journal article·2013-05

Effects of fiber gripping methods on the single fiber tensile test: I. Non-parametric statistical analysis

Jae Hyun Kim, N. Alan Heckert, Stefan D. Leigh, Haruki Kobayashi, Walter G. McDonough, Kirk D. Rice, Gale A. Holmes

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 48· Issue 10
Publisher page

Abstract

Single fiber tensile tests using two different gripping methods were carried out on various fiber lengths. One method (the glue-tab grip method) consists of mounting a fiber onto a rigid tab as specified in ASTM C1557-03 using an adhesive, while the other (the direct grip method) involves directly clamping a fiber using poly(methyl methacrylate) blocks. The tensile moduli obtained by the glue-tab grip as a function of the fiber gauge length are clearly different from those of the direct grip for fiber length between 2 and 10 mm, based on graphical statistical analyses using kernel density and q–q plots. This difference is caused by the gripping effect. In addition, the tensile strains and strengths obtained by the glue-tab grip were different from those of the direct grip at the short fiber gauge lengths (i.e., 2–10 mm). The differences between the tensile properties (i.e., modulus, strain, and strength) for the two grips measured with the 60-mm fiber length were not statistically significant compared to the results with the short fiber lengths.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Fatigue and fracture mechanics

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

References (21)

Show source-provided references
1. Cheeseman BA, Bogetti TA (2003) Compos Struct 61:16110.1016/S0263-8223(03)00029-1 ↗
2. NIST technical workshop on research and metrology of ballistic fibers, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 3–7 October 2007
3. Multi-scale materials behavior in ultra-high loading rate environments, US army research laboratory workshop, APG, Towson, Maryland, 22–23 September 2008
4. Cheng M, Chen WN, Weerasooriya T (2005) J Eng Mater Technol Trans ASME 127:19710.1115/1.1857937 ↗
5. Tan VBC, Zeng XS, Shim VPW (2008) Int J Impact Eng 35:130310.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.07.010 ↗
6. Whitney JM, Daniel IM, Pipes RB (1982) Experimental mechanics of fiber reinforced composite materials, 1st edn, p 151
7. Kim J, McDonough WG, Blair W, Holmes GA (2008) J Appl Polym Sci 108:87610.1002/app.27684 ↗
8. Thomason JL, Kalinka G (2001) Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 32:8510.1016/S1359-835X(00)00122-6 ↗
9. Kobayashi H, McDonough WG, Dunkers JP, Wight SA, Lee HJ, Kim JH, Forster AL, Rice KD, Holmes GA (2012) Polym Compos 33:80310.1002/pc.22210 ↗
10. Kim JH, Heckert NA, Leigh SD, Kobayashi H, McDonough WG, Rice KD, Holmes GA (2011) In: SAMPE 2011 technical conference proceedings
11. Quantile–Quantile plot in (2003) NIST SEMATECH e-Handbook of statistical methods ( http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/qqplot.htm )
12. Chambers JM, Cleveland WS, Kleiner B, Tukey PA (1983) Graphical methods for data analysis. Wadsworth International group, Belmont
13. Silverman BW (1982) Appl Stat J Royal Stat Soc Series C 31:93
14. Thomason JL, Kalinka G (2001) Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 32:8510.1016/S1359-835X(00)00122-6 ↗
15. Fawaz SA, Palazotto AN, Wang CS (1992) Polymer 33:10010.1016/0032-3861(92)90566-F ↗
16. Horgan CO (1974) Int J Solids Struct 10:83710.1016/0020-7683(74)90027-4 ↗
17. Arridge RGC, Folkes MJ (1976) Polymer 17:49510.1016/0032-3861(76)90129-4 ↗
18. Vanderzwaag S (1989) J Test Evaluation 17:29210.1520/JTE11131J ↗
19. Schervish MJ (1996) Am Stat 50:203
20. Petry MD, Mah TI, Kerans RJ (1997) J Am Ceram Soc 80:274110.1111/j.1151-2916.1997.tb03188.x ↗
21. Lara-Curzio E, Russ CM (1999) J Mater Sci Lett 18:204110.1023/A:1006762622887 ↗