Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Nylon Fibers
J. F. MANDELL, M. G. STECKEL,* S.-S. CHUNG, and
M. C. KENNEY**
1122 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, AUGUST, 1987, Vol. 27, No. 15
Fatigue and Environmental Resistance of Polyester and Nylon Fibers
7 %
I
w
GI
H
m
z
w
E
w
3 40t
t
H
B Experimental Fatigue Data
GI
3
30 1 Hz 0 0.1 Hz 6.2 Hz R = 0.1
1 1 I I I
01 1
1 I I I I I
0 I 2 3 4 5 6
LOG TOTAL TEST TIME (set)
Fig. 2. Cyclicfatigue d a t af o r nylon 6,6 single fibers compared with creep rupture based theoretical prediction From Ref.
1).
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, AUGUST, 1987, Vol. 27, NO. 15 1123
J . F. M a n d e l l , M . G. S t e c k e l , S.-S. C h u n g , and M. C. K e n n e y
ambient air and in seawater at a master fre- stress-strain curve shape toward a steeper (stif-
quency of 1 Hz. Under both conditions, the poly- fer) curve with less hysteresis as cycling pro-
ester performance is superior to the nylon 6,6 gresses. Figure 8 gives typical data for the
results presented in Refs. 1 and 2 [each data strain range (maximum to minimum) on partic-
set is normalized by the initial strength at the ular cycles as cycling progressed to failure. The
respective condition). These results are in strain range at low cycles (note the log scale)
agreement with literature data for larger dropped rapidly, followed by a very gradual de-
strands and ropes (3-6).
When expressed in terms of cumulative time
to fail, the polyester follows a similar criterion
to that discussed for nylon. Figure 5 indicates
that, at the same maximum stress, the creep
rupture lifetime [ R = 1.0) is very similar to the
cumulative test time to failure under cyclic load-
ing. (Failure in creep is expected at a slightly
shorter time at the same maximum load be-
cause of the reduced load during much of each
fatigue cycle; this effect is then accounted for
in the creep rupture based model.) Figure 6
gives the maximum cumulative strain during
cycling at two load levels. At failure, the maxi-
mum cyclic strain approaches the creep rupture I UG CYCLLS
strain as well as the failure strain in a simple Fig. 6. Creep extension (strain at maximum loadJduring
stress-strain test (about 16%).Thus, the polyes- cyclicfatiguefor polyester yarns (R = 0.1)compared with
ter data conform to the schematic in Fig. 1 , failure strain in creep rupture.
which was based on nylon 6,6 results. Simi-
larly, in Fig. 7, the residual strength at up to
80% of the mean S-N lifetime is unchanged
from the initial strength.
Figure 1 also includes a trend in the cyclic
~ ~ y o ~ l s , , l . O i l z
85 P I T S . 1.0 H Z
I , ~
Nvi ON
Fig. 7. Residual tensile strength of polyester yarns at
various fractions of the average failure time for three
cyclic load conditions (R= 0.1).
:! 2 GU -
.
w
;r"
7 7
50-
::
3 .
?
z
IIU-
z
7
30-
I
20- 0 CREtP
I I 1 I I I
1u- CYCLIC FATIGUL 1 2 3 I, b
I1
LO11 CYCLLS ( 4
I 1
Fig. 8. Cyclic extension (maximum strain - minimum
strain on each cycle)of a polyester yarn specimen tested
to failure at 75% UTS maximum load, R = 0.1, and 1.0
Hz.
1124 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, AUGUST, 1987, Vol. 27, No. 15
Fatigue and Environmental Resistance of Polyester and Nylon Fibers
crease over most of the lifetime. Just before COMPARISON OF NYLON 6, 6 AND
failure the strain range increased because of POLYESTER
the failure of some indyvidual fibers in the yarn
(under load limits). Figure 9 shows a similar A t the level of individual fibers and yarns,
pattern in the hysteresis energy for the same nylon 6,6 and polyester behave in a qualita-
specimen. The change in strain range and hys- tively similar manner. The trends depicted
teresis between the first 0.1% of the lifetime schematically in Fig. 1 apply to both materials,
and failure is very small. and the cyclic fatigue lifetime can be predicted
The cyclic fatigue lifetime of polyester can be in each-case by the creep rupture based model.
predicted using the creep rupture based model, Essentially, both fibers must be elongated to a
as indicated in Fig. 10. The only significant critical strain to produce failure.
difference between the model prediction and It is the quantitative differences between the
the experimental data at 0.1 and 1 .O Hz master two fibers that must be considered in. potential
frequencies is a slight overestimate of the 1-s fatigue-sensitive applications (along with other
intercept; the slope of the prediction is in good effects such as stiffness and abrasion). Figure
agreement with the data. Any inaccuracies in 4 indicates that polyester is superior to nylon
the model prediction were found with nylon (1, under load control in dry conditions, with a n
2) to derive primarily from the creep rupture even greater advantage in seawater. The appli-
behavior of the yarns, which can be compli- cability of the creep rupture model allows this
cated because broken fibers only locally unload comparison to be made in more general terms
as a result of friction in the lightly interlaced of time to failure under sinusoidal loading (with-
yarn structure. Wet creep rupture conditions out test interruptions), as shown in Fig. 11 and
and cycling appeared to reduce this effect with expressed in the following relationships from
nylon, and predictions based on individual fiber curve fits:
creep rupture data were very accurate, as Nylon 6,6 Dry: P / P o = .98 - .Of353 log t
shown in Fig. 2. The polyester results (Fig. 10) (1)
are in acceptable agreement even when the pre- Nylon 6,6 Wet: P / P o = .98 - .lo08 log t (2)
diction is based on dry yarn creep rupture re- Polyester Dry: P / P o = .97 - .0436 log t
sults. (3)
Polyester Wet: P / P o = 1.02 - .0570 log t (4)
where P is the maximum load, P o is the initial
strength in a 1.O-s test, and t is the cumulative
time to failure in seconds. The number of cycles
A
to failure a t any frequency can be found by
multiplying t by the frequency in Hz.
There are a variety of qualifications for E q s
A li A A A A 1-4, the most obvious being that they apply
only to the yarns tested: DuPont 707, nylon 6,6,
i 2 5 4 1 fi
IOG cvctEs ( N I
Fig. 9. Hysteresis energy loss p e r cycle during cycling to
f a i l u r e of a polyester y a r n specimen a t 75% UTS maxi-
mum load, R = 0.1, a n d 1 .0 H z .
111-
ll
I I I 1 I I
U I 2 J II I, LOG (TOTAL TIME TO FAILURE, SEC.)
LOG iitii i o r n i i I \it Fig. 1 1 . Cumulative time tofaiture of nylon 6,6and poly-
Fig. 10. Cyclicf a t i g u e d a t af o r polyester yarns compared ester yarns under cyclic sine-wavef a t i g u e loading (inde-
w i t h creep rupture b a s e d theoretical prediction. pendent of frequency, R = 0.1).
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, AUGUST, 1987, Vol. 27, No. 15 1125
J . F. Mandell, M. G. Steckel, S.-S. Chung, and M. C.Kenney
and DuPont D 608 polyester. The greatest vari- Table 2. Hysteresis Energy of Nylon and Polyester Yarns at
Various Frequencies [from Ref. 71.’
ation in other similar nylon and polyester fibers
may be in the surface finish, which has little Nylon Polyester
effect on these results (7),but may have a great Hysteresis Hysteresis
Freq (Hz) Period Is) J) (10-3 J)
effect on properties such as abrasion resist-
ance, which is important in rope (as distinct 0.00028 3600 14.0 1.20
from yarn) fatigue (6).Other fibers and finishes 0.0021 480 14.0 0.76
currently are being studied in this program. The 0.033 30 13.0 1.4
0.13 8 13.0 0.99
dry condition is at typical ambient humidities, 1.o 1 8.9 0.75
with similar data found for nylon 6,6 at a con- 5.0 0.2 3.0 0.46
trolled 65%relative humidity (2).The wet con- 6.2 0.16 3.2 0.58
dition appears to apply to a wide range of *Cycling from 1% to 20% of ultimate tensile load (as measured in 1-Hz ramp test)
aqueous solutions for nylon (21, but does not under dry conditions. Measurements made on one specimen of each material after
preconditioning for several hundred cycles, with further preconditioning at each
include solutions such as strong acids (lo), frequency before measurements were made.
which may attack the fibers. E q u a t i o n s 1-4
have been tested for frequencies of 0.1 to 20 Hz during the test. Both the absolute and relative
for the nylon and 0.1 to 1 .O Hz for the polyester; findings for nylon and polyester could change
although a stress ratio of 0.1 was used in most if tests were run under fixed extension limits,
experimental confirmations, the equations ap- which may better represent some marine rope
pear to be approximately correct for the entire applications. Fixed extension limits would gen-
tension-tension R range of 0.0 to 1.0, as tested erate relatively higher stresses in the stiffer
for nylon ( 1 ) and suggested for polyester in Fig. polyester fibers, so that the greater fatigue re-
5. While these equations have been shown to sistance and lower hysteresis of the polyester
correlate with large rope fatigue test results under load control might not be observed under
under certain loading conditions, particularly strain control. This tendency is evident in the
high relative loads (6),many potential compli- results given in Re$ 13.
cations that may occur in rope applications
have been ignored, including fiber shrinkage, CONCLUSIONS
abrasion, transverse compression, long un- Results of cyclic fatigue tests on DuPont 707,
loaded recovery periods, photochemical degra- nylon 6,6, and DuPont D608 polyester yarns
dation, hysteretic heating (ropes have reduced show qualitatively similar creep-dominated be-
heat transfer and increased hysteresis frum havior for both. The polyester has superior fa-
structural effects), and temperatures other than tigue resistance, particularly under wet condi-
the 20-25°C test range. tions, because of its greater creep rupture resis-
Studies of the failure modes of individual fi- tance. The nylon shows about 10 times greater
bers indicate a tendency for some axial splitting hysteresis energy absorption at comparable
at low stresses with the nylon 6,6 under both (low) cyclic load levels, lower stiffness, and
creep and cyclic loading, but no effect on the slightly greater strain to failure. While the poly-
lifetime was evident; polyester failures were all ester is clearly more fatigue resistant in simple
transverse to the fiber axis (1).Other studies of laboratory yarn tests, the proper choice of a
nylon fibers at higher frequency (50 Hz) have rope fiber and surface finish also requires con-
reported a transition in mode from transverse sideration of the many additional parameters
to axial splitting under low load and low R value and possible failure modes inherent in typical
conditions (11 , 12). marine rope deployments.
Quantitative differences between nylon and
polyester are also evident in the cyclic stress- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
strain behavior. As shown in Fig. 3, the D 608 This research is part of a broad study of the
polyester has a higher modulus, particularly deterioration of synthetic marine rope sup-
under wet conditions, and slightly lower strain ported by the Naval Sea Systems Command
to failure. The greater creep resistance of the through the MIT Sea Grant Program, Mr. George
polyester is reflected in a considerably lower Prentice is the Navy’s technical liaison person
hysteresis energy at a comparable relative load on the project. Acknowledgment is also made of
range, as shown in Table 2. While the hyster- the considerable practical experience and ad-
esis energy for both the nylon and the polyester vice that has been given to the MIT Synthetic
decrease gradually as the frequency increases, Rope Program by the Navy’s Man-made Fiber
the values for polyester are about 10 times Rope Technical Advisory Group.
lower than for the nylon. (The considerable
scatter is due to limited precision in the data REFERENCES
acquisition.) This significant difference be- 1 . M. C. Kenney, J. F. Mandell. and F. J. McGarry, J .
tween fibers does not carry over proportionally M u t e r . Sci., 20, 2045 ( 1 985).
2. M. C. Kenney, J. F. Mandell, and F. J. McGarry, J.
to typical ropes, where structural hysteresis can M u t e r . Sci., 20, 2060 (1985).
be the dominant factor (6). 3. H. Crawford and L. M. McTernan, in “Proc. Offshore
The results given here are for cycling between Technology Conference,” Paper 4635, pp. 455-466,
fixed load limits, with the yarn allowed to creep Houston [ 1983).
1126 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, AUGUST, 1987, Vol. 27, No. 15
Fatigue and Environmental Resistance of Polyester and Nylon Fibers
4. M. R. Parsey, A. Street, and S. Banfield, in “Proc. Off- 8. B. D. Coleman, J.Polyrn. Sci., 20,447 (1956).
shore Technology Conference,” Paper 5009, pp. 429- 9. M . G. Steckel, M . S . Thesis, Dept. Mat. Sci. and Engr.,
444, Houston (1985). MIT (1984).
5. J. F. Flory, “OCIMF Hawser Standards Development 10. J. W. S. Hearle and B. S. Wong, J . Text. Inst., 4, 127
Program, Trial Prototype Rope Tests,” Final Report, Oil r 19771.
Companies International Marine Forum (October 11. A.-R. Bunsell and J. W. S. Hearle, J . Appl. Polyrn. Sc i . ,
1983). 18.267 (1974).
6. J. F. Mandell, “Modelingof Marine Rope Fatigue Behav- 12. C. H. Oudet and A. R. Bunsell, J . Mater. Sci. Lett., 3,
ior,” to be published. 295 (1984).
7. M. C. Kenney, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. Mat. Sci. and Engr., 13. D. C. Prevorsek and Y . D. Kwon, J . Macrornol. Sci.-
MIT (1983). Phys. B12,447 (1976).
POLYMER ENGlNEERlNG AND SCIENCE, AUGUST, 1987, Vol. 27, No. 15 1127