COMPOSITE
M AT E R I A L S
Article
Abstract
In this paper, the static, tensiontension fatigue, and residual strength behaviors of carbon fiber bundle have been
investigated using experimental methods. The corresponding mechanical models and statistical distribution regulations
have also been established based on the experimental data. The test results indicate that the test section length of fiber
bundle had a marked effect on the static strength, which decreased with the increase of length. A two-parameter Weibull
distributional function was used to describe the distribution of static strength. Furthermore, the S-N curve was obtained
by a new segmented function to reflect the changing of fatigue life against stress levels. The experimental results of
residual strength show that there was an abnormal tendency, which increased first and decreased later as the increase of
cyclic number, for the residual strength of carbon fiber bundle in both tested stress levels 87% and 80%, respectively.
Therefore, a new model for the residual strength was put forward and the good agreement between the fitting curves
and experimental was obtained.
Keywords
Carbon fiber bundle, static strength test and distribution law, fatigue life test and S-N, fatigue life distribution, residual
strength test and mechanical model
Introduction
Carbon ber reinforced composites have been widely
used as reinforcement in polymer composites, owing to
their good mechanical properties and light weight. Most
of the early works focus on the certainty performance,1
such as the stiness, strength, and fatigue characteristic
of composites, which causes that composites are often
overdesigned, such as heavier and more costly than
necessary. Therefore, probability design methods have
been gradually conducted into composites research.
Scha and Davidson2 proposed a strength-based wearout model to predict the fatigue life and residual strength
of composite laminates and the related distributions
were investigated by a two parameter Weibull function.
Cheng and Hwu3 investigated the fatigue reliability of
composite laminates subjected to constant amplitude
loading and a residual analysis model was proposed to
predict the residual strength. Whitworth46 studied the
statistical distribution laws on graphite/epoxy composites based on a set of static and fatigue tests and put
forward to p-E-N and p-S-N models. Yang et al.79
3158
Experimental
T300/3K was used as experimental materials. General
characteristics of this type of carbon ber bundles were
Song et al.
3159
4P
d2 3000
Specimen
number
Peak
load (N)
Strength
(MPa)
Average
strength (MPa)
50 mm
L50-1
L50-2
L50-3
L50-4
L50-5
L50-6
L50-7
112.84
103.35
104.05
113.21
106.95
110.79
113.81
977.32
895.17
901.23
980.57
926.31
959.57
985.73
946.50
964.83
23.99
40 mm
L40-1
L40-2
L40-3
L40-4
L40-5
L40-6
127.84
123.43
122.02
129.51
129.64
128.00
1107.29
1069.05
1056.91
1121.73
1122.84
1108.71
1097.75
1111.23
37.61
30 mm
L30-1
L30-2
L30-3
L30-4
L30-5
L30-6
L30-7
L30-8
130.72
131.74
132.65
133.48
134.92
137.84
140.68
141.15
1132.25
1141.09
1148.91
1156.11
1168.58
1193.86
1218.47
1222.56
1172.73
1188.73
34.75
Scale
parameter,
Shape
parameter,
3160
(a)
160
140
L30-1 : L=30mm
L40-3 : L=40mm
L50-4 : L=50mm
1300
Average strength/MPa
120
Load/N
100
80
60
40
1200
1100
1000
900
20
0
0.0
1400
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
displacement/%
1.0
1.2
1.4
800
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Fiber length/mm
Figure 2. (a) Loaddisplacement curve of typical fiber bundle with different characteristic lengths; (b) influence of characteristic
length on average strength.
Figure 3. Static tensile test of carbon fiber bundle: (a) pre-test; (b) during the test; (c) photograph of failure specimen.
Song et al.
3161
(a)
(b)
7.04
6.90
7.03
6.88
7.02
7.01
lnX
lnX
6.86
6.84
6.82
Equation
y=a+b
Adj. R-Squ 0.90297
6.80
6.78
B
B
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
Intercep
Slope
-0.5
7.00
6.99
6.98
Value Standard Er
6.871
0.00551
0.041
0.00553
0.0
0.5
Equation
y=a+b
Adj. R-Squa 0.88385
6.97
6.96
1.0
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
ln[-ln(1-F(X))]
(c)
(d)
L30: Experimental data
L30: Fitting curving
Failure probability
7.08
lnX
7.07
7.06
7.05
7.04
Equation
y=a+b
7.02
7.01
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
Standard Err
Intercept 7.0806
0.00437
Slope
0.0287
0.00426
0.0
0.5
-0.5
ln[-ln(1-F(X))]
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.8
7.09
7.03
-0.5
ln[-ln(1-F(X))]
7.11
7.10
D
D
1.0
0.6
0.4
L30:Fitting curving
L40:Fitting curving
L50:Fitting curving
L30: Experimental data
L40: Experimental data
L50: Experimental data
0.2
0.0
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
Static strength/MPa
Figure 4. Weibull distribution probability paper of static strength (a)(c) and failure probability of carbon fiber bundles with different
characteristic lengths (d).
3162
L 30 mm
L 40 mm
L 50 mm
Number of specimens
Kolmogorov D
sqrt(n)*D
Reject domain at
significant level 0.05
8
0.2388
0.6755
[1.36,1)
6
0.2974
0.7285
7
0.2438
0.6450
D supjFn(x) F(x)j, where F(x) and Fn(x) are the assumed distributional
function and distributional function of samples, respectively; sqrt(n)*D
represents test statistics.
Specimen
number
Fatigue
life, Nf
lgNf
0:94
1. 0:85 max
U
max
0:0506l g Nf 1:059
U
185
243
291
2.267
2.386
2.464
2.372
92% U
4
5
6
629
500
450
2.799
2.699
2.653
2.721
87% U
7
8
9
10
6984
7949
5923
6550
3.844
3.900
3.773
3.816
3.836
85% U
11
12
10,881
12,363
4.037
4.092
4.064
80% U
13
14
15
16
14,544
20,883
15,869
19,486
4.163
4.320
4.201
4.290
4.248
75%
17
18
19
235,079
239,358
274,297
5.371
5.379
5.438
5.397
73%
70%
60%
20
21
22
>1e6
>1e6
>1e6
max
lg Nf 4:014 0:182
1 0:310
lg Nf 1:469
U
3.
>6
>6
>6
0:85
2. 0:75 max
U
Average lgNf
1
2
3
>6
>6
>6
max
U
0:75
lg Nf 4 6
From Figure 5(a), it is clearly found that good coincidence between experiment and theory was obtained
for the fatigue issue of carbon ber bundles. Moreover,
failure photograph under the fatigue load was shown in
Figure 5(b) and it can be seen that the failure model
mainly manifested de-bunching failure, which was similar with the mode as that in static strength.
Nevertheless, the dierence was that the failure regions
were concentrated in the middle of specimens compared
to that in the static tests.
Statistical distribution of fatigue life. Furthermore, in order
to investigate the distribution law for the fatigue of
ber bundles, we assume that the statistical distribution
of the fatigue life also follows a two-parameter Weibull
distribution with reference to composite laminates3,6,18
l !
n
Fn P Nf n 1 exp
Song et al.
3163
(a) 1.0
(b)
max/ult
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
2
lgNf
Figure 5. (a) The curve of fiber bundles normalized stress against lgNf; (b) fatigue test specimen of carbon fiber bundle.
87%
stress level
80%
stress level
G
l
7263.01
6.96
19,100.89
5.11
3164
(a)
(b)
10.00
9.00
9.95
Ult
8.90
9.85
8.85
9.80
8.80
8.75
Equation
Adj. R-Squar
8.65
B
B
-1.5
-1.0
Intercept
Slope
-0.5
Ult
9.75
9.70
y = a + b*
0.95498
Value
8.70
9.90
lnX
lnX
8.95
8.89055
0.14367
0.0
Standard Erro
0.01531
0.01787
y = a + b*
9.60
9.55
0.5
Equation
9.65
-1.5
-1.0
ln[-ln(1-F(X))]
Standard Err
Intercept 9.8574
0.02849
Slope
0.03326
-0.5
0.0
0.1955
0.5
ln[-ln(1-F(X))]
(c) 1.0
Failure probablity
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
Fatigue cycle Nf
Figure 6. Weibull distribution probability paper of fatigue life (a), (b) and failure probability (c).
Stress levels
87%
80%
Number of specimens
Kolmogorov D
sqrt(n)*D
Reject domain at
significant level 0.05
4
0.2465
0.4931
[1.36,1)
4
0.2696
0.5392
Stress
levels
87%
Terminal
number
1/3Nf*
2/3Nf*
80%
1/3Nf**
2/3Nf**
Peak
load (N)
Strength
(MPa)
Average
strength (MPa)
169.41
150.69
158.58
163.86
155.26
156.59
153.66
152.12
1467.30
1305.19
1373.58
1419.28
1344.81
1356.34
1330.93
1317.57
1391.34
153.36
152.45
156.19
110.35
136.94
128.64
1328.33
1320.43
1352.82
955.81
1186.06
1114.23
1333.86
1337.41
1085.37
Nf* and Nf** means the fatigue life of 87% and 80% stress levels,
respectively.
Song et al.
3165
(a)
(b)
180
150
Load/N
120
90
60
30
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
displacement/%
k1 Sb Q 2
n2 n21 k1 vSb n2 n1
2
10
k1 Sb Q 2
n k1 vSb n
2
11
12
Low stress
amplitudes (80% U)
High stress
amplitudes (87% U)
a
b
c
1.55e-3
0.532
10.016
3.86e-3
1.009
59.454
3166
(a)
(b)
1400
1400
1200
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
1000
800
600
400
200
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
4000
Cycle number n
8000
12000
16000
20000
Cycle number n
Figure 8. Residual strength curves of carbon fiber bundle at high stress level (a) and low stress level (b).
Terminal
number
Test
results
Predicted
results
Error
87%
1/3Nf*
2/3Nf*
1391.34
1337.41
1386.26
1345.20
0.37%
0.58%
80%
1/3Nf**
2/3Nf**
1333.86
1085.37
1245.92
1173.69
6.59%
8.14%
Nf* and Nf** means the fatigue life of 87% and 80% stress levels, respectively. All of the test data are from Table 6.
R0 Rn Sb an2 cn
13
Conclusions
1.0
0.9
0.8
Distribution function
solid squares and the solid curve was the same Weibull
distribution of the static strength presented in
Figure 4(d) with the 50 mm characteristic length.
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
840
860
880
900
920
940
960
980
1000
1020
1040
1. The inner original defects derived from manufacturing process existing in each of monolaments caused
that the static strength of ber bundle was correlated
with test section length. Therefore, the specimen
with a longer characteristic length has generally
lower strength under static tests.
2. Under T-T cyclic loading, the de-bunching phenomena are more obviously and mainly concentrated in
the middle of ber bundle, and less in the root part.
A segmented function was proposed to describe the
S-N curve of carbon ber bundles and the related
parameters were then obtained based on the fatigue
Song et al.
3167
life data. In order to investigate the statistical distribution of fatigue life, a two-parameter Weibull distribution function was well used to describe the
distribution.
3. In the end, the residual strength tests were conducted
and a theoretical model was derived based on the
assumption that the residual strength of ber bundles is non-monotonic. Additionally, the failure
degree for residual strength tests was the most serious compared to others, which had not only obvious de-bunching damages, but also fracture
damages.
Funding
This work was supported by Jiangsu Innovation Program for
Graduate Education [grant number KYLX_0237].
Conflict of interest
None declared.
References
1. Degrieek J and Paepegem WV. Fatigue damage modeling
of fibre-reinforced composite materials: Review. Appl
Mech Rev 2001; 54(4): 279300.
2. Schaff JR and Davidson BD. Life prediction methodology for composite structures, part I: Constant amplitude and two-stress level fatigue. J Compos Mater 1997;
31(2): 128157.
3. Cheng HC and Hwu FS. Fatigue reliability analysis of
composites based on residual strength. Adv Compos
Mater 2006; 15(4): 385402.
4. Whitworth HA. Modeling stiffness reduction of graphite/
epoxy composite laminates. J Compos Mater 1987; 21(6):
362371.
5. Whitworth HA. A stiffness degradation model for composite laminates under fatigue loading. Compos Struct
1998; 40(2): 95101.
6. Whitworth HA. Evaluation of the residual strength degradation in composite laminates under fatigue loading.
Compos Struct 2000; 48(5): 261264.
7. Yang JN and Miller PK. Effect of high load on statistical
fatigue of unnotched graphite/epoxy laminates. J Compos
Mater 1980; 14(4): 8294.
8. Yang JN and Liu MD. Residual strength degradation
model and theory of periodic proof tests for graphite/
epoxy laminates. J Compos Mater 1977; 11(2): 176202.
9. Yang JN and Jones DL. Statistical fatigue of graphite/
epoxy angle-ply laminates in shear. J Compos Mater
1978; 12(4): 371389.
10. Wu FQ and Yao WX. A model of the fatigue life distribution of composite laminates based on their static
strength distribution. Chin J Aeronaut 2007; 21(6):
241246.
11. Phani KK. Evaluation of single-fibre strength distribution from fibre bundle strength. J Mater Sci 1988;
23(3): 941945.
12. Yu WD, Postle R and Gyan HJ. Evaluating single fiber
and fiber bundle tensile curves. Text Res J 2003; 73(8):
875882.
13. Joffe R, Andersons J and Sparnins E. Applicability of
Weibull strength distribution for cellulose fibers with
highly non-linear behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 17th
international conference on composite materials (ICCM17), Edinburg, UK, 2731 July 2009.
14. Yuan H, Wen WD, Cui HT, et al. The random crack core
model for predicting the longitudinal tensile strengths of
unidirectional composites. J Mater Sci 2009; 44(12):
30263034.
15. Zhu YL, Cui HT, Wen WD, et al. Experiments on fatigue
damage failure test of carbon fiber yarn. Acta Mater
Compos Sin 2012; 29(5): 179183.
16. ASTM. Standard test method for tensile strength and
Youngs modulus for high-modulus single filament materials. ASTM D3379-75. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM,
1989.
17. ASTM. Standard recommended practice for constantamplitude low-cycle fatigue testing. ASTM E606. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 1980.
18. Yang JN. Fatigue and residual strength degradation
for
graphite/epoxy
composites
under
tensioncompression cyclic loadings. J Compos Mater 1978;
12(19): 1939.
19. Li JL, Yang HN and Kou CH. Fatigue properties of
three dimensional braiding composites. Acta Mater
Compos Sin 2005; 22(4): 172176.
20. Ken G, Yu KF, Hiroshi H, et al. Fatigue behavior of 2D
laminate C/C composites at room temperature. Compos
Sci Technol 2005; 65(5): 10441051.
21. Teng SZ and Feng JH. Mathematical statistics. Dalian:
Dalian University of Technology Press, 2005.
Appendix
The KolmogorovSmirnov test.
This method21 proposed by Kolmogorov was
used to test quantitatively the dierence degree
between the assumed distributional function F(x)
and the distributional function of samples Fn(x)
(plotted in Figure 10). From the following
3168
14
n!1
Ft 1 2
1
X
2 2
1i1 e2i
15
i1
where F(t) was calculated and listed in the limiting distributional table of Dn.
Finally, the rejection domain can be obtained by
checking out the limiting distributional table under a
given signicant levels , i.e. when 0.05, the reject
domain U [1.36, 1).