Statistical analysis of the failure stresses of ceramic fibres: Dependence of the Weibull parameters on the gauge length, diameter variation and fluctuation of defect density
Source abstract
Abstract
The strength distribution of ceramic fibres is commonly described using a two-parameter Weibull distribution function. This study shows that the determination of these parameters from around 30 tensile tests obtained at one single gauge length (L0) does not allow the strength distribution at other gauge lengths to be correctly predicted. The reliability in the Weibull parameter determination is lowered by variations in fibre diameter (D) and the insufficient number of fibres tested. An effective failure stress σE = σ · (π D · L0)1/m is first introduced to take into account fibre diameter variations and to extract the two Weibull parameters from the 180 tests obtained at 6 gauge lengths. It is then shown that the linear size effect, which is expected from the standard Weibull model, is not appropriate to fit correctly this experimental strength distribution. The length dependence follows a power law (L0β) leading to an effective failure stress σE = σ · (π D · L0β)1/m. Diameter variations along the gauge length cannot be responsible for this non linear variation with the length, which is attributed to a large scale fluctuation of the density of defects. The value of β can bring valuable information about fluctuations in the fibre processing conditions.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Scientific Research and Discoveries · Granular flow and fluidized beds · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (19)
Show source-provided references
1. S. L. Phoenix, Fibre Sci. Tech. 7(1) (1974) 15.10.1016/0015-0568(74)90003-7 ↗
2. T. S. Creasy, Compos. Sci. Tech. 60 (2000) 825.10.1016/S0266-3538(99)00187-6 ↗
3. F. DelÉglise, M. H. Berger, D. Jeulin and A. R. Bunsell, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 21 (2001) 569.10.1016/S0955-2219(00)00249-1 ↗
4. D. M. Wilson, S. L. Lieder and D. C. Luenburg, Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc. 16(5) (1995) 1005.10.1002/9780470314784.ch44 ↗
5. A. R. Bunsell and P. Schwartz, in “Comprehensive Composite Materials” Vol. 5 “Test Methods, Nondestructive Evaluation and Smart Materials,” edited by L. A. Carlsson, R. L. Crane, K. Uchino, A. Kelly and C. H. Zweben (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000) p. 44.
6. F. DelÉglise, PhD thesis Ecole des Mines de Paris, France, 5th July 2000.
7. E. Larra-curzio and C. M. Russ, Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc. 20(3) (1999) 471.10.1002/9780470294567.ch54 ↗
8. T. A. Parthasarathy, J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 84(3) (2001) 588.10.1111/j.1151-2916.2001.tb00703.x ↗
9. C. Milz, J. Goering and H. Schneider, Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc. 20(3) (1999) 191.10.1002/9780470294567.ch23 ↗
10. J. Lipowitz, J. A. Rabe, A. Zangvil and Y. Xu, ibid. 18(3) (1997) 147.10.1002/9780470294437.ch16 ↗
11. D. M. Wilson and L. R. Visser, Compos. A 32 (2001) 1143.10.1016/S1359-835X(00)00176-7 ↗
12. Z. Chi, T.-W. Chou and G. Shen, J. Mater. Sci. 19 (1984) 3319.10.1007/BF00549820 ↗
13. C. Berdin, G. Cailletaud and D. Jeulin, in Proceedings of the ICASP 7 Conference, edited by M. Lemaire, J.L. Favre and A. Mebarki, Paris, France, July 1995 p. 131.
14. N. Hochet, PhD thesis, Ecole des Mines de Paris, France, 26th September 1996.
15. A. Poulon-Quintin, PhD thesis Ecole des Mines de Paris, France, 26th April 2002.
16. A. S. Watson and R. L. Smith, J. Mater. Sci. 20 (1985) 3260.10.1007/BF00545193 ↗
17. D. Jeulin, Annales des Composites 1 (1996) 23.
18. Y. Zhang, X. Wang, N. Pan and R. Postle, J. Mater. Sci. 37 (2002) 1401.10.1023/A:1014580814803 ↗
19. W. Feller, in “An introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications,” Vol. 2 (J. Wiley, New York, 1971).