journal article·2012-01

The effect of gauge length on tensile strength and Weibull modulus of polyacrylonitrile (PAN)- and pitch-based carbon fibers

Kimiyoshi Naito, Jenn-Ming Yang, Yoshihisa Tanaka, Yutaka Kagawa

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 47· Issue 2
Publisher page

Abstract

Carbon fibers are widely used as a reinforcement in composite materials because of their high specific strength and modulus. Current trends toward the development of carbon fibers have been driven in two directions; ultrahigh tensile strength fiber with a fairly high strain to failure (~2%), and ultrahigh modulus fiber with high thermal conductivity. Today, a number of ultrahigh strength polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-based (more than 6 GPa), and ultrahigh modulus pitch-based (more than 900 GPa) carbon fibers have been commercially available. In this study, the tensile strengths of PAN- and pitch-based carbon fibers have been investigated using a single filament tensile test at various gauge lengths ranging from 1 to 250 mm. Carbon fibers used in this study were ultrahigh strength PAN-based (T1000GB, IM600), a high strength PAN-based (T300), a high modulus PAN-based (M60JB), an ultrahigh modulus pitch-based (K13D), and a high ductility pitch-based (XN-05) carbon fibers. The statistical distributions of the tensile strength were characterized. It was found that the Weibull modulus and the average tensile strength increased with decreasing gauge length, a linear relation between the Weibull modulus, the average tensile strength and the gauge length was established on log–log scale. The results also clearly show that for PAN- and pitch-based carbon fibers, there is a linear relation between the Weibull modulus and the average tensile strength on log–log scale.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Fiber-reinforced polymer composites · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Mechanical Behavior of Composites

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (30)

Show source-provided references
1. Fitzer E (1989) Carbon 27(5):621. doi: 10.1016/0008-6223(89)90197-810.1016/0008-6223(89)90197-8 ↗
2. Chand S (2000) J Mater Sci 35(6):1303. doi: 10.1023/A:100478030148910.1023/A:1004780301489 ↗
3. Rosa LG, Colella A, Anjinho CA (2006) Mater Sci Forum 514–516:672. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.514-516.67210.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.514-516.672 ↗
4. Naito K, Tanaka Y, Yang JM, Kagawa Y (2008) Carbon 46(2):189. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2007.11.00110.1016/j.carbon.2007.11.001 ↗
5. Naito K, Tanaka Y, Yang JM, Kagawa Y (2009) J Am Ceram Soc 92(1):186. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2008.02868.x10.1111/j.1551-2916.2008.02868.x ↗
6. Johnson W (1985) In: Watt W, Perov BV (eds) Strong fibers, vol 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 389
7. Thorne DJ (1974) Nature 248(5451):754. doi: 10.1038/248754a010.1038/248754a0 ↗
8. Stoner EG, Edie DD, Durham SD (1994) J Mater Sci 29(24):6561. doi: 10.1007/BF0035402210.1007/BF00354022 ↗
9. Padgett WJ, Durham SD, Mason AM (1995) J Compos Mater 29(14):1873. doi: 10.1177/00219983950290140510.1177/002199839502901405 ↗
10. Tagawa T, Miyata T (1997) Mat Sci Eng A Struct 238(2):336. doi: 10.1016/S0921-5093(97)00454-110.1016/S0921-5093(97)00454-1 ↗
11. Pickering KL, Murray TL (1999) Compos Part A Appl S 30(8):1017. doi: 10.1016/S1359-835X(99)00003-210.1016/S1359-835X(99)00003-2 ↗
12. Paiva MC, Bernardo CA, Nardin M (2000) Carbon 38(9):1323. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6223(99)00266-310.1016/S0008-6223(99)00266-3 ↗
13. Jones JB, Barr JB, Smith RE (1980) J Mater Sci 15(10):2455. doi: 10.1007/BF0055074710.1007/BF00550747 ↗
14. Asloun EM, Donnet JB, Guilpain G, Nardin M, Schultz J (1989) J Mater Sci 24(10):3504. doi: 10.1007/BF0238573210.1007/BF02385732 ↗
15. ASTM C1557-03 (2008) In: ASTM Annual Book of Standards, vol 15.01. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken. doi: 10.1520/C1557-03R0810.1520/C1557-03R08 ↗
16. Sung MG, Sassa K, Tagawa T, Miyata T, Ogawa H, Doyama M, Yamada S, Asai S (2002) Carbon 40(11):2013. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6223(02)00059-310.1016/S0008-6223(02)00059-3 ↗
17. Morimoto T, Nakagawa S, Ogihara S (2005) JSME Int J Series A 48(4):194. doi: 10.1299/jsmea.48.19410.1299/jsmea.48.194 ↗
18. Weibull W (1951) J Appl Mech 18:29310.1115/1.4010337 ↗
19. Lu CS, Danzer R, Fischer FD (2002) J Am Ceram Soc 85(6):1640. doi: 10.1111/j.1151-2916.2002.tb00330.x10.1111/j.1151-2916.2002.tb00330.x ↗
20. Danzer R (2006) J Eur Ceram Soc 26(15):3043. doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2005.08.02110.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2005.08.021 ↗
21. ASTM C1239-07 (2009) ASTM Annual Book of Standards, vol 15.01. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken. doi: 10.1520/C1239-0710.1520/C1239-07 ↗
22. Rosa LG, Figueiredo I (2010) Mater Sci Forum 636–637:1443. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.636-637.144310.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.636-637.1443 ↗
23. Davies IJ (2004) J Mater Sci 39(4):1441. doi: 10.1023/B:JMSC.0000013913.84004.cd10.1023/B:JMSC.0000013913.84004.cd ↗
24. Absi J, Fournier P, Glandus JC (1999) J Mater Sci 34(6):1219. doi: 10.1023/A:100456102352810.1023/A:1004561023528 ↗
25. Trustrum K, Jayatilaka ADK (1979) J Mater Sci 14(5):1080. doi: 10.1007/BF0056129010.1007/BF00561290 ↗
26. Pan N, Chen HC, Thompson J, Inglesby MK, Khatua S, Zhang XS, Zeronian SH (1997) J Mater Sci 32(10):2677. doi: 10.1023/A:101867920730310.1023/A:1018679207303 ↗
27. Wilson DM (1997) J Mater Sci 32(10):2535. doi: 10.1023/A:101853803098510.1023/A:1018538030985 ↗
28. Curtin WA (2000) J Compos Mater 34(15):1301. doi: 10.1177/00219983000340150310.1177/002199830003401503 ↗
29. Watson AS, Smith RL (1985) J Mater Sci 20(9):3260. doi: 10.1007/BF0054519310.1007/BF00545193 ↗
30. Afferrante L, Ciavarella M, Valenza E (2006) Int J Solids Struct 43(17):5147. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.08.00210.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.08.002 ↗