SpringerLink
Log in

Snappy: A New Automated Testing Machine for Monitoring the Break Evolution Process during Single Fiber Fragmentation Test

  • Research paper
  • Published:
Experimental Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 06 December 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

A measurement of interfacial shear strength (IFSS) in fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials remains elusive after more than fifty years. This is due in part to the many sources of uncertainty, the time-consuming nature of the measurements, and the large amount of data required to statistically overcome that variability. A new device, called Snappy, was designed to improve upon previous attempts at automating the single fiber fragmentation test (SFFT) by increasing the image acquisition rate during traditional step-strain experiment. This enhancement allows for the investigation of the fiber break evolution during matrix relaxation periods and generates a record of the time, position, and local strain of each fragmentation event. Minimizing manpower is a key motivation for designing and building this new automated apparatus. A computer program was developed to process large image data sets acquired during SFFT and to automatically locate fiber fractures and store the processed information in a database. The automated fiber detection algorithm implemented in Snappy allows for the rapid acquisition of a record of the location of each break and the stress at which that failure occurred (tier 1 data), which is important for calculating the strength of the fiber at the critical length.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Civil Engineering Research Foundation (2001) Gap analysis for durability of fiber reinforced polymer composites in civil infrastructure. The Civil Engineering Research Foundation, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hunston DL, Bascom WD, Wells EE et al (1980) Viscoelastic characterization of structural adhesive via force oscillation experiments. In: Lee L-H (ed) Adhesion and Adsorption of Polymers. Springer, US, Boston, MA, pp 321–339

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Globalization of Materials R&D (2005) Time for a national strategy. Committee on globalization of materials research and development, National Research Council, Washington, p 216. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11395.html

  4. Pitkethly MJ, Favre JP, Gaur U et al (1993) A round-robin programme on interfacial test methods. Compos Sci Technol 48:205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-3538(93)90138-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rich MJ, Drzal LT, Hunston DL, Holmes, GA, McDonough, WG (2002) Round robin assessment of the single fiber fragmentation test. In: Proceedings of the 17th Technical Conference of the American Society for Composites. Am Soc Compos pp 1–9. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=860441

  6. Lodeiro, MJ (2001) Investigation of PMC interface properties using the single-fibre fragmentation technique. NPL Report. MATC(A)16. https://eprintspublications.npl.co.uk/2010/1/MATC16.pdf

  7. Curtin WA (1991) Exact theory of fibre fragmentation in a single-filament composite. J Mater Sci 26:5239–5253. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01143218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fraser WA, Ancker FH, Dibenedetto AT (1975) A computer modelled single filament technique for measuring coupling and sizing agent effects in fibre reinforced composites. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Technical Conference on Reinforced Plastics. The Society of Plastics Industry. Section 22–A

  9. Drzal LT, Rich MJ, Cam** JD, Park WJ (1980). Interfacial shear strength and failure mechanisms in graphite fiber composites. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Technical Conference, Reinforced Plastics/Composites Institute of the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Sec 20-C, New Orleans, pp 1–7. http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=PASCAL8130158357

  10. Fraser WA, Ancker FH, Dibenedetto AT, Elbirli B (1983) Evaluation of surface treatments for fibers in composite materials. Polym Compos 4:238–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.750040409

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Netravali AN, Topoleski LTT, Sachse WH, Phoenix SL (1989) An acoustic emission technique for measuring fiber fragment length distributions in the single-fiber- composite test. Compos Sci Technol 35:13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-3538(89)90068-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson W, Lagace P, Masters J et al (1991) On the determination of fiber strengths by in-situ fiber strength testing. J Compos Technol Res 13:22. https://doi.org/10.1520/CTR10070J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Netravali AN, Sachse W (1991) Some remarks on acoustic emission measurements and the single-fiber-composite test. Polym Compos 12:370–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.750120510

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Netravali AN, Li Z-F, Sachse W, Wu HF (1991) Determination of fibre/matrix interfacial shear strength by an acoustic emission technique. J Mater Sci 26:6631–6638. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02402656

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sachse W, Netravali AN, Baker AR (1992) An enhanced, acoustic emission-based, single-fiber-composite test. J Nondestruct Eval 11:251–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00566415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Feillard P, Désarmot G, Favre JP (1993) A critical assessment of the fragmentation test for glass/epoxy systems. Compos Sci Technol 49:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-3538(93)90050-Q

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Feillard P, Rouby D, Désarmot G, Favre JP (1994) Limits of conventional micromechanical analysis of interface properties in glass-epoxy model composites. Mater Sci Eng A 188:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-5093(94)90368-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Manor A, Clough RB (1992) In-situ determination of fiber strength and segment length in composites by means of acoustic emission. Compos Sci Technol 45:73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-3538(92)90124-L

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rouby D, Favre JP (1986) Study of fiber failures in a single carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composite by using acoustic emission. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the European Working Group on Acoustic Emission (EWGAE), London

  20. Clough R (1996) The measurement of fiber strength parameters in fragmentation tests by using acoustic emission. Compos Sci Technol 56:1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-3538(96)00076-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim J, Leigh S, Holmes G (2009) E-glass/DGEBA/ m -PDA single fiber composites: new insights into the statistics of fiber fragmentation: E-Glass/DGEBA/ m -PDA single-fiber composites. J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys 47:2301–2312. https://doi.org/10.1002/polb.21818

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Holmes GA, Wesson S, McDonough WG et al (2009) An automated testing machine for monitoring the evolution of fiber breaks. J Mater Sci 44:2007–2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-009-3294-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Li Z-F, Grubb DT, Phoenix SL (1995) Fiber interactions in the multi-fiber composite fragmentation test. Compos Sci Technol 54:251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-3538(95)00056-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Holmes GA, Kim JH, Leigh S, McDonough W (2010) The single fiber composite test: A comparison of E-glass fiber fragmentation data with statistical theories. J Appl Polym Sci NA-NA. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.31002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Holmes GA, Peterson RC, Hunston DL, McDonough, WG, Schutte, CL (2000) The effect of nonlinear viscoelasticity on interfacial shear strength measurements. In: Schapery RA, Sun CT (eds) Time Dependent and Nonlinear Effects in Polymers and Composites. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, pp 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP15831S

  26. Kim JH, Hettenhouser JW, Moon CK, Holmes GA (2009) A fiber placement device and methodology for preparing 2-D and 3-D combinatorial microcomposites. J Mater Sci 44:3626–3632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-009-3362-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wagner HD, Steenbakkers LW (1989) Microdamage analysis of fibrous composite monolayers under tensile stress. J Mater Sci 24:3956–3975. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01168959

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. McCarthy ED, Kim JH, Heckert NA et al (2015) The fiber break evolution process in a 2-D epoxy/glass multi-fiber array. Compos Sci Technol 121:73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.10.013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Woodcock JW, Sheridan RJ, Beams R et al (2020) Damage sensing using a mechanophore crosslinked epoxy resin in single-fiber composites. Compos Sci Technol 192:108074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108074

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Holmes GA, McDonough WG (2002) E-Glass/DGEBA/m-PDA model composites: time dependent failure in a brittle multi-fiber composite. In the Proceedings of the 47th International SAMPE Symposium and Exhibition, Volume 47, Issue 2/2, pp 1690–1702. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=851988

  31. D20 Committee (2017) Test method for tensile properties of plastics. ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0638-14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hunston D, Holmes G, Peterson R (1999) Viscoelastic properties of a resin commonly used in the single fiber fragmentation test. J Reinf Plast Compos 18:1646–1657. https://doi.org/10.1177/073168449901801801

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Iskakov A, Kalidindi SR (2020) A framework for the systematic design of segmentation workflows. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 9:70–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00166-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yucel B, Yucel S, Ray A et al (2020) Mining the correlations between optical micrographs and mechanical properties of cold-rolled HSLA steels using machine learning approaches. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 9:240–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-020-00183-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yucel S, Moon RJ, Johnston LJ et al (2021) Semi-automatic image analysis of particle morphology of cellulose nanocrystals. Cellulose 28:2183–2201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-020-03668-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Jain R, Kasturi R, Schunck BG (1995) Machine vision. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. MATLAB (2019) MATLAB and image processing toolbox release notes R2019b, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts. https://www.mathworks.com/help/images/release-notes.html

  38. Davies ER (2005) Machine vision theory, algorithms, practicalities. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Christopher Amigo for providing manufacturing support. We would like to also thank Christopher Soles for helpful suggestions and comments regarding this study. The authors Sezen Yucel, Berkay Yucel, and Surya Kalidindi acknowledge support from the USDA Forest Service award GR10004954 and ONR award N00014-18-1-2879.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Materials Science and Engineering Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA

    L. A. Ahure Powell, E. Rust, J. Woodcock, J. W. Gilman & G. A. Holmes

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    R. J. Sheridan

  3. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    S. Yucel, B. Yucel & S. R. Kalidindi

Authors
  1. L. A. Ahure Powell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. J. Sheridan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Yucel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Yucel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Rust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. R. Kalidindi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. Woodcock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. W. Gilman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. G. A. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. A. Holmes.

Ethics declarations

Declaration of interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Disclaimer

Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original article has been updated to replace the incorrect Figures 5 which was published due to an error in the production process.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 966 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Powell, L.A.A., Sheridan, R.J., Yucel, S. et al. Snappy: A New Automated Testing Machine for Monitoring the Break Evolution Process during Single Fiber Fragmentation Test. Exp Tech 47, 1073–1084 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-022-00611-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-022-00611-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation