 

PO BOX 808 

LIVERMORE CA 94550 

DIRECTOR 

LANL 

D MANDELL 

P MAUDLIN 

R GRAY 

J SHANER MS F670 

R DAVIDSON MS K557 

J JOHNSON G787 

F ADDESSIO G787 

PO BOX 1663 

LOS ALAMOS NM 87545 

3 CALTECH 

A INGERSOLL MS 170 25 

PROF G RAVICHANDRAN 

T J AHRENS MS 252 21 

1201 E CALFORNIA BLVD 

PASADENA CA 91125 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

ORGANIZATION 

ARMY HIGH PERFORMANCE 

COMPUTING RSRCH CTR 

T HOLMQUIST 

1200 WASHINGTON AVENUE S 

MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 

SOUTHWEST RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE 

C ANDERSON 

J WALKER 

P 0 DRAWER 28510 

SAN ANTONIO TX 78284 

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE 

DEPT OF MECH ENGINEERING 

PROF J GILLESPIE 

PROF J VINSON 

NEW= DE 19716 

SRI INTERNATIONAL 

DCURRAN 

D SHOCKEY 

R KLOPP 

333 RAVENSWOOD AVENUE 

MENLO PARK CA 94025 

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC LNST 

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 

R BATRA 

BLACKSBURG VA 24061-02 I9 

ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS WC 

GR JOHNSON MN11 1614 

600 SECOND ST NE 

HOPKINS MN 55343 

COMPUTATIONAL MECHANICS 

CONSULTANTS 

JAZUKAS 

POBOX11314 

BALTIMORE MD 21239-0314 

KAMAN SCIENCES CORF 

D L JONES 

2560 HUNTINGTON AVE SUITE 200 

ALEXANDRIA VA 22303 

41 
NO. OF 

COPIES 

9 

ORGANIZATION 

INST OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 

UNIVERSITY OF TX AUSTIN 

S BLESS 

J CAZAMIAS 

H FAIR 

D LITTLEFIELD 

I MCNAB 

C PERSAD 

W REINECKE 

P SULLIVAN 

S SATAPATHY 

3925 W BRAKER LANE SUITE 400 

AUSTIN TX 78759-53 16 

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 

DEGRADY 

4300 SAN MATE0 BLVD NE 

SUITE A220 

ALBUQUERQUE NM 87 110 

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH 

ASSOCIATES INC 

DLORPHAL 

4450 BLACK AVE 

PLEASANTON CA 94566 

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY 

M ADAMS 

IMPACT PHYSICS GROUP 

4800 OAK GROVE DRIVE 

PASADENA CA 9 1109 

THE DOW CHEMICAL CO 

M EL R4HEB 

CENTRAL RSRCH ENGINEERING 

LABORATORY 

BUILDING 1776 

MIDLAND MI 48640 

BOB SKAGGS CONSULTANT 

S R SKAGGS 

79 COUNTY RD 117 SOUTH 

SANTA FE NM 87501 

WASHINGTON ST UNIVERSITY 

SCHOOL OF MECHANCJAL 

AND MATERIAL ENGINEERING 

JLDJNG 

PULLMAN WA 99 164-2920 

NO. OF 

COPIES 

1 

1 

1 

5 

39 

ORGANIZATION 

WASHINGTON ST UNIVERSITY 

INSTITUTE OF SHOCK PHYSIC 

Y M GUPTA 

PULLMAN WA 99164-2814 

COORS CERMANIC COMPANY 

T RILEY 

600 NINTH STREET 

GOLDEN CO 80401 

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

MECHANICAL AND AEROSPACE 

ENGINEERING 

D KRAVCMOVIC 

TEMPE AZ 85287-6106 

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON 

RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

300 COLLEGE PARK 

cHARIsIMHA 

MS SPC 1911 

DAYTON OH 45469 

DIRECTOR 

USARL 

K WILSON (5 CPS) 

FRENCH DEA 1396 

ADELPHI MD 20783-l 197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 

DIRECTOR 

USARL 

AMSRL WM 

E SCHMIDT 

T WRIGHT 

AMSRL WM TA 

T HAVEL 

M NOIWANDIA 

W A GOOCH 

P BARTKOWSKI (10) 

H W MEYER 

E HORWATH 

AMSIU WM TC 

K KIMSEY 

D SCHEFFLER 

R COATES 

AMSRL WM PD 

G GAZONAS 

AMSRL WM WD 

A PRAKASH 

42 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

AMSRL WM TD 

A M DIETRICH 

M RAFTENBERG 

M SCHEIDLER 

E RAPACKI 

J M BOTELER 

T WEERASOOIUYA 

D GROVE 

D DANDEKAR (10) 

43 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

1 DERA 

N J LYNCH 

WEAPONS SYSTEMS 

BUILDING A20 

DRA FORT HALSTEAD 

SEVENOAKS 

RENT TN 147BP 

UNITED KINGDOM 

2 ERNST MACH INTITUT 

VOLKER HOHLER 

H NAHAME 

ECKERSTRASSE 4 

D-7800 FREIBURG 1 BR 791 4 

GERMANY 

1 FOA2 

PATRIR LUNDBERG 

S-14725 TUMBA 

SWEDEN 

1 PCS GROUP 

CAVENDISH LABORATORY 

WILLIAM G PROUD 

MADINGLEY RD 

CAMBRIDGE 

UNITED KINGDOM 

1 CENTRE D’ETUDES DE GRAMAT 

J Y TRANCHET 

46500 GRAMAT 

FRANCE 

1 MINISTERE DE LA DEFENSE 

DR G BRAULT 

DGA/DSP/STTC 

4, RUE DE LA PORTE D’ISSY 

75015 PARIS 

FRANCE 

1 SPART DIRECTION - BP 19 

DR E WARINGHAM 

10 PLACE GEORGES CLEMENCEOUX 

92211 SAINT CLOUD CEDEX 

FRANCE 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

1 ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF 

SCIENCE 

CRANEFIELD UNIVERSITY 

PROF N BOURNE 

SHRIVENHAM SWINDON 

SN6 XLA 

UNITED KINGDOM 

44 
. 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 07WO1.98 

Tensile Strengths of Silicon Carbide (Sic) Under Shock Loading 0602 105AR84 

Dattatraya P. Dandekar and Peter T. Bartkowski 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

A-l-IN: AMSRL-WM-TD 

REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-2430 

II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

12~ DlSTRlBUTlON/AVAllABlLlTY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. ABSTRACT(Maximum 200 wo@s) 

The present work was initiated to measure and compare tensile strengths (i.e., spa11 thresholds) of five different 

types/varieties of silicon carbide materials. Two of these materials were sintered, and the remammg three were 

hot-pressed. Three types of silicon carbides (one sintered by Sohio and the other two hot-pressed by Cercom) were 

manufactured in the United States. The remammg two varieties of silicon carbides were manufactured in France. Spa11 

strengths of these five different silicon carbide materials were measured by performing plane shock wave experiments to 

a maximum impact-generated stress level of 17 GPa on the light gas-gun facility at the U.S. ‘Army Research Laboratory 

(ARL). The single most important result of this investigation is that spa11 strength of silicon carbide, irrespective of its 

manufacturing process, improves initially to a certain impact stress level before it begins to deteriorate under higher 

impact stress. The decline in the spa11 strength of both sintered materials and Cercom SIC-B begin at an impact stress 

between 3-5 GPa. SIC-N data have a very large scatter. Spa11 strength of the French sintered and hot-pressed material 

increases to an impact stress of 11.7 GPa. Its spa11 strength increases from 0.8 GPa at an impact stress of 1.6 GPa to 1.8 

GPa at an impact stress of 11.7 GPa. In terms of spa11 strength, the French smtered and hot-pressed materials show the 

least scatter and largest increase with an increase in the impact stress. The results of the present work thus offer new 

challenges to modeling ceramic materials. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 

tensile strength, shock, silicon carbide, spa11 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

49 

16. PRICE CODE 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED 

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

OF ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED UL 

45 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. Z-69) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-l 8 298-102 
INTENTIONALLY LEFTBLANK. 

46 
USER EVALUATION SHEET/CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

This Laboratory undertakes a continuing effort to improve the quality of the reports it publishes. Your comments/answers to 

the items/questions below will aid us in our efforts. 

1. ARL Report Number/Author ti-TR-2430 (Dandekar) Date of Report March 2001 

2. Date Report Received 

3. Does this report satisfy a need? (Comment on purpose, related project, or other area of interest for which the report will be 

used.) 

b 4. Specifically, how is the report being used? (Information source, design data, procedure, source of ideas, etc.) 

5. Has the information in this report led to any quantitative savings as far as man-hours or dollars saved, operating costs 

avoided, or efficiencies achieved, etc? If so, please elaborate. 

6. General Comments. What do you think should be changed to improve future reports? (Indicate changes to organization, 

technical content, format, etc.) 

Organization 

CURRENT 

ADDRESS 

Name 

Street or P.O. Box No. 

E-mail Name 

City, State, Zip Code 

2 

7. If indicating a Change of Address or Address Correction, please provide the Current or Correct address above and the Old or 

Incorrect address below. 

Organization 

OLD 

ADDRESS 

Name 

Street or P.O. Box No. 

City, State, Zip Code 

(Remove this sheet, fold as indicated, tape closed, and mail.) 

(DO NOT STAPLE) 
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

111 I(= 

0FRaAL BUSINESS 

I BUSINESS REPLY MAIL 

FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO OOOl,APG,MD I 

I IN THE UNITED STATES 

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY 

AlTN AMSRL WM TD 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 210064066