Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 30, Issue 22, pp 5607–5616 | Cite as

Fragmentation of aramid fibres in single-fibre model composites

  • M. C. Andrews
  • R. J. Young


Raman spectroscopy has been used to monitor the state of axial stress along fragmented, high-modulus Kevlar 149 aramid fibres in an epoxy resin matrix by monitoring the peak position of the strain-sensitive 1610 cm−1 aramid Raman band along individual fragments. It is shown that the interfacial shear stress along each fragment, derived from the strain distribution profiles, is not constant as assumed by conventional fragmentation analysis. The fragmentation process of as-received Kevlar 149 fibres is compared to that of irradiated Kevlar 149 fibres exposed to ultraviolet light where the tensile strength and modulus of the fibres have been reduced. It is found that the derived interfacial shear stress and interfacial shear strength values are higher for those fibres exposed to ultraviolet light compared with the as-received fibres. It is also clearly demonstrated that the values of interfacial shear strength calculated at high matrix strains from conventional fragmentation analysis are considerably lower than the maximum value of interfacial shear stress prior to fibre fracture that was found to be close to the shear yield stress of the resin matrix. Hence the determination of the interfacial shear strength following the saturation of the fragmentation process may give rise to misleading results.


Tensile Strength Shear Strength Raman Spectroscopy Ultraviolet Light Raman Band 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Fibre strain


Matrix strain


Maximum strain along each fragment


Failure strain of the fibre


Fibre tensile modulus


Critical fragment length


Mean critical fragment length


Fragment length


Fibre radius


Distance along the fibre


Maximum stress along each fragment


Fibre tensile strength


Interfacial shear stress


Interfacial shear strength


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. J. Broutmann, “Interfaces in Composites”, ASTM ST 452 (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1969) p. 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Miller, P. Muri and L. Rebenfeld, Compos. Sci. Technol. 28 (1987) 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. J. Herrera-Franco and L. T. Drzal, Composites 23 (1992) 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Kelly and W. R. Tyson, J. Much. Phys. Solids 13 (1965) 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. F. Mandell, D. H. Grande, T. H. Tsiang and F. J. MćGarry, in “Composite Materials Testing and Design” (Seventh Conference), ASTM STP 893, edited by J. M. Whitney (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1986) p. 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. J. Pitkethly, J. P. Favre, U. Gaur, J. Jakubowski, S. F. Mudrich, D. L. Caldwell, L. T. Drzal, M. Nardin, H. D. Wagner, L. di Landro, A. Hampe, J. P. Armistead, M. Desaeger and I. Verpoest, Compos. Sci. Technol. 48 (1993) 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. D. Wagner, H. E. Gallis and E. Wiesel, J. Mater. Sci. 28 (1993) 2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. N. Netravali, Z-F Li, W. Sachse and H. F. Wu, ibid. 28 (1991) 6631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Kalantar and L. T. Drzal, ibid. 25 (1990) 4194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. C. Andrews and R. J. Young, Mater. Sci. Eng. A184 (1994) 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. C. Andrews and R. J. Young, J. Raman Spectrosc. 24 (1993) 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. C. Andrews, R. J. Day, A. K. Patrikis and R. J. Young, Composites 25 (1994) 745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. G. Dobb, R. M. Robson and A. H. Roberts, J. Mater. Sci. 28 (1993) 785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. C. Andrews, R. J. Young and R. J. Day, in “Developments in the Science and Technology of Composite Materials”, edited by A. R. Bunsell, A. Kelly and A. Massiah (Woodhead, Cambridge, 1993) p. 133.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. van der Zwaag, M. G. Northolt, R. J. Young, I. M. Robinson, C. Galiotis and D. N. Batchelder, Polym. Commun. 28 (1987) 276.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Chang and S. L. Hsu, Macromolecules 23 (1990) 1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. L. Cox, J. Appl. Phys. 3 (1952) 72.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. C. Andrews, R. J. Young and J. Mahy, Compos. Interfaces, 2 (1994) 433.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. F. Fan and S. L. Hsu, Macromolecules 22 (1989) 1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Kelly and N. H. MacMillan, “Strong Solids”, 3rd Edn (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. R. Piggott, “Load Bearing Fibre Composites” (Pergamon, Oxford, 1980) p. 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. H. Reinsch, Numer. Math. 10 (1967) 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. C. Powell, R. L. Kiefer, P. L. Pate and R. A. Orwoll, Polym. Prep. 32 (1991) 122.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. J. Carlsson, L. H. Gan and D. M. Wiles, J. Polym. Sci. A. Polym. Chem. 16 (1978) 2353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    W. F. Knoff, J. Mater. Sci. 28 (1993) 931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. B. Henstenberg and S. L. Phoenix, Polym Compos. 10 (1989) 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. A. Fawaz, A. N. Palazotto and C. S. Wang, Polymer 33 (1992) 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. C. Andrews
    • 1
  • R. J. Young
    • 1
  1. 1.Manchester Materials Science CentreUMIST/University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations