Page 24 - Fiber Fracture
P. 24

FIBER FRACTURE: AN OVERVIEW                                            9

             worsening of mechanical characteristics. A striking example of environmental leading
             to failure of aramid fiber was the failure of the tether rope for a satellite in space. The
             rope made of aramid fiber failed because of friction leading to excessive static charge
             accumulation, which  led  to  premature  failure of  the  tether rope  and  the  loss of  an
             expensive satellite.
                In a multifilament yam or in a braided fabric, frictional force in the radial direction
             holds the fibers together. Such interfiber friction is desirable if we wish to have strong
             yams and fabrics. However, there are situations where we would like to have a smooth
             fiber surface. For example, for a  yarn passing round  a  guide, a smooth fiber surface
             will be  desirable. If  the yam  surface is rough, then  a high tension will be required,
             which, in turn, can lead to fiber breakage. In general, in textile applications, frictional
             characteristics can affect the handle, feel, wear-resistance, etc. In fibrous composites,
             the  frictional characteristics of  fiber can  affect the  interface strength and  toughness
             characteristics.



             CARBON FIBERS

                Carbon fibers are, in  some ways, similar to polymeric fibers while in  other ways
             they are similar to ceramic fibers. A characteristic feature of the structure of all carbon
             fibers is the high degree of alignment of the basal planes of graphite along the fiber axis.
             The degree of alignment of these graphitic planes can vary depending on the precursor
             used and the processing, especially the heat treatment temperature used. Transmission
             electron microscopic studies of carbon fiber show the heterogeneous microstructure of
             carbon fibers. In particular, there occurs a pronounced  irregularity in  the packing of
             graphitic lamellae as one goes from the fiber surface inward to the core or fiber axis.
             The graphitic basal planes are much better aligned in the near-surface region of  the
             fiber, called the sheath. The material inside the sheath can have a radial structure or
             an irregular layer structure, sometimes termed the onion skin structure. The radial core
             and well aligned sheath structure is more commonly observed in mesophase-pitch-based
             carbon  fibers. A  variety  of  arrangement of  graphitic layers can  be  seen in  different
             fibers. In very general terms, the graphitic ribbons are oriented more or less parallel to
             the fiber axis with random interlinking of layers, longitudinally and laterally (Jain and
             Abhiraman, 1987; Johnson, 1987; Deurbergue and Oberlin, 1991). Fig. 4 shows a two-
             dimensional representation of this lamellar structure called turbostrutic structure. Note
             the distorted carbon layers and the rather irregular space filling. The degree of alignment
             of the basal planes increases with the final heat treatment temperature. Examination of
             lattice images of the cross-section of carbon fiber shows essentially parallel basal planes
             in the skin region, but extensive folding of layer planes can be seen in the core region. It
             is thought that this extensive interlinking of lattice planes in the longitudinal direction is
             responsible for better compressive properties of carbon fiber than aramid fibers. In spite
             of the better alignment of basal planes in the skin region, the surface of carbon fibers can
             show extremely fine scale roughness. A scanning electron micrograph of  pitch-based
             carbon fibers is shown in Fig.  5.  Note  the  surface striations and  the roughness at a
             microscopic scale
   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29