Size effect on tensile strength of carbon fibers

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(97)00454-1Get rights and content

Abstract

Tensile strength of carbon fibers exhibits statistical Weibull type distribution and significant size dependence. In the present work, ten types of polyacrylonitrile based and mesophase-pitch based carbon fiber monofilaments were tested for two or three different gauge lengths. Size effect in both axial and radial directions were analyzed based on the two parameters Weibull statistics. It was found that the size effect in axial direction was almost similar for all fibers tested. This result suggests that the tensile strength obtained for a certain gauge length is a meaningful measure as a representative strength of the fiber strength. In radial direction, the size effect of the tensile strength was larger than that in axial direction. The tensile strength of the carbon fibers seemed to have unisotropic statistical characteristics. Size dependence in diameter was numerically simulated with an assumption of unisotropic distribution of Reynolds-Sharp type defects.

Introduction

Carbon fiber is one of the high performance fibers employed in the advanced composites. In the case of the composites reinforced by carbon fibers, continuous fibers are used and fiber volume fraction usually exceeds 40%. Therefore, characteristics of the fiber strength is the most influential factor on the strength of the composites. At the composites strength design, the fiber strengths evaluated from the fibers strands with a certain gauge length are usually used. Tensile strength of carbon fibers, however, shows a large scatter and remarkable size dependence according to the weakest link analogy 1, 2, 3. Although the statistical characteristic of fiber strength will give significant influences on the strength will give significant influences on the strength of composites, the statistical behaviors of fiber strength have never been systematically characterized yet. Supposing that, for instance, the size effect of the strength is different for each fiber, the tensile strength evaluated for a certain gauge length will be lacking in a generality as a measure of fiber strength. In the present work, the tensile tests of mono-filaments for various types of carbon fibers were performed, the statistical size effects of the tensile strength were investigated on the basis of the Weibull statistics.

Section snippets

Carbon fibers

Four types of polyacrylonitrile (PAN) based and six types of mesophase-pitch (MP) based carbon fibers were used for the tensile tests. Their tensile properties and diameter shown by the manufacturers are listed in Table 1. The first term of the material code shows the types of precursor and in the second term, the letters A, B, C, … show the difference of the fiber manufacturer and the numbers refer to the elastic modules. The tensile properties of these fibers are from 2.5 to 5.6 GPa in

Statistical distribution of tensile strength and their size effect

Fig. 2. shows some results as Weibull distributions on the tensile strength tested for 15 mm gauge length. Single modal Weibull distribution can be approximately applied to each results except PAN-C25. The results of PAN-C25 shows the deviation from a linear relation in the low strength range, showing the mixed modal or multi-modal Weibull distribution. The Weibull shape parameters obtained are summarized in Fig. 3. The two broken lines show the upper and lower limits of the Monte-Carlo

Conclusions

The statistical distributions of the tensile strength in carbon fibers were investigated for 10 years of various fibers. The following conclusions were obtained.

(1) Weibull shape parameters in axial direction show almost constant value of four, irrespective of the carbon precursor and the strength level. This result supports that the tensile strength obtained for a certain gauge length can be generalized as a measure of the fiber strength.

(2) Unisotropic size effect on strength was observed. The

References (9)

  • J.J Masson et al.

    Mater. Sci. Eng.

    (1991)
  • W.N Reynolds et al.

    Carbon

    (1974)
  • S.C Bennett et al.

    Carbon

    (1979)
  • S Chwastoak et al.

    Carbon

    (1979)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text