The subject of this study was a block of material from an 800-mm-diameter SiC mirror body (Fig. 1b). The mirror body was manufactured in a project of Mitsubishi Electric Corporation conducted jointly with Engineered Ceramic Materials GmbH (ECM) of Germany under a contract with JAXA. The material is based on HBCesic® (Ref 10), which was produced using the reaction sintering method and contained short carbon fibers for improved toughness (Ref 11-13). A mixture of a carbon precursor resin and short carbon fibers was fired to produce a porous carbon base material, which was then impregnated with molten silicon at a high temperature to induce reaction sintering to form a SiC phase. The positions and number indexes of the samples cut from this block of material are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1.
Table 1 The positions and the number of samples cut out from the material block
To evaluate the mechanical properties, we measured the flexural strength and flexural elastic modulus using a three-point flexural test with reference to the JIS R1601 and JIS R1602 standards, respectively. Rectangular test pieces that were 40 mm long, 4 mm wide, and 3 mm high were examined at room temperature by using a Model 5882 material testing system (Instron Corporation, USA). The load cell had a maximum capacity of 5 kN. The distance between the supporting points was 30 mm, and the crosshead speed was 0.5 mm/min. To determine the deformation behavior of the test pieces, we measured their flexural strain by attaching a strain gage (KFG-5-120-C1-11L1M2R, Kyowa Electronic Instruments Co., Ltd., Japan) to the tension side under the load point of each test piece. We defined the maximum flexural stress supported by the test piece during testing as its flexural strength. We also computed the slope of the stress-strain curve at flexural stresses of 10-100 MPa by using the least-squares method and defined the slope as the flexural elastic modulus. Then, we evaluated the degree of variation in the flexural strength by Weibull analysis. The variations in the average values under various sampling conditions was computed as
$$ (\left| {{\text{maximal}}\;{\text{value}}} \right| - \left| {{\text{minimum}}\;{\text{value}}} \right|)/\left| {{\text{minimum}}\;{\text{value}}} \right| \times 100\;\left( \% \right). $$
The thermal expansion properties were obtained by measuring the dimensional change of a test piece in one direction, while its temperature was increased at constant rate, as per the ISO 17562 standard, using a thermal dilatometer (DIL402C, NETZSCH-Geratebau GmbH, Germany). Rectangular test pieces that were 25 mm long, 6 mm wide, and 4 mm high were prepared while paying careful attention to the parallelism between the opposite faces in the longitudinal direction. A test piece was set in a holder made entirely from quartz glass and dried at 100 °C for more than 8 h. Then, as a displacement detection rod was pressed into the test piece in the longitudinal direction at a fixed load of 15 cN, the temperature of the piece was increased at a constant rate of 3 °C/min from 0 to 120 °C in a flow of high-purity helium at 100 mL/min. From the results, the apparatus automatically calculated the rate of dimensional change (ΔL/L
0) occurring in the test piece during the test. Here, L
0 is the length of the test piece at room temperature before the test and ΔL is the dimensional change in response to the change in temperature.
From the rate of dimensional change, we calculated the coefficient of linear expansion α and the average coefficient of linear expansion \( \bar \upalpha \), as expressed by formulas (1) and (2). Here, α was found by using the central difference method at 50, 60, and 70 °C with dT = 20 °C, and \( \bar \upalpha \) corresponds to the slope of the straight line passing through two temperature points and was found in the range of 40-80 °C.
$$ \upalpha = \frac{1}{L_0} \cdot \frac{dL}{dT}, $$
(1)
$$ \bar \upalpha = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{\Updelta L}{L_0}} \right)}_{T_1}} - {{\left( {\frac{\Updelta L}{L_0}} \right)}_{T_2}}}}{{{T_1} - {T_2}}}. $$
(2)
Each test piece was measured twice in a row without disturbing the test piece, and the average of the two measurements was used for evaluation. The variations in the average values under various sampling conditions were computed as
$$ (\left| {{\text{maximal}}\;{\text{value}}} \right| - \left| {{\text{minimum}}\;{\text{value}}} \right|)/\left| {{\text{minimum}}\;{\text{value}}} \right| \times 100\;\left( \% \right). $$
Let us consider the accuracy of this measurement. Because the resolution of the detector and the longitudinal dimensions of the test piece were 0.125 nm and 25 mm, respectively, the potential resolution for ΔL/L
0 is ±5.0 × 10−9/°C (0.125 nm ÷ 25 mm). Therefore, the measurement accuracies of \( \upalpha \) and \( \bar \upalpha \) can be estimated as ±5.0 × 10−10/°C (5.0 × 10−9 × 2 ÷ 20) and ±2.5 × 10−10/°C (5.0 × 10−9 × 2 ÷ 40), respectively. As a preliminary verification of the device, a standard sample made of quartz glass was consecutively measured eight times without disturbing the test piece under the same conditions. As a result, we obtained 6.91 × 10−9/°C as the standard deviation of \( \bar \upalpha \) in the range of 40-80 °C. During the measurement of the test sample, we minimized the effects of opening/closing the sample room or detaching/attaching the test piece as much as possible by completely drying the sample, measuring one test piece twice, and averaging the measurement results for five test pieces under the same sampling conditions. These precautions secured an accuracy of 10−8/°C.
From each position on the material block, a rectangular sample that was 5 mm long, 4 mm wide, and 2 mm high was cut as shown in Table 1. The surface parallel to the in-plane direction of the block was mirror polished, and the polished face was used as the sample for the following two microstructural evaluations.
The typical microstructure and composition distribution of the material were studied using a representative sample. Using an EPMA-1610 electron probe microanalyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan), a backscattered electron image (BEI) and a secondary electron image (SEI) were acquired. Semiquantitative analysis of the composition of each phase and an elemental distribution analysis were also conducted.
Micrographs of the samples obtained under various sampling conditions were taken using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and analyzed, and the volume fraction of each phase was determined. Using a field-emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM, S-4700, Hitachi High Technologies Corp., Japan), four micrographs were taken for each sample. To improve the discrimination accuracy in the image analysis for each phase, the images were preprocessed by adjusting the brightness, contrast, averaging phenomenon, blurring phenomenon, and so forth using Adobe® Photoshop® CS4 (Adobe Systems Inc., USA). These preprocessed images were analyzed to obtain the area ratios of the phases using the image analysis software Image-Pro® Plus version 6.2 (Media Cybernetics, Inc., USA). In order to discriminate the phases, the micrographs were first processed using the automatic identification function of the software and then manually modified. The obtained area ratio of each phase was raised to the power of three by two to obtain the volume fraction. After the average value of each sample was calculated, the average values were obtained for various sampling conditions.