The fibre–matrix interface represents a vital element in the development and characterisation of fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs). Extensive ranges of interfacial properties exist for different composite systems, measured with various interface characterisation techniques. However, the discrepancies in interfacial properties of similar fibre–matrix systems have not been fully addressed or explained. In this review, first, the interface-forming mechanisms of FRPs are established. Following a discourse on three primary factors that affect the fibre–matrix interface, the four main interface characterisation methods (single-fibre fragmentation, single-fibre pull-out, microbond and fibre push-in/-out tests) are described and critically reviewed. These sections review various detailed data reduction schemes, numerical approaches, accompanying challenges and sources of reported scatter. Finally, following the assessment of several infrequent test methods, comprehensive conclusions, prospective directions and intriguing extensions to the field are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KimJ-KMaiY-W.Characterization of interfaces. In: J-K Kim, Y-W Mai, editors. Engineered Interfaces in Fiber Reinforced Composites; 1998. tinyurl.com/2p9yra3a
2.
NathRBFennerDNGaliotisC.Finite element modelling of interfacial failure in model carbon fibre-epoxy composites. J Mater Sci. 1996;31:2879–2883. doi:10.1007/BF00355996
3.
SethiSRayBC.Environmental effects on fibre reinforced polymeric composites: evolving reasons and remarks on interfacial strength and stability. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2015;217:43–67. doi:10.1016/j.cis.2014.12.005
4.
HuangSFuQYanL, et al.Characterization of interfacial properties between fibre and polymer matrix in composite materials – a critical review. J Mater Res Technol. 2021;13:1441–1484. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.05.076
McCarthyEDSoutisC.Determination of interfacial shear strength in continuous fibre composites by multi-fibre fragmentation: a review. Composites Part A. 2019;118:281–292. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.01.001
7.
MamalisDMurrayJJMcClementsJ, et al.Novel carbon-fibre powder-epoxy composites: interface phenomena and interlaminar fracture behaviour. Composites Part B. 2019;174:107012. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107012
8.
İnalOKatnamKBPotluriP, et al.Progress in interlaminar toughening of aerospace polymer composites using particles and non-woven veils. Aeronaut J. 2022;126:222–248. doi:10.1017/aer.2021.95
9.
ZengLLiuXChenX, et al.π - π interaction between carbon fibre and epoxy resin for interface improvement in composites. Composites Part B. 2021;220:108983. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.108983
10.
PiggottMR.Why interface testing by single-fibre methods can be misleading. Compos Sci Technol. 1997;57:965–974. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00036-5
11.
MartinezGMPiggottMRBainbridgeDMR, et al.The compression strength of composites with kinked, misaligned and poorly adhering fibres. J Mater Sci. 1981;16:2831–2836. doi:10.1007/BF02402847
12.
PiggottMRXiongY.Visualization of debonding of fully and partially embedded glass fibres in epoxy resins. Compos Sci Technol. 1994;52:535–540. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(94)90036-1
13.
SockalingamSNilakantanG.Fiber-matrix interface characterization through the microbond test. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci. 2012;13:282–295. doi:10.5139/IJASS.2012.13.3.282
14.
ASTM D2344/D2344M-13: Standard test method for short-beam strength of polymer matrix composite materials and their laminates. ASTM International 2016; 15.03.
15.
ISO 14130:1998: Fibre-reinforced plastic composites - determinations of apparent laminar shear strength by short-beam method. Geneva, Switzerland; 1998.
16.
ASTM D7264/D7264M-07: Standard test method for flexural properties of polymer matrix composite materials. ASTM International 2015; 15.03.
17.
ISO 14125:1998 Fibre-reinforced plastic composites -determination of flexural properties. 1998.
18.
CamanhoPPHallettSR.Numerical modelling of failure in advanced composite materials. A Volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and Engineering; 2015.
19.
GuochengQShanyiDBomingZYalinY.A new approach to assessing carbon fiber/epoxy interfacial shear strength by tensile test of 45° fiber bundle composites: Experiment, modeling and applicability. Compos Sci Technol. 2016;129:214–221. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2016.04.032
20.
GuochengQBomingZShanyiDYalinYEstimation of aramid fiber/epoxy interfacial properties by fiber bundle tests and multiscale modeling considering the fiber skin/core structure. Compos Struct. 2017;167:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.01.047
21.
PupursAKrasnikovsAVarnaJ.Energy release rate based fiber/matrix debond growth in fatigue. Part II: debond growth analysis using Paris law. Mech Adv Mater Struct. 2013;20:288–296. doi:10.1080/15376494.2011.627628
22.
KohlerSCugnoniJAmacherR, et al.Transverse cracking in the bulk and at the free edge of thin-ply composites: experiments and multiscale modelling. Composites Part A. 2019;124:105468. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.05.036
23.
HerráezMMoraDNayaF, et al.Transverse cracking of cross-ply laminates: a computational micromechanics perspective. Compos Sci Technol. 2015;110:196–204. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2015.02.008
24.
SørensenBFLilholtH.Fiber pull-out test and single fiber fragmentation test - analysis and modelling. In: IOP conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 37th Risø International Symposium on Materials Science. 2016; Vol. 012009. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/139/1/012009
25.
PitkethlyMJFavreJPGaurU, et al.A round-robin programme on interfacial test methods. Compos Sci Technol. 1993;48:205–214. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(93)90138-7
26.
InksonBJ.2 - Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) for materials characterization. In: G Hübschen, I Altpeter, R Tschuncky, H-G Herrmann, editors. Materials characterization using nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods. Woodhead Publishing; 2016, 17–43, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100040-3.00002-X.
27.
IsmailYShengYYangD, et al.Discrete element modelling of unidirectional fibre-reinforced polymers under transverse tension. Composites Part B. 2015;73:118–125. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.12.024
28.
ParísFCorreaECanasJ.Micromechanical view of failure of the matrix in fibrous composite materials. Compos Sci Technol. 2003;63:1041–1052. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(03)00017-4
29.
XiongQLMeguidSA.Atomistic investigation of the interfacial mechanical characteristics of carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy composite. Eur Polym J. 2015;69:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2015.05.006
30.
XiaoYXianG.Effects of moisture ingress on the bond between carbon fiber and epoxy resin investigated with molecular dynamics simulation. Polym Compos. 2018;39:E2074–E2083.
31.
TamLHeLWuC.Molecular dynamics study on the effect of salt environment on interfacial structure, stress, and adhesion of carbon fiber/epoxy interface. Compos Interfaces. 2019;26:431–447. doi:10.1080/09276440.2018.1506901
32.
ZhengHZhangWLiB, et al.Recent advances of interphases in carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites: a review. Composites Part B. 2022;233:109639. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.109639
33.
JohnsonACHayesSAJonesFR.The role of matrix cracks and fibre/matrix debonding on the stress transfer between fibre and matrix in a single fibre fragmentation test. Composites Part A. 2012;43:65–72. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2011.09.005
34.
NathRBFennerDNGaliotisC.Elasto-plastic finite element modelling of interfacial failure in model Kevlar 49 fibre—epoxy composites. Composites Part A. 1996;27:821–832. doi:10.1016/1359-835X(96)00053-X
35.
NathRBFennerDNGaliotisC.The progressional approach to interfacial failure in carbon reinforced composites: elasto-plastic finite element modelling of interface cracks. Composites Part A. 2000;31:929–943. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(00)00047-6
36.
GuildFJVlattasCGaliotisC.Modelling of stress transfer in fibre composites. Compos Sci Technol. 1994;50:319–332. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(94)90020-5
37.
MullinJVMazzioVFMehanRL.Basic failure mechanisms in advanced composites, NASw-2093. NASA. Philadelphia, PA: General Electric Co.; 1971.
38.
FeihSWonsyldKMinzariD, et al.Testing procedure for the single fiber fragmentation test. Denmark: Risø National Laboratory. Forskningscenter Risoe. Risoe-R No. 1483(EN); 2004.
39.
PaipetisAGaliotisC.Effect of fibre sizing on the stress transfer efficiency in carbon/epoxy model composites. Composites Part A. 1996;27:755–767. doi:10.1016/1359-835X(96)00054-1
40.
Ten BusschenASelvaduraiAPS.Mechanics of the segmentation of an embedded fiber, part I: experimental investigations. J Appl Mech. 1995;62:87–97. doi:10.1115/1.2895888
41.
ThomasonJL.Glass fibre sizing: a review. Composites Part A. 2019;127:105619. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105619
42.
HuangYYoungRJ.Analysis of the fragmentation test for carbon-fibre/epoxy model composites by means of Raman spectroscopy. Compos Sci Technol. 1994;52:505–517. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(94)90033-7
43.
TuinstraFKoenigJL.Characterization of graphite fiber surfaces with Raman spectroscopy. J Compos Mater. 1970;4:492–499. doi:10.1177/002199837000400405
44.
LiuFWangDLiuJ, et al.Reviews on interfacial properties of the carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites. J Phys: Conf Ser. 2020;1637:012027. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1637/1/012027
45.
LacroixTKeuningsRDesaegerM, et al.A new data reduction scheme for the fragmentation testing of polymer composites. J Mater Sci. 1995;30:683–692. doi:10.1007/BF00356328
46.
DesaegerMReisMJBotelho Do RegoAM, et al.Surface characterization of poly(acrylonitrile) based intermediate modulus carbon fibres. J Mater Sci. 1996;31:6305–6315. doi:10.1007/BF00354454
47.
ThomasonJLAdzimaLJ.Sizing up the interphase: an insider’s guide to the science of sizing. Composites Part A. 2001;32:313–321. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(00)00124-X
48.
YuanHZhangSLuC, et al.Improved interfacial adhesion in carbon fiber/polyether sulfone composites through an organic solvent-free polyamic acid sizing. Appl Surf Sci. 2013;279:279–284. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2013.04.085
49.
YueZRJiangWWangL, et al.Surface characterization of electrochemically oxidized carbon fibers. Carbon. 1999;37:1785–1796. doi:10.1016/S0008-6223(99)00047-0
50.
SeveriniFFormaroLPegoraroM, et al.Chemical modification of carbon fiber surfaces. Carbon. 2002;40:735–741. doi:10.1016/S0008-6223(01)00180-4
51.
ChenXFarberMGaoY, et al.Mechanisms of surfactant adsorption on non-polar, air-oxidized and ozone-treated carbon surfaces. Carbon. 2003;41:1489–1500. doi:10.1016/S0008-6223(03)00053-8
52.
XingLLiuLXieF, et al.Mutual irradiation grafting on indigenous aramid fiber-3 in diethanolamine and epichlorohydrin and its effect on interfacially reinforced epoxy composite. Appl Surf Sci. 2016;375:65–73. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.03.073
53.
LiuLHuangYDZhangZQ, et al.Ultrasonic modification of aramid fiber-epoxy interface. J Appl Polym Sci. 2001;81:2764–2768. doi:10.1002/app.1722
54.
ZhengLWangYQinJ, et al.Scalable manufacturing of carbon nanotubes on continuous carbon fibers surface from chemical vapor deposition. Vacuum. 2018;152:84–90. doi:10.1016/j.vacuum.2018.03.011
55.
BoccacciniARChoJRoetherJA, et al.Electrophoretic deposition of carbon nanotubes. Carbon. 2006;44:3149–3160. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2006.06.021
56.
ZhaoMMengLMaL, et al.Layer-by-layer grafting CNTs onto carbon fibers surface for enhancing the interfacial properties of epoxy resin composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2018;154:28–36. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.11.002
57.
Montes-MoránMAVan HattumFWJNunesJP, et al.A study of the effect of plasma treatment on the interfacial properties of carbon fibre-thermoplastic composites. Carbon. 2005;43:1795–1799. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2005.02.005
58.
DrzalLTRichMJLloydPF.Adhesion of graphite fibers to epoxy matrices: I. The role of fiber surface treatment. J Adhes. 1983;16:1–30. doi:10.1080/00218468308074901
59.
SchadlerLSLairdCFigueroaJC.Interphase behaviour in graphite-thermoplastic monofilament composites - part I monotonic behaviour. J Mater Sci. 1992;27:4024–4034. doi:10.1007/BF01105100
60.
DrzalLTRichMJKoenigMF, et al.Adhesion of graphite fibers to epoxy matrices: II. The effect of fiber finish. J Adhes. 1983;16:133–152. doi:10.1080/00218468308074911
61.
LvPFengYYZhangP, et al.Increasing the interfacial strength in carbon fiber/epoxy composites by controlling the orientation and length of carbon nanotubes grown on the fibers. Carbon. 2011;49:4665–4673. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2011.06.064
62.
ZhangJBaiJBWagnerHD, et al. Interfacial studies of carbon fiber/epoxy composites using single fiber fragmentation test. In the Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Composite Materials; Venice, Italy; 2012.
63.
QianHBismarckAGreenhalghES, et al.Hierarchical composites reinforced with carbon nanotube grafted fibers: the potential assessed at the single fiber level. Chem Mater. 2008;20:1862–1869. doi:10.1021/cm702782j
64.
LiuQLomov SVGorbatikhL.When does nanotube grafting on fibers benefit the strength and toughness of composites?Compos Sci Technol. 2020;188:107989. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.107989
65.
GodaraAGorbatikhLKalinkaG, et al.Interfacial shear strength of a glass fiber/epoxy bonding in composites modified with carbon nanotubes. Compos Sci Technol. 2010;70:1346–1352. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.04.010
66.
WarrierAGodaraARochezO, et al.The effect of adding carbon nanotubes to glass/epoxy composites in the fibre sizing and/or the matrix. Composites Part A. 2010;41:532–538. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2010.01.001
67.
TerronesMMartínOGonzálezM, et al.Interphases in graphene polymer-based nanocomposites: achievements and challenges. Adv Mater. 2011;23:5302–5310. doi:10.1002/adma.201102036
68.
GnanasekarPChenHTratnikN, et al.Enhancing performance of phosphorus containing vanillin-based epoxy resins by P–N non-covalently functionalized graphene oxide nanofillers. Composites Part B. 2021;207:108585. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108585
69.
LerfAHeHForsterM, et al.Structure of graphite oxide revisited. J Phys Chem B. 1998;102:4477–4482. doi:10.1021/jp9731821
70.
HussainSYorucuCAhmedI, et al.Surface modification of aramid fibres by graphene oxide nano-sheets for multiscale polymer composites. Surf Coatings Technol. 2014;258:458–466. doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2014.08.054
71.
ThomasonJLNagelUYangL, et al.A study of the thermal degradation of glass fibre sizings at composite processing temperatures. Composites Part A. 2019;121:56–63. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.03.013
72.
IvensJWeversMVerpoestI.Influence of carbon fibre surface treatment on composite UD strength. Composites. 1994;25:722–728. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(94)90207-0
73.
HoeckerFKarger-KocsisJ.Effects of the interface on the mechanical response of CF/EP microcomposites and macrocomposites. Composites. 1994;25:729–738. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(94)90208-9
74.
TripathiDJonesFR. Single fibre fragmentation test for assessing adhesion in fibre reinforced composites. J Mater Sci. 1998;33:1–16. doi:10.1023/A:1004351606897
75.
ElKhouryLBergJC.The effect of curing schedules on fiber-matrix adhesion in carbon fiber-epoxy resin composites. J Compos Mater. 2022;56:699–712. doi:10.1177/00219983211060467
76.
CampanaCLegerRSonnierR, et al.Effect of post curing temperature on mechanical properties of a flax fiber reinforced epoxy composite. Composites Part A. 2018;107:171–179. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2017.12.029
77.
HaiderMHubertPLessardL.Cure shrinkage characterization and modeling of a polyester resin containing low profile additives. Composites Part A. 2007;38:994–1009. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2006.06.020
78.
LiWLeeLJ.Shrinkage control of low-profile unsaturated polyester resins cured at low temperature. Polymer. 1998;39:5677–5687. doi:10.1016/S0032-3861(98)00074-3
79.
WangHYangWYuH, et al.Assessment of residual stresses during cure and cooling of epoxy resins. Polym Eng Sci. 1995;35:1895–1898. doi:10.1002/pen.760352309
80.
WangXXuDLiuHY, et al.Effects of thermal residual stress on interfacial properties of polyphenylene sulphide/carbon fibre (PPS/CF) composite by microbond test. J Mater Sci. 2016;51:334–343. doi:10.1007/s10853-015-9251-2
81.
CottrellAH.Strong solids. Proc R Soc A. 1964;282:2–9.
82.
KellyATysonWR.Tensile properties of fibre-reinforced metals: copper/tungsten and copper/molybdenum. J Mech Phys Solids. 1965;13:329–338. doi:10.1016/0022-5096(65)90035-9
83.
GaoYCMaiYWCotterellB.Fracture of fiber-reinforced materials. J Appl Math Phys. 1988;39:550–572.
84.
HutchinsonJWJensenHM.Models of fiber debonding and pullout in brittle composites with friction. Mech Mater. 1990;9:139–163. doi:10.1016/0167-6636(90)90037-G
85.
GracianiEMantičVParísF, et al.Numerical analysis of debond propagation in the single fibre fragmentation test. Compos Sci Technol. 2009;69:2514–2520. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.07.006
86.
KimBWNairnJA.Observations of fiber fracture and interfacial debonding phenomena using the fragmentation test in single fiber composites. J Compos Mater. 2002;36:1825–1858. doi:10.1177/0021998302036015243
87.
WoodJRWagnerHDMaromG.The compressive fragmentation phenomenon: using microcomposites to evaluate thermal stresses, single fibre compressive strengths, Weibull parameters and interfacial shear strengths. Proc R Soc London Ser A. 1996;452:235–252. doi:10.1098/rspa.1996.0014
88.
VerpoestIDesaegerMKeuningsR. Critical review of direct micromechanical test methods for interfacial strength measurements in composites. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Composite Interfaces (ICCI-III); Cleveland, Ohio, USA; 1990.
89.
NetravaliANLiZFSachseW, et al.Determination of fibre/matrix interfacial shear strength by an acoustic emission technique. J Mater Sci. 1991;26:6631–6638. doi:10.1007/BF02402656
90.
NetravaliANTopoleskiLTTSachseWH, et al.An acoustic emission technique for measuring fiber fragment length distributions in the single-fiber- composite test. Compos Sci Technol. 1989;35:13–29. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(89)90068-7
91.
YilmazYI.Analyzing single fiber fragmentation test data by using stress transfer model. J Compos Mater. 2002;36:537–551. doi:10.1177/0021998302036005465
KhanRAParsonsAJJonesIA, et al.Interfacial properties of phosphate glass fiber/poly(caprolactone)system measured using the single fiber fragmentation test. Compos Interfaces. 2011;18:77–90. doi:10.1163/092764410X554058
94.
OhsawaTNakayamaAMiwaM, et al.Temperature dependence of critical fiber length for glass fiber-reinforced thermosetting resins. J Appl Polym Sci. 1978;22:3203–3212. doi:10.1002/app.1978.070221115
95.
FeillardPDésarmotGFavreJP.Theoretical aspects of the fragmentation test. Compos Sci Technol. 1994;50:265–279. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(94)90148-1
96.
FigueroaJCCarneyTESchadlerLS, et al.Micromechanics of single filament composites. Compos Sci Technol. 1991;42:77–101. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(91)90013-F
97.
DrzalLTRichMJCampingJD, et al. Interfacial shear strength and failure mechanisms in graphite fiber composites. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Technical Conference Reinforced Plastics/Composites Institute, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.; New Orleans, USA; 1980.
98.
TripathiDChenFJonesFR.The effect of matrix yield strain on the data reduction technique of the single-filament fragmentation test. Composites Part A. 1996;27:709–715. doi:10.1016/1359-835X(96)00041-3
99.
TripathiDTurtonTChenF, et al.A new method to normalize the effect of matrix properties on the value of interfacial shear strength obtained from the fragmentation test. J Mater Sci. 1997;32:4759–4765. doi:10.1023/A:1018631030753
100.
LodeiroMJMaudgalSMcCartneyLN, et al.Project CPD3 - report 1 interface characterisation and behaviour: critical review of interface testing methods for composites. Teddington, Middlesex: National Physical Laboratory; 1998.
101.
RichMJDrzalLTHunstonD, et al. Round Robin Assessment of the single fiber fragmentation test. In Proceedings of the American Society for Composites 17th Technical Conference; Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana; 2002.
102.
GaliotisC.A study of mechanisms of stress transfer in continuous- and discontinuous-fibre model composites by laser Raman spectroscopy. Compos Sci Technol. 1993;48:15–28. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(93)90116-X
103.
NishikawaMOkabeTTakedaN, et al.Micromechanics of the fragmentation process in single-fiber composites. Modell Simul Mater Sci Eng. 2008;16:1–19. doi:10.1088/0965-0393/16/5/055009
104.
van der MeerFPRaijmaekersSRochaIBCM.Interpreting the single fiber fragmentation test with numerical simulations. Composites Part A. 2019;118:259–266. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.01.002
105.
BowyerWHBaderMG.On the re-inforcement of thermoplastics by imperfectly aligned discontinuous fibres. J Mater Sci. 1972;7:1315–1321. doi:10.1007/BF00550698
106.
BaderMGBowyerWH.An improved method of production for high strength fibre-reinforced thermoplastics. Composites. 1973;4:150–156. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(73)90105-5
107.
AliottaLLazzeriA.A proposal to modify the Kelly-Tyson equation to calculate the interfacial shear strength (IFSS) of composites with low aspect ratio fibers. Compos Sci Technol. 2020;186:107920. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.107920
108.
CoxHL.The elasticity and strength of paper and other fibrous materials. Br J Appl Phys. 1952;3:72–79. doi:10.1088/0508-3443/3/3/302
109.
LacroixTTiimansBKeuningsR, et al.Modelling of critical fibre length and interfacial debonding in the fragmentation testing of polymer composites. Compos Sci Technol. 1992;43:379–387. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(92)90061-7
110.
MendelsDA.Analysis of the single-fibre fragmentation test, NPL report MATC(A)17. Teddington, Middlesex: National Physical Laboratory; 2001.
111.
NairnJA.On the use of shear-lag methods for analysis of stress transfer in unidirectional composites. Mech Mater. 1997;26:63–80. doi:10.1016/S0167-6636(97)00023-9
McCartneyL. Analytical models of stress transfer in unidirectional composites and cross-ply laminates and their applications to the prediction of matrix/transverse cracking, local mechanics concepts for composite material systems. In the Proceedings of the IUTAM Symposia (International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics); 1992.
114.
NairnJA.Generalized shear-lag analysis including imperfect interfaces. Adv Compos Lett. 2004;13:263–274. doi:10.1177/096369350401300601
115.
CamanhoPPHallettSR, editors. Numerical modelling of failure in advanced composite materials. Cambridge: Elsevier; Woodhead Publishing; 2015.
116.
LandisCMMcGlocktonMAMcMeekingRM.An improved shear lag model for broken fibers in composite materials. J Compos Mater. 1999;33:667–680. doi:10.1177/002199839903300704
117.
OkabeTTakedaN.Elastoplastic shear-lag analysis of single-fiber composites and strength prediction of unidirectional multi-fiber composites. Composites Part A. 2002;33:1327–1335. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(02)00170-7
118.
LandisCMMcMeekingRM.A shear-lag model for a broken fiber embedded in a composite with a ductile matrix. Compos Sci Technol. 1999;59:447–457. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(98)00091-8
119.
Balacó De MoraisA.Stress distribution along broken fibres in polymer-matrix composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2001;61:1571–1580. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00058-6
120.
OkabeTTakedaNKamoshidaY, et al.A 3D shear-lag model considering micro-damage and statistical strength prediction of unidirectional fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2001;61:1773–1787. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00079-3
121.
YangZZhangBMZhaoL, et al.Stress transfer around a broken fiber in unidirectional fiber-reinforced composites considering matrix damage evolution and interface slipping. Sci China Phys Mech Astron. 2011;54:296–302. doi:10.1007/s11433-010-4148-1
122.
LandisCMBeyerleinIJMcMeekingRM.Micromechanical simulation of the failure of fiber reinforced composites. J Mech Phys Solids. 2000;48:621–648. doi:10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00051-4
123.
BeyerleinIJLeigh PhoenixS.Statistics of fracture for an elastic notched composite lamina containing Weibull fibers— part I. Features from Monte-Carlo simulation. Eng Fract Mech. 1997;57:241–265. doi:10.1016/S0013-7944(97)00012-X
124.
DrzalLT.The effect of polymeric matrix mechanical properties on the fiber-matrix interfacial shear strength. Mater Sci Eng A. 1990;126:289–293. doi:10.1016/0921-5093(90)90135-P
125.
OkabeTTakedaN.Estimation of strength distribution for a fiber embedded in a single-fiber composite: experiments and statistical simulation based on the elasto-plastic shear-lag approach. Compos Sci Technol. 2001;61:1789–1800. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00080-X
126.
ZhaoFMOkabeTTakedaN.Effect of matrix yield properties on fragmentation behavior of single fiber composites. Compos Interfaces. 2002;9:289–308. doi:10.1163/156855402320257366
127.
WhitneyJMDrzalLT. Axisymmetric stress distribution around an isolated fiber fragment. Toughened composites. ASTM STP 937. American Society for Testing and Materials 1987; p. 179–96.
128.
NairnJA.A variational mechanics analysis of the stresses around breaks in embedded fibers. Mech Mater. 1992;13:131–154. doi:10.1016/0167-6636(92)90042-C
129.
WuWDesaegerMVerpoestI, et al.An improved analysis of the stresses in a single-fibre fragmentation test: I. Two-phase model. Compos Sci Technol. 1997;57:809–819. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00050-X
130.
TripathiDChenFJonesFR.A comprehensive model to predict the stress fields in a single fibre composite. J Compos Mater. 1996;30:1514–1538. doi:10.1177/002199839603001401
131.
PiggottMR.Failure processes in the fibre-polymer interphase. Compos Sci Technol. 1991;42:57–76. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(91)90012-E
132.
YalleeRBYoungRJ.Evaluation of interface fracture energy for single-fibre composites. Compos Sci Technol. 1998;58:1907–1916. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(98)00008-6
133.
NardoneVCPrewoKM.On the strength of discontinuous silicon carbide reinforced aluminum composites. Scr Metall. 1986;20:43–48. doi:10.1016/0036-9748(86)90210-3
134.
JiSZhaoP.Location of tensile fracture within rigid-brittle inclusions in a ductile flowing matrix. Tectonophysics. 1993;220:23–31. doi:10.1016/0040-1951(93)90221-5
135.
ChenZYanW.A shear-lag model with a cohesive fibre–matrix interface for analysis of fibre pull-out. Mech Mater. 2015;91:119–135. doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2015.07.007
136.
XiongXShenSZHuaL, et al.Predicting tensile behaviors of short flax fiber-reinforced polymer–matrix composites using a modified shear-lag model. J Compos Mater. 2018;52:3701–3713. doi:10.1177/0021998318769128
NairnJALiuYC.On the use of energy methods for interpretation of results of single-fiber fragmentation experiments. Compos Interfaces. 1996;4:241–261. doi:10.1163/156855497X00028
139.
DetassisMFrydmanEVrielingD, et al.Interface toughness in fibre composites by the fragmentation test. Composites Part A. 1996;27:769–773. doi:10.1016/1359-835X(96)00045-0
140.
ZhouXNairnJAWagnerHD.Fiber-matrix adhesion from the single-fiber composite test: nucleation of interfacial debonding. Composites Part A. 1999;30:1387–1400. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(99)00043-3
141.
ZhuangLPupursAVarnaJ, et al.Fiber/matrix debond growth from fiber break in unidirectional composite with local hexagonal fiber clustering. Composites Part B. 2016;101:124–131. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.07.005
142.
PupursAVarnaJ.Energy release rate based fiber/matrix debond growth in fatigue. Part I: self-similar crack growth. Mech Adv Mater Struct. 2013;20:276–287. doi:10.1080/15376494.2011.627627
143.
WagnerHDNairnJADetassisM.Toughness of interfaces from initial fiber-matrix debonding in a single fiber composite fragmentation test. Appl Compos Mater. 1995;2:107–117. doi:10.1007/BF00569253
144.
GracianiEVarnaJMantiV, et al.Evaluation of interfacial fracture toughness and friction coefficient in the single fiber fragmentation test. Procedia Eng. 2011;10:2478–2483. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.04.408
145.
KimBWNairnJA.Experimental verification of the effects of friction and residual stress on the analysis of interfacial debonding and toughness in single fiber composites. J Mater Sci. 2002;37:3965–3972. doi:10.1023/A:1019684312272
146.
NairnJA.Fracture mechanics of composites with residual stresses, traction-loaded cracks, and imperfect interfaces. Int J Fract. 2000;105:243–271. doi:10.1023/A:1007666426275
147.
SørensenBF.Micromechanical model of the single fiber fragmentation test. Mech Mater. 2017;104:38–48. doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2016.10.002
SørensenBFLilholtH. Fiber pull-out test and single fiber fragmentation test - analysis and modelling. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 37th Risø International Symposium on Materials Science 2016; Vol. 139.
150.
BudimanBATakahashiKInabaK, et al.A new method of evaluating interfacial properties of a fiber/matrix composite. J Compos Mater. 2015;49:465–475. doi:10.1177/0021998314521061
151.
TuronADávilaCGCamanhoPP, et al.An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech. 2007;74:1665–1682. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.08.025
152.
AlfanoGCrisfieldMA.Finite element interface models for the delamination analysis of laminated composites: mechanical and computational issues. Int J Numer Methods Eng. 2001;50:1701–1736. doi:10.1002/nme.93
153.
HarperPWHallettSR.Cohesive zone length in numerical simulations of composite delamination. Eng Fract Mech. 2008;75:4774–4792. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.06.004
154.
GhoshGDudduRAnnavarapuC. A stabilized finite element method for delamination analysis of composites using cohesive elements. ArXiv:200809015v1; 2020.
155.
DaudevilleLAllixOLadevèzeP.Delamination analysis by damage mechanics: some applications. Compos Eng. 1995;5:17–24. doi:10.1016/0961-9526(95)93976-3
156.
ZouZReidSRLiS, et al.Modelling interlaminar and intralaminar damage in filament-wound pipes under quasi-static indentation. J Compos Mater. 2002;36:477–499. doi:10.1177/0021998302036004539
157.
CamanhoPPDavilaCMouraM.Numerical simulation of mixed-mode progressive delamination in composite materials. J Compos Mater. 2003;37:1415–1438. doi:10.1177/0021998303034505
158.
YuanHLiX.Effects of the cohesive law on ductile crack propagation simulation by using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech. 2014;126:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2014.04.019
159.
ZhaoLGongYZhangJ, et al.Simulation of delamination growth in multidirectional laminates under mode I and mixed mode I/II loadings using cohesive elements. Compos Struct. 2014;116:509–522. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.05.042
160.
TuronACamanhoPPCostaJ, et al.Accurate simulation of delamination growth under mixed-mode loading using cohesive elements: definition of interlaminar strengths and elastic stiffness. Compos Struct. 2010;92:1857–1864. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.01.012
161.
TuronAGonzálezEVSarradoC, et al.Accurate simulation of delamination under mixed-mode loading using a cohesive model with a mode-dependent penalty stiffness. Compos Struct. 2018;184:506–511. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.017
162.
DávilaCGRoseCACamanhoPP.A procedure for superposing linear cohesive laws to represent multiple damage mechanisms in the fracture of composites. Int J Fract. 2009;158:211–223. doi:10.1007/s10704-009-9366-z
163.
BudimanBATakahashiKInabaK, et al.Evaluation of interfacial strength between fiber and matrix based on cohesive zone modeling. Composites Part A. 2016;90:211–217. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.06.024
164.
RamirezFACarlssonLAAchaBA.A method to measure fracture toughness of the fiber/matrix interface using the single-fiber fragmentation test. Composites Part A. 2009;40:679–686. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.04.011
165.
VarnaJJoffeRBerglundLA.Interfacial toughness evaluation from the single-fiber fragmentation test. Compos Sci Technol. 1996;56:1105–1109. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(96)00096-6
166.
SwolfsY. Hybridisation of self-reinforced composites: modelling and verifying a novel hybrid concept. [PhD thesis]. KU Leuven, 2015.
167.
XiaZCurtinWAOkabeT.Green’s function vs. shear-lag models of damage and failure in fiber composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2002;62:1279–1288. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(02)00073-8
168.
XiaZOkabeTCurtinWA.Shear-lag versus finite element models for stress transfer in fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2002;62:1141–1149. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(02)00072-6
169.
BabaeiRFarrokhabadiA.Prediction of debonding growth in two-dimensional RVEs using an extended interface element based on continuum damage mechanics concept. Compos Struct. 2020;238:111981. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.111981
170.
CundallPAStrackODL.A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Géotechnique. 1979;29:47–65. doi:10.1680/geot.1979.29.1.47
171.
LeBDDauFCharlesJL, et al.Modeling damages and cracks growth in composite with a 3D discrete element method. Composites Part B. 2016;91:615–630. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.01.021
172.
ShengYYangDTanY, et al.Microstructure effects on transverse cracking in composite laminae by DEM. Compos Sci Technol. 2010;70:2093–2101. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.08.006
173.
YangDShengYYeJ, et al.Discrete element modeling of the microbond test of fiber reinforced composite. Comput Mater Sci. 2010;49:253–259. doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2010.05.003
174.
LeBDDauFPhamDH, et al.Discrete element modeling of interface debonding behavior in composite material: application to a fragmentation test. Compos Struct. 2021;272:114170. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114170
175.
AhmadvashaghbashSBreiteCMehdikhaniM, et al.Longitudinal debonding in unidirectional fibre-reinforced composites: numerical analysis of the effect of interfacial properties. Compos Sci Technol. 2021;218:109117. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2021.109117
176.
AhmadvashAghbashSFazlaliBMehdikhaniM, et al.Finite element analysis of the effect of longitudinal debonding on stress redistributions around fibre breaks in randomly packed fibres. Compos Sci Technol. 2022;227:109586. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2022.109586
177.
GaliotisCBatchelderDN.Strain dependences of the first- and second-order Raman spectra of carbon fibres. J Mater Sci Lett. 1988;7:545–547. doi:10.1007/BF01730722
178.
RobinsonIMZakikhaniMDayRJ, et al.Strain dependence of the Raman frequencies for different types of carbon fibres. J Mater Sci Lett. 1987;6:1212–1214. doi:10.1007/BF01729187
179.
SchadlerLSGaliotisC.Fundamentals and applications of micro Raman spectroscopy to strain measurements in fibre reinforced composites. Int Mater Rev. 1995;40:116–134. doi:10.1179/imr.1995.40.3.116
180.
GaliotisCReadRTYeungPHJ, et al.High-modulus polydiacetylene single-crystal fibers. J Polym Sci Part A-2, Polym Phys. 1984;22:1589–1606. doi:10.1002/pol.1984.180220903
181.
GaliotisCYoungRJBatchelderDN.The solid-state polymerization and physical properties of bis(ethyl urethane) of 2,4-hexadiyne-1,6-diol. II. Resonance Raman spectroscopy. J Polym Sci Part A-2, Polym Phys. 1983;21:2483–2494. doi:10.1002/pol.1983.180211206
182.
GaliotisC.Interfacial studies on model composites by laser Raman spectroscopy. Compos Sci Technol. 1991;42:125–150. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(91)90015-H
183.
JahankhaniHGaliotisC.Interfacial shear stress distribution in model composites, part 1: a Kevlar 49® fibre in an epoxy matrix. J Compos Mater. 1991;25:609–631. doi:10.1177/002199839102500508
184.
MelanitisNGaliotisC.Interfacial micromechanics in model composites using laser Raman spectroscopy. Proc R Soc London Ser A. 1993;440:379–398.
185.
GaliotisCPaipetisAMansionC.Unification of fibre/matrix interfacial measurements with Raman microscopy. J Raman Spectrosc. 1999;30:899–912. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4555(199910)30:10<899:AID-JRS465>3.0.CO;2-V
186.
WagnerHD. Interface mechanics in fiber composites: a short tutorial (FiBreMoD School Lectures, Day 1, Lecture 1-KU Leuven, Belgium). 2019.
187.
van den HeuvelPWJPeijsTYoungRJ.Failure phenomena in two-dimensional multifibre microcomposites: 2. A Raman spectroscopic study of the influence of inter-fibre spacing on stress concentrations. Compos Sci Technol. 1997;57:899–911. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00004-3
188.
Montes-MoránMAYoungRJ.Raman spectroscopy study of high-modulus carbon fibres: effect of plasma-treatment on the interfacial properties of single-fibre-epoxy composites. Part II - characterisation of the fibre–matrix interface. Carbon. 2002;40:857–875. doi:10.1016/S0008-6223(01)00207-X
189.
ZhuMWangYWangC, et al.An improved analytical model for inversely determining multiple interfacial parameters from single fiber micro-Raman and fragmentation tests. Compos Sci Technol. 2021;214:108983. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2021.108983
190.
LiZFGrubbDTPhoenixSL.Fiber interactions in the multi-fiber composite fragmentation test. Compos Sci Technol. 1995;54:251–266. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(95)00056-9
191.
YamamotoGOnoderaMKoizumiK, et al.Considering the stress concentration of fiber surfaces in the prediction of the tensile strength of unidirectional carbon fiber-reinforced plastic composites. Composites Part A. 2019;121:499–509. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.04.011
192.
WagnerHDAmerMSSchadlerLS.Fibre interactions in two-dimensional composites by micro-Raman spectroscopy. J Mater Sci. 1996;31:1165–1173. doi:10.1007/BF00353095
193.
SchadlerLSAmerMSIskandaraniB.Experimental measurement of fiber/fiber interaction using micro Raman spectroscopy. Mech Mater. 1996;23:205–216. doi:10.1016/0167-6636(96)00004-X
194.
PaipetisAGaliotisCLiuYC, et al.Stress transfer from the matrix to the fibre in a fragmentation test: Raman experiments and analytical modeling. J Compos Mater. 1999;33:377–399. doi:10.1177/002199839903300404
195.
PiggottMR.Expressions governing stress-strain curves in short fibre reinforced polymers. J Mater Sci. 1978;13:1709–1716. doi:10.1007/BF00548734
196.
GrubbDTLiZFPhoenixSL.Measurement of stress concentration in a fiber adjacent to a fiber break in a model composite. Compos Sci Technol. 1995;54:237–249. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(95)00055-0
197.
WagnerHDSteenbakkersLW.Microdamage analysis of fibrous composite monolayers under tensile stress. J Mater Sci. 1989;24:3956–3975. doi:10.1007/BF01168959
MccarthyEDKimJHHeckertNA, et al.The fiber break evolution process in a 2-D epoxy/glass multi-fiber array. Compos Sci Technol. 2015;121:73–81. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.10.013
200.
KimJHHettenhouserJWMoonCK, et al.A fiber placement device and methodology for preparing 2-D and 3-D combinatorial microcomposites. J Mater Sci. 2009;44:3626–3632. doi:10.1007/s10853-009-3362-6
201.
GoutianosSPeijsTGaliotisC.Mechanisms of stress transfer and interface integrity in carbon/epoxy composites under compression loading part I: experimental investigation. Int J Solids Struct. 2002;39:3217–3231. doi:10.1016/S0020-7683(02)00240-8
202.
GoutianosSPeijsT.Experimental and numerical investigation into fatigue damage mechanisms in multif ibre microcomposites. Plast Rubber Compos Process Appl. 2001;30:222–232.
203.
PupursAVarnaJ.Fracture mechanics analysis of debond growth in a single-fiber composite under cyclic loading. Mech Compos Mater. 2011;47:109–124. doi:10.1007/s11029-011-9190-1
204.
LittellJRuggeriCGoldbergR, et al.Measurement of epoxy resin tension, compression, and shear stress–strain curves over a wide range of strain rates using small test specimens. J Aerosp Eng. 2008;21:162–173. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2008)21:3(162)
205.
FiedlerBHojoMOchiaiS, et al.Failure behavior of an epoxy matrix under different kinds of static loading. Compos Sci Technol. 2001;61:1615–1624. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00057-4
206.
HsiehTHKinlochAJMasaniaK, et al.The mechanisms and mechanics of the toughening of epoxy polymers modified with silica nanoparticles. Polymer. 2010;51:6284–6294. doi:10.1016/j.polymer.2010.10.048
207.
MorelleXPChevalierJBaillyC, et al.Mechanical characterization and modeling of the deformation and failure of the highly crosslinked RTM6 epoxy resin. Mech Time-Depend Mater. 2017;21:419–454. doi:10.1007/s11043-016-9336-6
208.
BreiteC. Aligning fibre break models for composites with the observable micro-scale material behaviour [PhD thesis]. KU Leuven, 2021.
209.
TripathiDChenFJonesFR.The effect of matrix plasticity on the stress fields in a single filament composite and the value of interfacial shear strength obtained from the fragmentation test. Proc R Soc London Ser A. 1996;452:621–653. doi:10.1098/rspa.1996.0032
210.
PisanovaEVZhandarovSF.On the mechanism of failure in microcomposites consisting of single glass fibres in a thermoplastic matrix. Compos Sci Technol. 1997;57:937–943. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00022-5
211.
PiggottMRChuaPSAndisonD.The interface between glass and carbon fibers and thermosetting polymers. Polym Compos. 1985;6:242–248. doi:10.1002/pc.750060409
212.
ChuaPSPiggottMR.The glass fibre-polymer interface: II—work of fracture and shear stresses. Compos Sci Technol. 1985;22:107–119. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(85)90079-X
213.
MelanitisNGaliotisCTetlowPL, et al.Interfacial shear stress distribution in model composites part 2: fragmentation studies on carbon fibre/epoxy systems. J Compos Mater. 1992;26:574–610. doi:10.1177/002199839202600407
214.
ShiriajevaGVAndreevskayaGD.Sov Plast. 1962;4:40.
215.
FavreJPPerrinJ.Carbon fibre adhesion to organic matrices. J Mater Sci. 1972;7:1113–1118. doi:10.1007/BF00550192
216.
HampeA.Grundlegende untersuchungen an faserverstärkten polymeren. Amts Mitteilungsblatt BAM. 1988;18:3–7.
217.
HampeAKalinkaGMeretzS, et al.An advanced equipment for single-fibre pull-out test designed to monitor the fracture process. Composites. 1995;26:40–46. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(94)P3628-E
218.
ChuaPSPiggottMR.The glass fibre-polymer interface: I-theoretical consideration for single fibre pull-out tests. Compos Sci Technol. 1985;22:33–42. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(85)90089-2
219.
PiggottMR.Debonding and friction at fibre-polymer interfaces. I: criteria for failure and sliding. Compos Sci Technol. 1987;30:295–306. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(87)90017-0
220.
DiFranciaCWardTCClausRO.The single-fibre pull-out test. 1: review and interpretation. Composites: Part A. 1996;27:597–612. doi:10.1016/1359-835X(95)00069-E
221.
JiangKRPennLS.Improved analysis and experimental evaluation of the single filament pull-out test. Compos Sci Technol. 1992;45:89–103. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(92)90031-W
222.
KellyA.Interface effects and the work of fracture of a fibrous composite. R Soc London Ser A Math Phys Sci. 1970;319:95–116.
223.
TakakuAArridgeRGC.The effect of interfacial radial and shear stress on fibre pull-out in composite materials. J Phys D Appl Phys. 1973;6:2038–2047. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/6/17/310
224.
PiggottMR.The single-fibre pull-out method: its advantages, interpretation and experimental realization. Compos Interfaces. 1993;1:211–223. doi:10.1163/156855493X00086
225.
BannisterDJAndrewsMCCervenkaAJ, et al.Analysis of the single-fibre pull-out test by means of Raman spectroscopy: part II. Micromechanics of deformation for an aramid/epoxy system. Compos Sci Technol. 1995;53:411–421. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(95)00030-5
226.
WangC.Fracture mechanics of single-fibre pull-out test. J Mater Sci. 1997;32:483–490. doi:10.1023/A:1018534323464
227.
LeungCKYLiVC.New strength-based model for the debonding of discontinuous fibres in an elastic matrix. J Mater Sci. 1991;26:5996–6010. doi:10.1007/BF01113875
228.
NodaNAChenDZhangG, et al.Single-fiber pull-out analysis comparing the intensities of singular stress fields (ISSFs) at fiber end/entry points. Int J Mech Sci. 2020;165:105196. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.105196
229.
ZhouL-MKimJ-KMaiY-W.On the single fibre pull-out problem: effect of loading method. Compos Sci Technol. 1992;45:153–160. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(92)90037-4
230.
MäderEMörscheiUEffingM.Quality assessment of composites. JEC Compos Mag. 2016;53:49–51.
231.
ChuaPSPiggottMR.The glass fibre-polymer interface: III—pressure and coefficient of friction. Compos Sci Technol. 1985;22:185–196. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(85)90032-6
ZhandarovSFEdithMSchefC, et al.Investigation of interfacial strength parameters in polymer matrix composites: compatibility and reproducibility. Adv Ind Eng Polym Res. 2018;1:82–92. doi:10.1016/j.aiepr.2018.06.002
234.
DengSYeLMaiYW.Measurement of interfacial shear strength of carbon fibre/epoxy composites using a single fibre pull-out test. Adv Compos Mater. 1998;7:169–182. doi:10.1163/156855198X00129
235.
PatrikisAKAndrewsMCYoungRJ.Analysis of the single-fibre pull-out test by the use of Raman spectroscopy. Part I: pull-out of aramid fibres from an epoxy resin. Compos Sci Technol. 1994;52:387–396. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(94)90173-2
236.
GuXHYoungRJDayRJ.Deformation micromechanics in model carbon fiber reinforced composites, part I the single-fibre pull-out test. J Mater Sci. 1995;30:1409–1419. doi:10.1007/BF00375240
237.
PisanovaEZhandarovSFMäderE, et al.Three techniques of interfacial bond strength estimation from direct observation of crack initiation and propagation in polymer-fibre systems. Composites Part A. 2001;32:435–443. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(00)00054-3
238.
ZhongWPanN.A computer simulation of single fiber pull out process in a composite. J Compos Mater. 2003;37:1951–1969. doi:10.1177/002199803036267
239.
DelfolieCDepeckerCLefebvreJM.Interfacial phenomena in glass fibre reinforced polyester resin with low profile additives. part I micromechanical evaluation by pull out testing. J Mater Sci. 1999;34:481–495. doi:10.1023/A:1004582310207
240.
GreszczukLB.Interfaces in composites. ASTM STP. 1969;452:42–58.
241.
GreszczukLB.Theoretical studies of the mechanics of the fiber-matrix interface in composites. Interface Compos. 1969:42–58. doi:10.1520/STP44699S
242.
PitkethlyMJDobleJB.Characterizing the fibre/matrix interface of carbon fibre-reinforced composites using a single fibre pull-out test. Composites. 1990;21:389–395. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(90)90436-Z
243.
LawrenceP.Some theoretical considerations of fibre pull-out from an elastic matrix. J Mater Sci. 1972;7:1–6. doi:10.1007/BF00549541
244.
ZhangXBAljewifiHLiJ.Failure mechanism investigation of continuous fibre reinforced cementitious composites by pull-out behaviour analysis. Procedia Mater Sci. 2014;3:1377–1382. doi:10.1016/j.mspro.2014.06.222
245.
HsuehCH.Interfacial debonding and fiber pull-out stresses of fiber-reinforced composites, III. With residual radial and axial stresses. Mater Sci Eng A. 1991;149:1–9.
246.
HsuehCH.Interfacial debonding and fiber pull-out stresses of fiber-reinforced composites, X: with an elastic interfacial coating. Mater Sci Eng A. 1993;165:189–195. doi:10.1016/0921-5093(93)90754-3
247.
ZhangXLiuHMaiY, et al.On steady-state fibre pull-out: I the stress field. Compos Sci Technol. 1999;59:2179–2189. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(99)00110-4
248.
FuSYYueCYHuX, et al.Analyses of the micromechanics of stress transfer in single- and multi-fiber pull-out tests. Compos Sci Technol. 2000;60:569–579. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(99)00157-8
GriffithAA.The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser A. 1920;221:163–168.
251.
OutwarterJDMurphyMC. On the fracture energy of unidirectional laminates. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Technical Conference of the Reinforced Plastics Composites Institute, SPI; New York; 1969.
252.
TeklalFDjebbarAAllaouiS, et al.A review of analytical models to describe pull-out behavior – fiber/matrix adhesion. Compos Struct. 2018;201:791–815. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.091
253.
PiggottMRSanadiAChuaPS, et al.Mechanical interactions in the interphasial region of fibre reinforced thermosets. Compos Interfaces. 1986:109–121.
254.
PennLSChouCT.Identification of factors affecting single filament pull-out test results. ASTM Int, Am Soc Test Mater. 1990;12(3). doi:10.1520/CTR10193J
255.
BurnDTHarperLTJohnsonM, et al.The usability of recycled carbon fibres in short fibre thermoplastics: interfacial properties. J Mater Sci. 2016;51:7699–7715. doi:10.1007/s10853-016-0053-y
256.
PennLSLeeSM.Interpretation of experimental results in the single pull-out filament test. J Compos Technol Res. 1989;11:23–30. doi:10.1520/CTR10145J
257.
ZhouL-MMaiY-W.On the single fibre pullout and pushout problem: effect of fibre anisotropy. ZAMP Zeitschr Angew Math Phys. 1993;44:769–775. doi:10.1007/BF00948488
258.
LiuH-YZhouL-MMaiY-W.On fibre pull-out with a rough interface. Philos Mag A. 1994;70:359–372.
259.
KimJZhouLBryanSJ, et al.Effects of fibre volume fraction on the stress transfer in fibre pull-out tests. Composites. 1994;25:470–475. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(94)90171-6
260.
ZhouL-MKimJ-KMaiY-W.Interfacial debonding and fibre pull-out stresses, part II a new model based on the fracture mechanics approach. J Mater Sci. 1992;27:3155–3166. doi:10.1007/BF01116005
261.
KimJ-KBaillieCMaiY-W.Interfacial debonding and fibre pull-out stresses, part I critical comparison of existing theories with experiments. J Mater Sci. 1992;27:3143–3154. doi:10.1007/BF01116004
262.
HsuehCH.Theoretical comparison of two loading methods in fiber pull-out tests. Mater Sci Eng A. 1990;130:L11–L15. doi:10.1016/0921-5093(90)90070-J
263.
KimJKZhouLMaiYW.Stress transfer in the fibre fragmentation test - part I an improved analysis based on a shear strength criterion. J Mater Sci. 1993;28:6233–6245. doi:10.1007/BF00365049
264.
AtkinsonCAvilaJBetzE, et al.The rod pull out problem, theory and experiment. J Mech Phys Solids. 1982;30:97–120. doi:10.1016/0022-5096(82)90019-9
265.
BeckertWLaukeB.Critical discussion of the single-fibre pull-out test: does it measure adhesion?Compos Sci Technol. 1998;57:1689–1706. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00107-3
266.
SunWLinF.Computer modeling and FEA simulation for composite single fiber pull-out. J Thermoplast Compos Mater. 2001;14:327–343. doi:10.1106/YKDM-PX8K-NF6Q-L7FK
267.
TsaiJHPatraAWetherholdR.Finite element simulation of shaped ductile fiber pullout using a mixed cohesive zone/friction interface model. Composites Part A. 2005;36:827–838. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2004.10.025
268.
JiaYYYanWLiuH-Y. Numerical study on carbon fibre pullout using a cohesive zone model. In: Proceedings of the International Conferences on Composite Materials; Jeju Island, South Korea; 2011.
269.
JiaYYanWLiuH-Y.Carbon fibre pullout under the influence of residual thermal stresses in polymer matrix composites. Comput Mater Sci. 2012;62:79–86. doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.05.019
270.
HoppeL.Numerical simulation of fiber-matrix debonding in single fiber pull-out tests. GAMM Arch Stud. 2020;2:21–35. doi:10.14464/gammas.v2i1.437
271.
BheemreddyVChandrashekharaKDharaniLR, et al.Modeling of fiber pull-out in continuous fiber reinforced ceramic composites using finite element method and artificial neural networks. Comput Mater Sci. 2013;79:663–673. doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2013.07.026
272.
PiggottMRChuaPS.Recent studies of the glass fiber-polymer interphase. Ind Eng Chem Res. 1987;26:672–677. doi:10.1021/ie00064a007
273.
LiuHZhangXMaiY, et al.On steady-state fibre pull-out: II computer simulation. Compos Sci Technol. 1999;59:2191–2199. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(99)00060-3
274.
KeransRJParthasarathyTA.Theoretical analysis of the fiber pullout and pushout tests. J Am Ceram Soc. 1991;74:1585–1596. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.tb07144.x
275.
KesslerHSchüllerTBeckertW, et al.A fracture-mechanics model of the microbond test with interface friction. Compos Sci Technol. 1999;59:2231–2242. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(99)00078-0
276.
NairnJA.Analytical fracture mechanics analysis of the pull-out test including the effects of friction and thermal stresses. Adv Compos Lett. 2000;9:373–383. doi:10.1177/096369350000900601
277.
WuWVerpoestIVarnaJ.Prediction of energy release rate due to the growth of an interface crack by variational analysis. Compos Sci Technol. 2000;60:351–360. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(99)00130-X
278.
SørensenBFLilholtH. Fiber pull-out test and single fiber fragmentation test - analysis and modelling. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 37th Risø International Symposium on Materials Science 2016; 139.
279.
ZhandarovSFMäderE.Characterization of fiber/matrix interface strength: applicability of different tests, approaches and parameters. Compos Sci Technol. 2005;65:149–160. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.07.003
280.
MillerBMuriPRebenfeldL.A microbond method for determination of the shear strength of a fiber/resin interface. Compos Sci Technol. 1987;28:17–32. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(87)90059-5
281.
AshJTCrossWMSvalstadD, et al.Finite element evaluation of the microbond test: meniscus effect, interphase region, and vise angle. Compos Sci Technol. 2003;63:641–651. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(02)00256-7
282.
MillerBGaurUHirtDE.Measurement and mechanical aspects of the microbond pull-out technique for obtaining fiber/resin interfacial shear strength. Compos Sci Technol. 1991;42:207–219. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(91)90018-K
283.
van OssCJChaudhuryMKGoodRJ.Interfacial Lifshitz-van der Waals and polar interactions in macroscopic systems. Chem Rev. 1988;88:927–941. doi:10.1021/cr00088a006
284.
LuCWangJLuX, et al.Wettability and interfacial properties of carbon fiber and poly(ether ether ketone) fiber hybrid composite. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2019;11:31520–31531. doi:10.1021/acsami.9b09735
285.
CarrollBJ.The accurate measurement of contact angle, phase contact areas, drop volume, and Laplace excess pressure in drop-on-fiber systems. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1976;57:488–495. doi:10.1016/0021-9797(76)90227-7
286.
YamakiJIKatayamaY.New method of determining contact angle between monofilament and liquid. J Appl Polym Sci. 1975;19:2897–2909. doi:10.1002/app.1975.070191025
287.
SongBBismarckATahhanR, et al.A generalized drop length-height method for determination of contact angle in drop-on-fiber systems. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1998;197:68–77. doi:10.1006/jcis.1997.5218
288.
WuXFDzenisYA.Droplet on a fiber: geometrical shape and contact angle. Acta Mech. 2006;185:215–225. doi:10.1007/s00707-006-0349-0
289.
WagnerHDGallisHEWieselE.Spreading of liquid droplets on cylindrical surfaces: accurate determination of contact angle. J Appl Phys. 1990;67:1352–1355. doi:10.1063/1.345689
290.
YamaguchiAHashimotoTUematsuH, et al.Investigation of interfacial adhesion of telechelic polypropylenes for carbon fiber-reinforced plastics. Polym J. 2020;52:413–419. doi:10.1038/s41428-019-0295-z
291.
NishikawaMOkabeTHemmiK, et al.Micromechanical modeling of the microbond test to quantify the interfacial properties of fiber-reinforced composites. Int J Solids Struct. 2008;45:4098–4113. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.02.021
292.
MendelsDALeterrierYMånsonJAE.The influence of internal stresses on the microbond test - I: theoretical analysis. J Compos Mater. 2002;36:347–363. doi:10.1177/0021998302036003508
293.
Herrera-FrancoPJDrzalLT.Comparison of methods for the measurement of fibre/matrix adhesion in composites. Composites. 1992;23:2–27. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(92)90282-Y
294.
LaurikainenPKakkonenMvon EssenM, et al.Identification and compensation of error sources in the microbond test utilising a reliable high-throughput device. Composites Part A. 2020;137:105988. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.105988
295.
SchüllerTBahrUBeckertW, et al.Fracture mechanics analysis of the microbond test. Composites Part A. 1998;29:1083–1089. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(98)00044-X
296.
HampeAMarotzkeC.The energy release rate of the fiber/polymer matrix interface: measurement and theoretical analysis. J Reinf Plast Compos. 1997;16:341–352. doi:10.1177/073168449701600405
297.
MinnicinoMASantareMH.Modeling the progressive damage of the microdroplet test using contact surfaces with cohesive behavior. Compos Sci Technol. 2012;72:2024–2031. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2012.09.009
298.
SockalingamSDeyMGillespieJW, et al.Finite element analysis of the microdroplet test method using cohesive zone model of the fiber/matrix interface. Composites Part A. 2014;56:239–247. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2013.10.021
299.
ChoiNSParkJEKangSK.Quasi-disk type microbond pull-out test for evaluating fiber/matrix adhesion in composites. J Compos Mater. 2009;43:1663–1677. doi:10.1177/0021998309339636
300.
GaurUMillerB.Microbond method for determination of the shear strength of a fiber/resin interface: evaluation of experimental parameters. Compos Sci Technol. 1989;34:35–51. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(89)90076-6
301.
ZykaiteRPurgleitnerBStadlbauerW, et al.Microdebond test development and interfacial shear strength evaluation of basalt and glass fibre reinforced polypropylene composites. J Compos Mater. 2017;51:4091–4099. doi:10.1177/0021998317697810
302.
GononLMomtazAVan HoyweghenD, et al.Physico-chemical and micromechanical analysis of the interface in a poly(phenylene sulfide)/glass fiber composite—a microbond study. Polym Compos. 1996;17:265–274. doi:10.1002/pc.10611
303.
GaurUDesioGMillerB.Measuring fiber/matrix adhesion in thermoplastic composites. Plast Eng. 1989;October:43–45.
304.
YangLThomasonJL.Development and application of micromechanical techniques for characterising interfacial shear strength in fibre-thermoplastic composites. Polym Test. 2012;31:895–903. doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2012.07.001
305.
LiuBLiuZWangX, et al.Interfacial shear strength of carbon fiber reinforced polyphenylene sulfide measured by the microbond test. Polym Test. 2013;32:724–730. doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2013.03.020
306.
KangSKLeeDBChoiNS.Fiber/epoxy interfacial shear strength measured by the microdroplet test. Compos Sci Technol. 2009;69:245–251. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2008.10.016
307.
RaoVHerrera-FrancoPOzzelloAD, et al.A direct comparison of the fragmentation test and the microbond pull-out test for determining the interfacial shear strength. J Adhes. 1991;34:65–77. doi:10.1080/00218469108026506
308.
HodzicAKalyanasundaramSLoweA, et al.The microdroplet test: experimental and finite element analysis of the dependence of failure mode on droplet shape. Compos Interfaces. 1998;6:375–389. doi:10.1163/156855498X00379
309.
ZhandarovSFMäderE.Peak force as function of the embedded length in pull-out and microbond tests: effect of specimen geometry. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2005;19:817–855. doi:10.1163/1568561054929937
310.
SchoberM. On the Characterization and Modeling of Interfaces in Fiber Reinforced Polymer Structures (PhD Thesis). Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 2019.
311.
MorlinBCziganyT.Cylinder test: development of a new microbond method. Polym Test. 2012;31:164–170. doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2011.10.007
312.
ZhandarovSFPisanovaEMäderE.Is there any contradiction between the stress and energy failure criteria in micromechanical tests? Part III. Experimental observation of crack propagation in the microbond test. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2005;19:679–704. doi:10.1163/1568561054890462
313.
ZinckPWagnerHDSalmonL, et al.Are microcomposites realistic models of the fibre/matrix interface? II. Physico-chemical approach. Polymer. 2001;42:6641–6650. doi:10.1016/S0032-3861(00)00871-5
314.
LiuZYuanXBeckAJ, et al.Analysis of a modified microbond test for the measurement of interfacial shear strength of an aqueous-based adhesive and a polyamide fibre. Compos Sci Technol. 2011;71:1529–1534. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2011.06.001
315.
ZhandarovSFGorbatkinaYMäderE.Adhesional pressure as a criterion for interfacial failure in fibrous microcomposites and its determination using a microbond test. Compos Sci Technol. 2006;66:2610–2628. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2006.03.023
316.
ChoiNSParkJE.Fiber/matrix interfacial shear strength measured by a quasi-disk microbond specimen. Compos Sci Technol. 2009;69:1615–1622. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.03.012
317.
HouYSunT.An improved method to make the microdroplet single fiber composite specimen for determining the interfacial shear strength. J Mater Sci. 2012;47:4775–4778. doi:10.1007/s10853-012-6317-2
318.
ThomasonJ.An overview of some scaling issues in the sample preparation and data interpretation of the microbond test for fibre–matrix interface characterisation. Polym Test. 2022;111:107591. doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2022.107591
319.
HaaksmaRACehelnikMJ.A critical evaluation of the use of the microbond method for determination of composite interfacial properties. MRS Proc. 1989;170:71–76. doi:10.1557/PROC-170-71
320.
BrahatheeswaranCGuptaVB.Internal stress in a cured epoxy resin system. Polymer. 1993;34:289–294. doi:10.1016/0032-3861(93)90079-P
321.
LangeJTollSMånsonJAE, et al.Residual stress build-up in thermoset films cured above their ultimate glass transition temperature. Polymer. 1995;36:3135–3141. doi:10.1016/0032-3861(95)97876-H
322.
MendelsDALeterrierYMansonJ-AE, et al.The influence of internal stresses on the microbond test II: physical aging and adhesion. J Compos Mater. 2002;36:1655–1676. doi:10.1177/0021998302036014166
323.
ThomasonJLYangL.Temperature dependence of the interfacial shear strength in glass-fibre polypropylene composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2011;71:1600–1605. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2011.07.006
324.
ZhandarovSFPisanovaELaukeB.Is there any contradiction between the stress and energy failure criteria in micromechanical tests? part I. crack initiation: stress-controlled or energy-controlled?Compos Interfaces. 1997;5:387–404. doi:10.1163/156855498X00225
325.
ZhandarovSFPisanovaEMäderE.Is there any contradiction between the stress and energy failure criteria in micromechanical tests? Part II. Crack propagation: effect of friction on force-displacement curves. Compos Interfaces. 2000;7:149–175. doi:10.1163/156855400300185289
326.
ZhandarovSFPisanovaESchneiderK.Fiber-stretching test: a new technique for characterizing the fiber-matrix interface using direct observation of crack initiation and propagation. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2000;14:381–398. doi:10.1163/156856100742663
327.
ZhandarovSFMäderE.Determining the interfacial toughness from force-displacement curves in the pull-out and microbond tests using the alternative method. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2016;65:11–18. doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.10.020
328.
ScheerRJNairnJA.A comparison of several fracture mechanics methods for measuring interfacial toughness with microbond tests. J Adhes. 1995;53:45–68. doi:10.1080/00218469508014371
329.
LiuCHNairnJA.Analytical and experimental methods for a fracture mechanics interpretation of the microbond test including the effects of friction and thermal stresses. Int J Adhes Adhes. 1999;19:59–70. doi:10.1016/S0143-7496(98)00057-8
330.
ZhandarovSFPisanovaEV.The local bond strength and its determination by fragmentation and pull-out tests. Compos Sci Technol. 1997;57:957–964. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00037-7
331.
GorbatkinaYAKhazanovichTN. In Proceedings of the 5th All-Union Congress on Theoretic and Applied Mechanics; Nauka, Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan; 1981.
332.
ZhandarovSFMäderEYurkevichOR.Indirect estimation of fiber/polymer bond strength and interfacial friction from maximum load values recorded in the microbond and pull-out tests. Part I: local bond strength. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2002;16:1171–1200. doi:10.1163/156856102320256837
333.
ZhandarovSFMäderE.Indirect estimation of fiber/polymer bond strength and interfacial friction from maximum load values recorded in the microbond and pull-out tests. Part II: critical energy release rate. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2003;17:967–980. doi:10.1163/156856103322112879
334.
MarotzkeC.Influence of the fiber length on the stress transfer from glass and carbon fibers into a thermoplastic matrix in the pull-out test. Compos Interfaces. 1993;1:153–166. doi:10.1163/156855493X00040
335.
ScheerRJNairnJA.Variational mechanics analysis of stresses and failure in microdrop debond specimens. Compos Eng. 1992;2:641–654. doi:10.1016/0961-9526(92)90022-X
336.
GuXYoungRJ.Deformation micromechanics in model carbon fiber reinforced composites part II: the microbond test. Text Res J. 1997;67:93–100. doi:10.1177/004051759706700204
337.
WuHFClaypoolCM.An analytical approach of the microbond test method used in characterizing the fibre–matrix interface. J Mater Sci Lett. 1991;10:260–262. doi:10.1007/BF00735651
338.
WuHFClaypoolCM.A finite-element model of the use of the microbond test method for characterization of composite interfacial properties. J Mater Sci Lett. 1991;10:1072–1075. doi:10.1007/BF00720128
339.
PandeyGKareliyaCHSinghRP.A study of the effect of experimental test parameters on data scatter in microbond testing. J Compos Mater. 2012;46:275–284. doi:10.1177/0021998311410508
340.
ZinckPWagnerHDSalmonL, et al.Are microcomposites realistic models of the fibre/matrix interface? I. Micromechanical modelling. Polymer. 2001;42:5401–5413. doi:10.1016/S0032-3861(00)00870-3
341.
ZhandarovSFMäderE.An alternative method of determining the local interfacial shear strength from force-displacement curves in the pull-out and microbond tests. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2014;55:37–42. doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.07.006
342.
PisanovaEZhandarovSFMäderE.How can adhesion be determined from micromechanical tests?Composites Part A. 2001;32:425–434. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(00)00055-5
343.
PiggottMR.A new model for interface failure in fibre-reinforced polymers. Compos Sci Technol. 1995;55:269–276. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(95)00103-4
344.
BanholzerBBrameshuberW.Eine methode zur beschreibung des verbundes zwischen faser und zementgebundener matrix. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau. 2001;96:663–669. doi:10.1002/best.200100850
345.
BrameshuberWBanholzerBBrümmerG.Ansatz für eine vereinfachte Auswertung von Faser- Ausziehversuchen. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau. 2000;95:702–706. doi:10.1002/best.200001340
346.
ZhandarovSFMäderE.Determination of interfacial parameters in fiber-polymer systems from pull-out test data using a bilinear bond law. Compos Interfaces. 2004;11:361–391. doi:10.1163/1568554042246233
347.
ChouCTGaurUMillerB.The effect of microvise gap width on microbond pull-out test results. Compos Sci Technol. 1994;51:111–116. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(94)90161-9
348.
MendelsD-ALeterrierYMansonJ-AE.Stress transfer model for single fibre and platelet composites. J Compos Mater. 1999;33:1525–1543. doi:10.1177/002199839903301604
349.
DsouzaRAntunesPKakkonenM, et al.3D interfacial debonding during microbond testing: advantages of local strain recording. Compos Sci Technol. 2020;195:108163. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108163
NishikawaMOkabeTTakedaN.Numerical simulation of interlaminar damage propagation in CFRP cross-ply laminates under transverse loading. Int J Solids Struct. 2007;44:3101–3113. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.09.007
352.
NianGLiQXuQ, et al.A cohesive zone model incorporating a Coulomb friction law for fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2018;157:195–201. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.01.037
353.
ZhiCLongHMiaoM.Microbond testing and finite element simulation of fibre-microballoon-epoxy ternary composites. Polym Test. 2018;65:450–458. doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.12.029
354.
GuXYoungRJ.Deformation micromechanics in model carbon fiber reinforced composites part I: the single-fibre pull-out test. Text Res J. 1995;30:1409–1419.
355.
PiggottMR.Why the fibre/polymer interface can appear to be stronger than the polymer matrix. Compos Sci Technol. 1997;57:853–857. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(96)00151-0
356.
JärveläPLaitinenKWPurolaJ, et al.The three-fibre method for measuring glass fibre to resin bond strength. Int J Adhes Adhes. 1983;3:141–147. doi:10.1016/0143-7496(83)90119-7
357.
BryceDThomasonJYangL. Micromechanical and spectroscopic characterisation of the curing performance of epoxy resins in the microbond test. In: IOP Conf Series: Materials Science and Engineering (41st Risø International Symposium on Materials Science) 2020; 942.
358.
ThomasonJLJenkinsPGXypoliasG.Microbond testing of the interface in glass fibre vinylester composites. Compos Interfaces. 2022;29:695–709. doi:10.1080/09276440.2021.2011593
359.
YangLThomasonJLZhuW.The influence of thermo-oxidative degradation on the measured interface strength of glass fibre-polypropylene. Composites Part A. 2011;42:1293–1300. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2011.05.011
360.
ThomasonJLYangL.Temperature dependence of the interfacial shear strength in glass-fibre epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2014;96:7–12. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.03.009
361.
MintyRFYangLThomasonJL.The influence of hardener-to-epoxy ratio on the interfacial strength in glass fibre reinforced epoxy composites. Composites Part A. 2018;112:64–70. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.05.033
362.
MandellJFChenJHMcGarryFJ.A microdebonding test for in situ assessment of fibre/matrix bond strength in composite materials. Int J Adhes Adhes. 1980;1:40–44. doi:10.1016/0143-7496(80)90033-0
363.
GibsonRF.A review of recent research on nanoindentation of polymer composites and their constituents. Compos Sci Technol. 2014;105:51–65. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.09.016
364.
GonzálezCVilatelaJJMolina-AldareguíaJM, et al.Structural composites for multifunctional applications: current challenges and future trends. Prog Mater Sci. 2017;89:194–251. doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.04.005
365.
KalinkaGLeistnerAHampeA.Characterisation of the fibre/matrix interface in reinforced polymers by the push-in technique. Compos Sci Technol. 1997;57:845–851. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(96)00159-5
366.
MarshallDBOliverWC.Measurement of interfacial mechanical properties in fiber-reinforced ceramic composites. J Am Ceram Soc. 1987;70:542–548. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1987.tb05702.x
367.
GreiselMJägerJMoosburger-WillJ, et al.Influence of residual thermal stress in carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites on interfacial fracture toughness evaluated by cyclic single-fiber push-out tests. Composites Part A. 2014;66:117–127. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.07.010
368.
MarshallDB.An indentation method for measuring matrix-fiber frictional stresses in ceramic composites. J Am Ceram Soc. 1984;67:C-259>–C-260. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1984.tb19690.x
369.
MarshallDB.Analysis of fiber debonding and sliding experiments in brittle matrix composites. Acta Metall Mater. 1992;40:427–441. doi:10.1016/0956-7151(92)90391-Q
370.
KharratMChateauminoisACarpentierL, et al.On the interfacial behaviour of a glass/epoxy composite during a micro-indentation test: assessment of interfacial shear strength using reduced indentation curves. Composites Part A. 1997;28:39–46. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(96)00092-9
371.
ZidiMCarpentierLChateauminoisA, et al.Quantitative analysis of the micro-indentation behaviour of fibre-reinforced composites: development and validation of an analytical model. Compos Sci Technol. 2000;60:429–437. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(99)00143-8
372.
DesaegerMVerpoestI.On the use of the micro-indentation test technique to measure the interfacial shear strength of fibre-reinforced polymer composites. Compos Sci Technol. 1993;48:215–226. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(93)90139-8
373.
Molina-AldareguíaJMRodríguezMGonzálezC, et al.An experimental and numerical study of the influence of local effects on the application of the fibre push-in test. Philos Mag. 2011;91:1293–1307. doi:10.1080/14786435.2010.480947
374.
RodríguezMMolina-AldareguíaJMGonzálezC, et al.A methodology to measure the interface shear strength by means of the fiber push-in test. Compos Sci Technol. 2012;72:1924–1932. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2012.08.011
375.
MedinaCMolina-AldareguíaJMGonzálezC, et al.Comparison of push-in and push-out tests for measuring interfacial shear strength in nano-reinforced composite materials. J Compos Mater. 2016;50:1651–1659. doi:10.1177/0021998315595115
376.
BrunnerAJSchwiedrzikJJMohantyG, et al.Fiber push-in failure in carbon fiber epoxy composites. Procedia Struct Integrity. 2020;28:538–545. doi:10.1016/j.prostr.2020.10.063
377.
WangJFengYZhaoG, et al.Effect of elastic and thermal mismatch on push-in mechanism and shear strength measurement of fiber/matrix interface. Compos Interfaces. 2020;27:921–935. doi:10.1080/09276440.2020.1712917
378.
WatanabeTTakeichiYNiwaY, et al.Nanoscale in situ observations of crack initiation and propagation in carbon fiber/epoxy composites using synchrotron radiation X-ray computed tomography. Compos Sci Technol. 2020;197:108244. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108244
379.
GhaffariSSeonGMakeevA.In-situ SEM based method for assessing fiber-matrix interface shear strength in CFRPs. Mater Design. 2021;197:109242. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109242
380.
LiXYangQLiuZ. Interfacial mechanics of fiber push-out test: nano-indention technique and cohesive element modeling. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Fracture, 6; Beijing, China; 2013.
381.
JägerJSauseMGRBurkertF, et al.Influence of plastic deformation on single-fiber push-out tests of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy resin. Composites Part A. 2015;71:157–167. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.01.011
382.
RamanathanTBismarckASchulzE, et al.Investigation of the influence of surface-activated carbon fibres on debonding energy and frictional stress in polymer-matrix composites by the micro-indentation technique. Compos Sci Technol. 2001;61:2511–2518. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00169-5
383.
GhaffariSMakeevASeonG, et al.Understanding compressive strength improvement of high modulus carbon-fiber reinforced polymeric composites through fiber-matrix interface characterization. Mater Design. 2020;193:108798. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108798
384.
RohrmüllerBGumbschPHoheJ.Calibrating a fiber-matrix interface failure model to single fiber push-out tests and numerical simulations. Composites Part A. 2021;150:106607. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2021.106607
385.
Esqué-De Los OjosDGhisleniRBattistiA, et al.Understanding the mechanical behavior of fiber/matrix interfaces during push-in tests by means of finite element simulations and a cohesive zone model. Comput Mater Sci. 2016;117:330–337. doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2016.02.009
386.
Corujeira GalloSLiXZhangZ, et al.Viscoelastic response of carbon fibre reinforced polymer during push-out tests. Composites Part A. 2018;112:178–185. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.06.003
387.
BattistiAEsqué-de los OjosDGhisleniR, et al.Single fiber push-out characterization of interfacial properties of hierarchical CNT-carbon fiber composites prepared by electrophoretic deposition. Compos Sci Technol. 2014;95:121–127. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.02.017
388.
MuellerWMMoosburger-WillJSauseMGR, et al.Microscopic analysis of single-fiber push-out tests on ceramic matrix composites performed with Berkovich and flat-end indenter and evaluation of interfacial fracture toughness. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2013;33:441–451. doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2012.09.009
389.
LinGGeubellePHSottosNR.Simulation of fiber debonding with friction in a model composite pushout test. Int J Solids Struct. 2001;38:8547–8562. doi:10.1016/S0020-7683(01)00085-3
390.
SakharovaNAFernandesJVAntunesJM, et al.Comparison between Berkovich, Vickers and conical indentation tests: a three-dimensional numerical simulation study. Int J Solids Struct. 2009;46:1095–1104. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.10.032
391.
HardimanM. Nanoindentation Characterisation of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic Microstructures (PhD Thesis). University of Limerick, 2016.
392.
De MeyereRMGSongKGaleL, et al.A novel trench fibre push-out method to evaluate interfacial failure in long fibre composites. J Mater Res. 2021;36:2305–2314. doi:10.1557/s43578-021-00153-1
393.
SunMFengYXuJ, et al.Design, analysis and experiment of the fiber push-out device based on piezoelectric actuator. Micromachines (Basel). 2021;12(11):1420. doi:10.3390/mi12111420
394.
ZhaoGLiuH-YDuX, et al.Glass fibres coated with flame synthesised carbon nanotubes to enhance interface properties. Compos Commun. 2021;24:100623. doi:10.1016/j.coco.2020.100623
395.
HuJDongSFengQ, et al.Tailoring carbon nanotube/matrix interface to optimize mechanical properties of multiscale composites. Carbon. 2014;69:621–625. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2013.12.005
396.
ZhamuAZhongWHStoneJJ.Experimental study on adhesion property of UHMWPE fiber/nano-epoxy by fiber bundle pull-out tests. Compos Sci Technol. 2006;66:2736–2742. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2006.03.005
397.
GorbatkinaYA.Adhesive strength in fibre-polymer systems. New York: Ellis Horwood; 1992.
398.
AndreevskaGDGorbatkinaYA.Adhesion of polymeric binders to glass fiber. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev. 1972;11:24–26.
399.
ZhouJLiYLiN, et al.Interfacial shear strength of microwave processed carbon fiber/epoxy composites characterized by an improved fiber-bundle pull-out test. Compos Sci Technol. 2016;133:173–183. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2016.07.033
400.
AlimuddinMAPiggottMR.Fracture toughness of fiber-polymer interfaces estimated from single fiber peel tests. Polym Compos. 1999;20:655–663. doi:10.1002/pc.10388
401.
FarooqMUCarlssonLAAchaBA.Determination of fiber/matrix adhesion using the outwater-Murphy single fiber specimen. Eng Fract Mech. 2009;76:2758–2765. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.06.002
402.
GorbatkinaYAIvanova-MumzhievaVGGorenbergAY.Adhesive strength of bonds of polymers with carbon fibres at different loading rates. Fibre Chem. 1999;31:405–409. doi:10.1007/BF02364376
403.
BroutmanLJ.Measurement of the fiber-polymer matrix interfacial strength. Interfaces Compos ASTM Int. 1969:27–41. doi:10.1520/STP44698S
404.
SinclairRYoungRJMartinRDS.Determination of the axial and radial fibre stress distributions for the Broutman test. Compos Sci Technol. 2004;64:181–189. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(03)00257-4
405.
AgeorgesCFriedrichKSchüllerT, et al.Single-fibre Broutman test: fibre–matrix interface transverse debonding. Composites Part A. 1999;30:1423–1434. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(99)00045-7
406.
VogtmannJKlinglerARiefT, et al.3D x-ray microscopy as a tool for in depth analysis of the interfacial interaction between a single carbon fiber and an epoxy matrix after mechanical loading. J Compos Sci. 2021;5:121. doi:10.3390/jcs5050121
407.
McDanielPBDeitzelJMGregoryD, et al.Single fiber peel test to assess ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fiber mesostructure interactions. J Appl Polym Sci. 2018;135:1–11. doi:10.1002/app.46156
408.
AlimuddinMA. Peel test for the evaluation of environmental effects on fiber-polymer interface (Master Thesis) (PhD Thesis). University of Toronto, 1999.
409.
CrocombeADAdamsRD.Peel analysis using the finite element method. J Adhes. 1981;12:127–139. doi:10.1080/00218468108071194
410.
OutwaterJOMurphyMC.The influences of environment and glass finishes on the fracture energy of glass-epoxy joints. J Adhes. 1970;2:242–253. doi:10.1080/0021846708544598
411.
FarooqMUCarlssonLAAchaBA.Design analysis of the outwater-Murphy single-fiber specimen. J Compos Mater. 2009;43:2455–2467. doi:10.1177/0021998309345318
412.
JeroPD.Interfacial properties of SiC/borosilicate glass systems by indentation pushout. Am Ceram Soc. 1990;69:484.
413.
JeroPDKeransRJ.The contribution of interfacial roughness to sliding friction of ceramic fibers in a glass matrix. Scr Metall Mater. 1990;24:2315–2318. doi:10.1016/0956-716X(90)90085-U
414.
JeroPDKeransRJParthasarathyTA.Effect of interfacial roughness on the frictional stress measured using pushout tests. J Am Ceram Soc. 1991;74:2793–2801. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.tb06845.x
415.
CheroualiHFantozziGReynaudP, et al.Analysis of interfacial sliding in brittle-matrix composites during push-out and push-back tests. Mater Sci Eng A. 1998;250:169–177. doi:10.1016/S0921-5093(98)00589-9
416.
Moosburger-WillJGreiselMSchulzM, et al.Investigation of the fiber-matrix interaction in carbon fiber-reinforced polyether ether ketone by cyclic single fiber push-out and push-back tests. Compos Interfaces. 2020;27:227–247. doi:10.1080/09276440.2019.1620542
DiBenedettoA.Measurement of the thermomechanical stability of interphases by the embedded single fiber test. Compos Sci Technol. 1991;42:103–123. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(91)90014-G
419.
GracianiEBalzquezAParisF, et al. Numerical analysis of the single fibre fragmentation test using cohesive elements. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Composite Materials; Budapest, Hungary; 2010.
420.
VarandasLFArteiroACatalanottiG, et al.Micromechanical analysis of interlaminar crack propagation between angled plies in mode I tests. Compos Struct. 2019;220:827–841. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.04.050
421.
PimentaSPinhoST.An analytical model for the translaminar fracture toughness of fibre composites with stochastic quasi-fractal fracture surfaces. J Mech Phys Solids. 2014;66:78–102. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2014.02.001
422.
ReifsniderKL.Modelling of the interphase in polymer–matrix composite material systems. Composites. 1994;25:461–469. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(94)90170-8
423.
BuxtonABaillieC.A study of the influence of the environment on the measurement of interfacial properties of carbon fibre/epoxy resin composites. Composites. 1994;25:604–608. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(94)90190-2
424.
GaurUChouCTMillerB.Effect of hydrothermal ageing on bond strength. Composites. 1994;25:609–612. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(94)90191-0
425.
SchutteCLMcDonoughWShioyaM, et al.The use of a single-fibre fragmentation test to study environmental durability of interfaces/interphases between DGEBA/mPDA epoxy and glass fibre: the effect of moisture. Composites. 1994;25:617–624. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(94)90193-7
MelanitisNGaliotisCTetlowPL, et al.Interfacial shear stress distribution in model composites: the effect of fibre modulus. Composites. 1993;24:459–466. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(93)90015-Z
428.
MaTLiuLWangC.Interfacial shear strength of opaque resin/carbon fiber based on mapping from energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Polym Composites. 2020;41:2134–2144. doi:10.1002/pc.25526
429.
QiGDuSZhangB, et al.Evaluation of carbon fiber/epoxy interfacial strength in transverse fiber bundle composite: experiment and multiscale failure modeling. Compos Sci Technol. 2014;105:1–8. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.09.014
430.
QiGDuSZhangB, et al.A new approach to assessing carbon fiber/epoxy interfacial shear strength by tensile test of 45° fiber bundle composites: experiment, modeling and applicability. Compos Sci Technol. 2016;129:214–221. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2016.04.032
431.
DilandroLDibenedettoATGroegerJ.The effect of fiber-matrix stress transfer on the strength of fiber-reinforced composite materials. Polymer Composites. 1988;9:209–221. doi:10.1002/pc.750090308
432.
BouraODiamantiEKGrammatikosSA, et al.Carbon nanotube growth on high modulus carbon fibres: morphological and interfacial characterization. Surf Interface Anal. 2013;45:1372–1381. doi:10.1002/sia.5292
433.
LachmanNCareyBJHashimDP, et al.Application of continuously-monitored single fiber fragmentation tests to carbon nanotube/carbon microfiber hybrid composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2012;72:1711–1717. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2012.06.004
434.
KimKJKimJYuWR, et al.Improved tensile strength of carbon fibers undergoing catalytic growth of carbon nanotubes on their surface. Carbon. 2013;54:258–267. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2012.11.037
435.
KimTKameyaMNatoriJ, et al. Fabrication of CNTs grafted hierarchical multiscale composite and evaluation of its mechanical properties. In the Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Composite Materials; Seville, Spain; 2014.
436.
AnthonyDBSuiXMKellerszteinI, et al.Continuous carbon nanotube synthesis on charged carbon fibers. Composites Part A. 2018;112:525–538. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.05.027
437.
QianHBismarckAGreenhalghES, et al.Carbon nanotube grafted carbon fibres: a study of wetting and fibre fragmentation. Composites Part A. 2010;41:1107–1114. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2010.04.004
438.
ZhouXFWagnerHDNuttSR.Interfacial properties of polymer composites measured by push-out and fragmentation tests. Composites Part A. 2001;32:1543–1551. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00018-5
439.
RamirezFACarlssonLA.Modified single fiber fragmentation test procedure to study water degradation of the fiber/matrix interface toughness of glass/vinylester. J Mater Sci. 2009;44:3035–3042. doi:10.1007/s10853-009-3400-4
440.
MahatoBBabarindeVOAbaimovSG, et al.Interface strength of glass fibers in polypropylene: dependence on the cooling rate and the degree of crystallinity. Polym Composites. 2020;41:1310–1322. doi:10.1002/pc.25456
441.
EtcheverryMFerreiraMLCapiatiNJ, et al.Strengthening of polypropylene-glass fiber interface by direct metallocenic polymerization of propylene onto the fibers. Composites Part A. 2008;39:1915–1923. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.09.018
442.
Bogoeva-GacevaGMäderEHäußlerL, et al.Parameters affecting the interface properties in carbon fibre/epoxy systems. Composites. 1995;26:103–107. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(95)90409-S
443.
MiraminiAKadkhodaeiMAlipourA, et al.Analysis of interfacial debonding in shape memory alloy wire-reinforced composites. Smart Mater Struct. 2016;25:015032. doi:10.1088/0964-1726/25/1/015032
444.
DuXXuFLiuH-Y, et al.Improving the electrical conductivity and interface properties of carbon fiber/epoxy composites by low temperature flame growth of carbon nanotubes. RSC Adv. 2016;6:48896–48904. doi:10.1039/C6RA09839H
445.
PearsonALiaoWKazemiY, et al.Fiber-matrix adhesion between high-density polyethylene and carbon fiber. Polym Test. 2022;105:107423. doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2021.107423
446.
ZuMLiQZhuY, et al.The effective interfacial shear strength of carbon nanotube fibers in an epoxy matrix characterized by a microdroplet test. Carbon. 2012;50:1271–1279. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2011.10.047
447.
AnFLuCGuoJ, et al.Preparation of vertically aligned carbon nanotube arrays grown onto carbon fiber fabric and evaluating its wettability on effect of composite. Appl Surf Sci. 2011;258:1069–1076. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2011.09.003
448.
AnFLuCLiY, et al.Preparation and characterization of carbon nanotube-hybridized carbon fiber to reinforce epoxy composite. Mater Design. 2012;33:197–202. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.07.027
449.
RenCGongQGuoL, et al.Analyses of reinforcing effects of in situ grown CNTs on carbon fibre fabric/epoxy composites at micro- and macroscale. Micro Nano Lett. 2012;7:240–243. doi:10.1049/mnl.2012.0065
450.
WangCLiYTongL, et al.The role of grafting force and surface wettability in interfacial enhancement of carbon nanotube/carbon fiber hierarchical composites. Carbon. 2014;69:239–246. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2013.12.020
451.
GaoXJensenRELiW, et al.Effect of fiber surface texture created from silane blends on the strength and energy absorption of the glass fiber/epoxy interphase. J Compos Mater. 2008;42:513–534. doi:10.1177/0021998307086203
452.
HaldarSHerráezMNayaF, et al.Relations between intralaminar micromechanisms and translaminar fracture behavior of unidirectional FRP supported by experimental micromechanics. Composites Part B. 2019;174:107000. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107000
453.
NayaFMolina-AldareguíaJMLopesCS, et al.Interface characterization in fiber-reinforced polymer–matrix composites. JOM. 2017;69:13–21. doi:10.1007/s11837-016-2128-2
454.
XuTLuoHXuZ, et al.Evaluation of the effect of thermal oxidation and moisture on the interfacial shear strength of unidirectional IM7/BMI composite by fiber push-in nanoindentation. Exp Mech. 2018;58:111–123. doi:10.1007/s11340-017-0335-6
455.
ZhangLDe GreefNKalinkaG, et al.Carbon nanotube-grafted carbon fiber polymer composites: damage characterization on the micro-scale. Composites Part B. 2017;126:202–210. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.06.004
456.
AdamsRDLloydDH.Apparatus for measuring the torsional modulus and damping of single carbon fibres. J Phys E Sci Instrum. 1975;8:475–480. doi:10.1088/0022-3735/8/6/015
457.
AdamsRD.The dynamic longitudinal shear modulus and damping of carbon fibres. J Phys D Appl Phys. 1975;8:738–748. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/8/7/006
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
