journal article·1994-12Open access

Determining fiber strength vs. gage length

W. A. Curtin

Polymer Composites· Volume 15· Issue 6

Abstract

Abstract This paper concerns the gage length dependence of fiber strength as established by measuring the fiber fracture stress vs. fragment length in the succession of fragments, which occur in tension testing of a single‐fiber composite (s.f.c.). For fibers with a strength distribution described by a Weibull modulus m, a plot of In (fragment fragment fracture stress) vs. ln (actual fragment length) leads to the deduction of an apparent Weibull modulus mapp ⋍ 0.63 m, whereas the apparently less drigorous procedure of plotting In (fragment fracture stress) vs. ln (average fragment length) allows for accurate assessment of the true Weibull modulus. The mapp < m behavior arising from the use of actual fragment lengths occurs because fragments in the s.f.c. are not random sections of the fiber, but rather sections which have effectively been proof‐tested at a stress corresponding to the strength of last fiber breaking stress occurring in the entire sample length. Hence, the individual fragments appear stronger than random fiber sections, leading to an apparently smaller Weibull modulus. Such complications do not arise if only the average fragment length, or equivalently the location‐independent total number of breaks, is considered. Computer simualtions of the fragmentation process verify analytic estimates of the ratio of mapp/m, and demonstrate the accuracy of using the average fragment length to assess fiber Weibull modulus.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Graphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior

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

References (13)

Show source-provided references
1. Harlow D. G. · Int. J. Fracture · 1979 · 15 · 32110.1007/BF00033058 ↗
2. 10.2514/3.269910.2514/3.2699 ↗
3. 10.1002/pc.75004040910.1002/pc.750040409 ↗
4. W. A.Fraser F. H.Ancker andA. T.DiBenedetto Proc. 30th Conf. SPI Reinjorced Plastics Div. Sec. 22‐A(1975).
5. 10.1080/0021846860807122510.1080/00218468608071225 ↗
6. 10.1002/pc.75012060910.1002/pc.750120609 ↗
7. 10.1520/CTR10070J10.1520/CTR10070J ↗
8. 10.1063/1.10301210.1063/1.103012 ↗
9. 10.1002/pc.75010040510.1002/pc.750100405 ↗
10. 10.1016/0022-5096(65)90035-910.1016/0022-5096(65)90035-9 ↗
11. 10.1007/BF0114321810.1007/BF01143218 ↗
12. W.Sachse.A. N.Netravali andA. R.Baker submitted toJ. Nondestructive Evaluation.
13. 10.1007/BF0035651510.1007/BF00356515 ↗