Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T11:47:11.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fiber Debonding Along a Crack Front in Paper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

H. Kettunen  and
K. J. Niskanen
H. Kettunen
Affiliation:
Paper Science Centre, KCL, P.O. Box 70, FIN-02151 Espoo, Finland Lab. Paper Tech., Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 6300, FIN-02015 HUT, Finland
K. J. Niskanen
Affiliation:
Paper Science Centre, KCL, P.O. Box 70, FIN-02151 Espoo, Finland
Get access

Abstract

We follow the accumulation of microscopic damage ahead the crack tip in paper. The fiber debonding process varies even within each specimen because of large variation in fiber and bond properties. In general, stiff and weakly bonded fibers tend to debond as a rigid body while ductile or well bonded fibers pull out gradually in a process that propagates from the crack line to the fiber ends. Particularly in the latter case the network ruptures coherently rather than through debonding of single fibers. Experimental analysis and simulations show that fracture energy correlates closely with the size of the fracture process zone (FPZ) irrespective the nature of the debonding process. Only the cases of low bonding and stiff fibers seem to make an exception in that FPZ can grow in size without a corresponding increase in fracture energy.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 539: Symposium M – Fracture & Ductile vs. Brittle Behavior - Theory, Modelling… , 1998 , 153
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sato, N., Kurauchi, T., Sato, S., Kamigaito, O., J. Mat. Sci., 26, 3891–3898 (1991).Google Scholar
2. Cox, L., Br. J. Appl. Phys., 3, 72–79 (1952).Google Scholar
3. Lindhagen, J., Berglund, L., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 69, 1319–1327 (1998).Google Scholar
4. Seth, R.J., Tappi J., 78, 177–183 (1995).Google Scholar
5. Kettunen, H., Niskanen, K.J., Doussot, J., PSC Communications 106, KCL, 1997.Google Scholar
6. Korteoja, M.J., Niskanen, K.J., Kortschot, M.T., Kaski, K.K., Paperi ja Puu 80, 364–372 (1998).Google Scholar
7. Kettunen, H., Niskanen, K.J., PSC Communications 110, KCL, 1998.Google Scholar
8. Yu, Y., Kettunen, H., Niskanen, K.J., presented at 1998 Progress in Paper Physics: A Seminar, Vancouver, Canada; submitted to J. Pulp Paper Sci.Google Scholar
9. Kettunen, H., Yu, Y., Niskanen, K.J., PSC Communications 118, KCL, 1998.Google Scholar