See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273275492

Fracture mechanisms of polyacrylonitrile-based high-strength type carbon

fibers

Article  in  Fibers and Polymers · December 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s12221-014-2541-5

CITATIONS READS
0 64

5 authors, including:

Gang-Ping Wu Chunxiang Lu
Chinese Academy of Sciences 169 PUBLICATIONS   2,394 CITATIONS   
41 PUBLICATIONS   517 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gang-Ping Wu on 12 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Fibers and Polymers 2014, Vol.15, No.12, 2541-2543 ISSN 1229-9197 (print version)
DOI 10.1007/s12221-014-2541-5 ISSN 1875-0052 (electronic version)

Fracture Mechanisms of Polyacrylonitrile-based High-strength

Type Carbon Fibers
Ying-Yan Wang, Gang-Ping Wu, Run-Min Li, Xin-Lian Li, and Chun-Xiang Lu*
National Engineering Laboratory for Carbon Fiber Preparation, Institute of Coal Chemistry,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Taiyuan 030001, China
(Received September 27, 2013; Revised July 2, 2014; Accepted July 17, 2014)

Abstract: The fracture morphologies of various high-strength type polyacryonitrile (PAN)-based carbon fibers were
examined by emission scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) observation, and analyzed based on the Griffith-Irwin’s
criterion. The results showed the fracture morphologies of PAN-based high strength carbon fibers were largely controlled by
the rate of crack propagation. The fracture mechanisms for the high-strength type carbon fibers were proposed. The role of
magnitude of surface defects on determining the fractography was discussed according to the mechanism.
Keywords: Carbon fibers, TEM, Fracture, Crack growth

Introduction and the role of the magnitude of surface defects of fibers on

Research interest in high-strength carbon fibers has not
been promoted for nearly twenty years since the early 1990s.
Even the strongest fiber in the world with a tensile strength
of 7.1 GPa (in laboratory), produced by Toray Industries,
Inc., can only up to about 3.5 % of the theoretical value [1].
In order to further improve the tensile properties of carbon
fibers, it is essential to deeply understand the relevant
tensile-fracture mechanism for high-strength type carbon
fibers. The Reynolds and Sharp’s theory [2,3] points out that
graphitic crystallites of high-modulus carbon fibers are the
weakest in shear on the basal planes, and that crack tip
grows by splitting the misorientated crystallites, especially
those around the voids or inclusions. However, this theory
may be only partly applicable to high-strength carbon fibers
as suggested by Reynolds et al., because the structures of the
latter were far less graphitic than those of high-modulus
fiber. Information about the fiber catastrophic failure is also
essential to understand the mechanical properties and modes
of failure of composites. In the present work, we report the
fracture features of various high-strength type carbon fibers,
controlling the fracture mechanisms of tensile failure. As far
as what we know, the findings have not been reported.
Experimental
Materials
Four types of PAN-based carbon fibers have been studied:
Torayca T300 and T700 fibers; HT1 and HT2 fibers made in
our laboratory. The main properties were listed in Table 1.
Mechanical Property Measurement
The Fibers were cured by epoxy resin without pretension
in bundle form and tensile-fractured according to ASTM test
methods D4018, and then tensile-tested on a Shimadzu
Universal Testing Machine AG-1 (gauge length: 20 cm,
crosshead speed: 20 mm/min). The test was designed to
provide a particular real situation to break in composites.
SEM and TEM Measurement
The fracture morphologies were observed using a model
1530VP LEO scanning electron microscope (SEM). TEM

Table 1. Typical properties of various carbon fibers

Azimuthal
Tensile strength, Young’s modulus, Shear modulus, G Poisson’s Density, ρ Elongation at
Fiber FWHM (002),
σ (GPa)
u
E (GPa) (GPa) ratio (g/cm ) 3
failure, ε (%)
Δφ (º) 1/2

a a b c a a
T300 3.53 230 25 29.00 0.3 1.76 1.5
a a d d a a
T700S 4.90 230 25 25.88 0.3 1.80 2.1
d d
HT1 3.72 222 25 27.74 0.3 1.78 1.7
d d
HT2 4.21 230 25 28.94 0.3 1.78 2.0
TM a b c d e
Note: T300 and T700S are Torayca fibers, producer’s data sheet, Refs. [4], Refs. [5], Refs. [6], and presumed the same values with
T300 fibers.

*Corresponding author: chunxl@sxicc.ac.cn

2541
2542 Fibers and Polymers 2014, Vol.15, No.12
images confirmed that all the specimens possessed a skin-
core heterogeneity pattern: more or less parallel carbon
layers near the surface and a relatively random organization
of the core species.
Results and Discussion
Fractography
The HT1 and T300 fibers, with low strength (3.5-3.7 GPa),
show significant wrinkles in the fracture surface, which
indicates the direction of crack propagation. It can be seen
the wrinkles spread across the entire cross sections, arising
from surface initiation. We can also found the large surface
defects from the large mirror regions (see Figure 1a-d). For
the HT2 and T700 fibers with tensile strength more than
4.2 GPa, however, presented skin-core morphology, i.e.,
most of the ridges occurred at the outer regions and extended
seldom or only slightly to the central regions (Figure 2a-d).
Reynolds reported the structural incontinuity of carbon
crystallites would inhibit the crack growth. It appeared the
change in orientation structure of the graphitic layer planes
in the cross-section hampered the crack propagation caused
by surface origin in this study. It was worth noting the
microcracks (marked by arrows in Figure 2a-b) occurred
inside the cores prior to failure, caused by fracture mechanics
of the core species. This was in satisfactory agreement with
the prediction by Sung et al. [7] about the internal defects,
not only surface defects, will affect the fiber fracture in a
study of fiber strength using a statistical distribution
method.
Figure 1. Tensile ruptured surfaces of low strength carbon fibers
on which the fracture origins and fracture patterns were examined;
(a), (b) HT1 fibers and (c), (d) T300 fibers.
Ying-Yan Wang et al.
Analysis on Fracture Mechanism
We discussed the failure process based on the Griffith-
Irwin’s criterion [6]. The fracture is governed by two principal
factors: strain energy release rate and an increase of surface
energy. If the strain energy so released equals or exceeds a
critical value, then the crack can spread spontaneously; but
provided the strain energy release rate is less than the critical
value, then the crack will not grow.
The thermodynamic surface energy of carbon fibers, 2γCF,
can be estimated based on Honjo’s equation [5] that is
shown as follows:
2νCF = 2νG × ( ρCF /ρG ) × <cos ( ϕ )> (1)
where 2γG is surface energy of a graphite crystal, ρCF and ρG
are the densities of the carbon fibers and a graphite crystal,
respectively, and <cos(ϕ)>, of ca. 0.97, is the average of cos
(ϕ) for carbon crystallites whose basal planes incline by ψ to
the fiber axis. We determined the 2γCF values to be range
between 6.32 and 6.50 J·m-2 for these fibers.
According to Irwin [8], the energy release rate G in a plane
strain mode can be given:
2
KI ( 1 – ν )
2
- = Yσ πa
G = ---------------------- (2)
E
where KI denotes the stress intensity for Mode I crack, ν is
possion’s ratio, σ is the applied stress, a is half the crack
length, and Y is a dimensionless correction factor regarding
the geometry of a crack.
The fracture toughness, KIC, is the critical value of stress
intensity required to prapagate a crack. Honjo [5] estimated
the KIC of T300 fibers to be ca. 1 MPa·m1/2, then the critical
Figure 2. Tensile ruptured surfaces of high strength carbon fibers
on which the fracture origins and fracture patterns were examined;
(a), (b) T700S fibers and (c), (d) HT2 fibers.
 Fracture Mechanisms of Carbon Fibers Fibers and Polymers 2014, Vol.15, No.12 2543

release rate is quite comparable with the surface energy.

When the crack tip developed to the central region, the
propagation was inhibited on account of the structural
incontinuity (with is more or less ductile), leading to the
ductile fracture mode caused principally by internal defects.

Conclusion

In summary, the fracture morphologies of various high-

strength carbon fibers were observed and the failure processes
were analyzed based on Griffith-Irwin’s criterion. The fracture
mechanisms were proposed for the high strength carbon
fibers. According to the model, the magnitude of surface
defects was reveal to play an essential role in determine the
fiber’s fracture process. The influence of fracture modes of
fibers on failure behaviors of composites should be proven
by further experiments.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science

Foundation of China (grant number: 51002165).
Figure 3. Schematic presentation of fracture mechanism of various
carbon fibers; (a) low strength carbon fibers and (b) high strength
carbon fibers.
energy release rate, GIC, would be determined to be ca.
4.6 J·m-2, quite close to the 2γCF values. Honjo [5] calculated
the GIC of T300 fibers to be ca. 8.6 J·m-2 according to Sih et
al.’s relation [5,9].
From equation (2), it is clear the larger the crack size, a,
the greater the energy release rate. Thus, the effect of
magnitude of surface defects on the fracture mechanism can
be concluded, as shown in Figure 3. The low strength fibers
with large surface defects (shown in Figure 3a), have enough
strain energy release rates to cause a catastropic failure of
the residue, following a single brittle failure mechanism; but
for fibers with small surface defects (shown in Figure 3b), a
slow crack propagation would be expected, since the energy
References
1. E. Fitzer, Carbon, 27, 621 (1989).
2. W. N. Reynolds and J. V. Sharp, Carbon, 12, 103 (1974).
3. W. N. Reynolds, R. Moreton, and P. J. Worthington, Phil.
Trans. R Soc. Lond A, 294, 451 (1980).
4. Y. Sawada and A. Shindo, Carbon, 30, 619 (1992).
5. K. Honjo, Carbon, 41, 979 (2003).
6. F. Erdogan, Int. J. Solids Struct., 37, 171 (2000).
7. M. G. Sung, K. Sassa, T. Tagawa, T. Miyata, H. Ogawa, M.
Doyama, S. Yamada, and S. Asai, Carbon, 40, 2013
(2002).
8. G. R. Irwin, J. Appl. Mech., 24, 361 (1957).
9. G. C. Sih, P. C. Paris, and G. R. Irwin, Int. J. Fracture
Mech., 1, 189 (1965).

View publication stats