The fiber bridging, the fiber–matrix interface debonding and the
fiber pullout were evidenced by the side view of fracture surface of
CZS after SENB test as shown in Fig. 7. From Fig. 7(a), it can be seen
that the fiber bridging occurred across the crack propagation path.
The fiber bridging reduced the stress intensity at the tip of crack,
and refrained the crack propagation. Fig. 7(b) clearly shows the
fiber–matrix interface debonding and the fiber pullout. The fiber–
matrix debonding and the fiber pullout were caused by the crack
deflections along the fiber–matrix interface. Hence, more fracture
energy was consumed by aforementioned toughening mechanisms,
which led to high fracture toughness in CZS. However, the
crack propagation path was relative straight in ZS, resulting in a
brittle fracture behavior as shown in Fig. 6.
The fiber bridging, the fiber–matrix interface debonding and the
fiber pullout were evidenced by the side view of fracture surface of
CZS after SENB test as shown in Fig. 7. From Fig. 7(a), it can be seen
that the fiber bridging occurred across the crack propagation path.
The fiber bridging reduced the stress intensity at the tip of crack,
and refrained the crack propagation. Fig. 7(b) clearly shows the
fiber–matrix interface debonding and the fiber pullout. The fiber–
matrix debonding and the fiber pullout were caused by the crack
deflections along the fiber–matrix interface. Hence, more fracture
energy was consumed by aforementioned toughening mechanisms,
which led to high fracture toughness in CZS. However, the
crack propagation path was relative straight in ZS, resulting in a
brittle fracture behavior as shown in Fig. 6.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
