In table 1 are provided average on three measurements (to charts σ- ε) data on mechanical characteristics aluminum and copper foils at stretching with speeds of ( ) 0,357 = tε& min-1 and 0.5 min-1 respectively, in parentheses – discrepancy in %. Designations are accepted: E ‐ Young's modulus; eσ - elasticity limit; max σ - the maximum conditional stress on the chart "stress - deformation"; cσ - conditional stress of destruction (temporary resistance) corresponding to the moment of the beginning of a macrorupture of a sample; cε - destruction deformation; ct - destruction time. Essential distinction of all mechanical characteristics foils is established to Al and Cu. Table 1. Mechanical characteristics of an aluminum and copper foils Material E, GPa eσ, MPa max σ , MPa cσ, MPa cε, % ct , s Al 13 (±12%) 60 (±15%) 99 (±1%) 99 (±1%) 0,76 (±14%) 1,275 (±14%) Cu 38 (±28%) 400 (±18%) 527 (±3%) 508 (±3%) 2,27 (±18%) 2,730 (±18%) Very insignificant dispersion of characteristics attracts attention max σ and cσ . It is possible to claim about experimental stability of these characteristics. 2.4. The microstructural analysis of destruction at quasistatic loading The type of two samples of an aluminum foil and two samples of a copper foil after destruction is presented on figs. 4. In fig. 4 destruction of samples on a working site is noticeable 0l . Research of destruction surfaces of aluminum and copper samples after tests was carried out on an optical microscope of Axio-Observer-Z1-M in a dark field, and research of structure cross microsection – in a light field or polarized light. The structure was studied on cross microsection after the corresponding etching. The size of grain and quantity of a pores defined on a surface microsection. Microstructural studying is carried out on three aluminum and three copper destroyed samples. The analysis of samples structure of copper and aluminum showed that samples mainly collapse viscously – have a “cup” break. Comparison of samples of copper and aluminum revealed that the fiber percent in a break of statically loaded copper is less, than in aluminum, i.e. copper collapses is more fragile in these conditions. Fig. 4. The destroyed samples aluminum (at the left) and copper (on the right) foils
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjM0NDE=