26.12.2012 Views

Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports Volume 38 July 28, 2000

Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports Volume 38 July 28, 2000

Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports Volume 38 July 28, 2000

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>2000</strong>0064096 NASA Glenn Research Center, Clevel<strong>and</strong>, OH USA<br />

Mechanical, Chemical <strong>and</strong> Microstructural Characterization of Monazite-Coated Silicon Carbide Fibers<br />

Bansal, N. P., NASA Glenn Research Center, USA; Wheeler, D. R., NASA Glenn Research Center, USA; Chen, Y. L., DYNACS<br />

Engineering Co., Inc., USA; June <strong>2000</strong>; 24p; In English<br />

Contract(s)/Grant(s): RTOP 523-31-13<br />

Report No.(s): NASA/TM-<strong>2000</strong>-210208; E-123<strong>28</strong>; NAS 1.15:210208; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; A03, Hardcopy; A01, Microfiche<br />

Tensile strengths of as-received Hi-Nicalon <strong>and</strong> Sylramic fibers <strong>and</strong> those having monazite surface coatings, deposited by<br />

atmospheric pressure chemical vapor deposition, were measured at room temperature <strong>and</strong> the Weibull statistical parameters determined.<br />

The average tensile strengths of uncoated Hi-Nicalon <strong>and</strong> Sylramic fibers were 3.19 +/- 0.73 <strong>and</strong> 2.78 +/- 0.53 GPa with<br />

a Weibull modulus of 5.41 <strong>and</strong> 5.52, respectively. The monazite-coated Hi-Nicalon <strong>and</strong> Sylramic fibers showed strength loss of<br />

approx. 10 <strong>and</strong> 15 percent, respectively, compared with the as-received fibers. The elemental compositions of the fibers <strong>and</strong> the<br />

coatings were analyzed using scanning Auger microprobe <strong>and</strong> energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. The LaPO4 coating on Hi-<br />

Nicalon fibers was approximately stoichiometric <strong>and</strong> about 50 nm thick. The coating on the Sylramic fibers extended to a depth<br />

of about 100 to 150 nm. The coating may have been stoichiometric LaPO4 in the first 30 to 40 nm of the layer. However, the surface<br />

roughness of Sylramic fiber made this profile somewhat difficult to interpret. Microstructural analyses of the fibers <strong>and</strong> the coatings<br />

were done by scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, <strong>and</strong> selected area electron diffraction. Hi-<br />

Nicalon fiber consists of fine beta-SiC nanocrystals ranging in size from 1 to 30 mn embedded in an amorphous matrix. Sylramic<br />

is a polycrystalline stoichiometric silicon carbide fiber consisting of submicron beta-SiC crystallites ranging from 100 to 300 nm.<br />

Small amount of TiB2 nanocrystallites (approx. 50 nm) are also present. The LaPO4 coating on Hi-Nicalon fibers consisted of<br />

a chain of peanut shape particles having monazite-(LA) structure. The coating on Sylramic fibers consisted of two layers. The<br />

inner layer was a chain of peanut shape particles having monazite-(LA) structure. The outer layer was comprised of much smaller<br />

particles with a microcrystalline structure.<br />

Author<br />

Silicon Carbides; Fiber Composites; Microstructure; Mechanical Properties; Coating; Amorphous Materials; Chemical Composition<br />

<strong>2000</strong>0064098 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL USA<br />

Metallurgical Evaluations of Depainting Processes on Aluminum Substrate Final Report<br />

McGill, Preston, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, USA; December 1999; 25p; In English; Original contains color illustrations;<br />

No Copyright; Avail: CASI; A03, Hardcopy; A01, Microfiche<br />

In December 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Emission St<strong>and</strong>ards Division <strong>and</strong> the National Aeronautics<br />

<strong>and</strong> Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) signed an Interagency Agreement (IA) initiating<br />

a task force for the technical assessment of alternative technologies for aerospace depainting operations. The USA Air Force<br />

(USAF) joined the task force in 1994. The m<strong>and</strong>ates of the task force were: (1) To identify available alternative depainting systems<br />

that do not rely on methylene chloride or other ozone-depleting, chlorinated, <strong>and</strong> volatile organic carbon solvents. (2) to determine<br />

the viability, applicability, <strong>and</strong> pollution prevention potential of each identified alternative. (3) to address issues of safety, environmental<br />

impact, reliability, <strong>and</strong> maintainability. Through a <strong>Technical</strong> Implementation Committee (TIC), the task force selected <strong>and</strong><br />

evaluated eight alternative paint stripping technologies: chemical stripping, carbon dioxide (CO2) blasting, xenon flashlamp <strong>and</strong><br />

CO2 coatings removal (FLASHJET(R)), CO2 laser stripping, plastic media blasting (PMB), sodium bicarbonate wet stripping,<br />

high-pressure water blasting (WaterJet), <strong>and</strong> wheat starch abrasive blasting (Enviro-Strip(R)). (The CO2 blasting study was discontinued<br />

after the first depainting sequence.) This final report presents the results of the Joint EPA/NASA/USAF Interagency<br />

Depainting Study. Significant topics include: (1) Final depainting sequence data for the chemical stripping, PMB, sodium bicarbonate<br />

wet stripping, <strong>and</strong> WaterJet processes. (2) Strip rates for all eight technologies. (3) Sequential comparisons of surface<br />

roughness measurements for the seven viable depainting technologies. (4) Chronological reviews of <strong>and</strong> lessons learned in the<br />

conduct of all eight technologies. (5) An analysis of the surface roughness trends for each of the seven technologies. (6) Metallurgic<br />

evaluations of panels Summaries of corrosion <strong>and</strong> hydrogen embrittlement evaluations of chemical stripping panels, detailed<br />

descriptions of which appear in previous reports. Because the requirements for alternative systems are diverse, as are initial setup,<br />

training, <strong>and</strong> on-going operational considerations, this study does not recommend a particular product or process. Users of this<br />

study will draw their own conclusions from the data presented herein.<br />

Author<br />

Carbon Dioxide; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Environment Protection; Exhaust Emission; Exhaust Gases; Maintainability; Methylene;<br />

Paint Removal; Pollution Control; Technology Assessment<br />

54

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!