journal article·2011-01

Tensile and creep behaviour of polyethylene terephthalate and polyethylene naphthalate fibres

C. Lechat, A. R. Bunsell, P. Davies

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 46· Issue 2
Publisher page

Abstract

Ropes made of twisted polyester (PET) yarns have been replacing traditional steel ropes and chains as mooring lines for offshore platforms in deep-sea environments. In order to optimise rope manufacture and the design of mooring systems, a thorough understanding of the material’s mechanical behaviour is necessary. Besides PET, other materials can also be considered such as PEN, as it also a polyester similar to PET but stiffer. This paper presents a study and comparison of PET and PEN fibres’ mechanical behaviour, based on experiments carried out on single filaments. Both fibres show similar non-linear tensile behaviour, with an evolution of modulus in four steps. The same microstructural model is proposed for both fibres, based on microfibrils aligned along the fibre axis and composed of an alternation of amorphous, mesamorphous and crystalline phases. The shape of the tensile loading curve is explained by the successive loading of these phases. Creep behaviour is also evaluated by considering the evolution of creep rate with applied load. This evolution is again similar for PET and PEN, both from a qualitative and quantitative point of view. The similarity in creep rate values for both fibres indicates that the microstructural mechanisms involved in creep may differ from those involved in short term tension loading.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Mechanical stress and fatigue analysis · Fiber-reinforced polymer composites

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

References (14)

Show source-provided references
1. Flory JF, Banfield SJ, Berryman C (2007) In: Offshore technology conference proceedings OTC 18768
2. Fernandes AC, Del Vecchio CJM, Castro GAV (1998) In: 8th international offshore and polar engineering conference proceedings, Montréal, Canada
3. De Pellegrin I (1999) In: Offshore technology conference proceedings OTC 10907
4. Van Den Heuvel CJM, Klop EA (2000) Polymer 41:424910.1016/S0032-3861(99)00554-6 ↗
5. Wu G, Li Q, Cuculo JA (2000) Polymer 41:813910.1016/S0032-3861(00)00122-1 ↗
6. Bedia EL, Murakami S, Kitade T, Kohjiy S (2001) Polymer 42(17):729910.1016/S0032-3861(01)00236-1 ↗
7. Bunsell AR, Hearle JWS, Hunter RD (1971) J Phys E 4:86810.1088/0022-3735/4/11/017 ↗
8. Oudet C, Bunsell AR (1987) J Mater Sci 22:4292. doi: 10.1007/BF0113202010.1007/BF01132020 ↗
9. Van Den Heuvel CJM, Heuvel HM, Faassen WA (1993) J Appl Polym Sci 49:92510.1002/app.1993.070490518 ↗
10. Phoenix SL (1975) Int J Eng Sci 13:28710.1016/0020-7225(75)90036-1 ↗
11. Prevorsek DC, Harget PJ, Sharma RK, Reimschussel AC et al (1973) J Macromol Sci Phys 8:12710.1080/00222347308245797 ↗
12. Peterlin A (1975) Int J Fract 11:76110.1007/BF00012895 ↗
13. Herrera Ramirez JM (2004) PhD Thesis, Mines ParisTech
14. Burgoyne CJ, Alwis KGNC (2008) J Mater Sci 43:7091. doi: 10.1007/s10853-008-3032-010.1007/s10853-008-3032-0 ↗