Designation: C 1557 – 03 (Reapproved 2008)

Standard Test Method for

Tensile Strength and Young’s Modulus of Fibers1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation C 1557; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope 3.1.3 system compliance—the contribution by the load train

1.1 This test method covers the preparation, mounting, and system and specimen-gripping system to the indicated cross-
testing of single fibers (obtained either from a fiber bundle or head displacement, by unit of force exerted in the load train.
a spool) for the determination of tensile strength and Young’s 3.2 For definitions of other terms used in this test method,
modulus at ambient temperature. Advanced ceramic, glass, refer to Terminologies D 3878 and E 6.
carbon and other fibers are covered by this test standard. 4. Summary of Test Method
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as
standard. No other units of measurement are included in this 4.1 A fiber is extracted randomly from a bundle or from a
standard. spool.
1.3 This standard may involve hazardous materials, opera- 4.2 The fiber is mounted in the testing machine, and then
tions, and equipment. This standard does not purport to stressed to failure at a constant cross-head displacement rate.
address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its 4.3 A valid test result is considered to be one in which fiber
use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to failure doesn’t occur in the gripping region.
establish appropriate safety and health practices and deter- 4.4 Tensile strength is calculated from the ratio of the peak
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. force and the cross-sectional area of a plane perpendicular to
the fiber axis, at the fracture location or in the vicinity of the
2. Referenced Documents fracture location, while Young’s modulus is determined from
2.1 ASTM Standards: 2 the linear region of the tensile stress versus tensile strain curve.
C 1239 Practice for Reporting Uniaxial Strength Data and
5. Significance and Use
Estimating Weibull Distribution Parameters for Advanced
Ceramics 5.1 Properties determined by this test method are useful in
D 3878 Terminology for Composite Materials the evaluation of new fibers at the research and development
E 4 Practices for Force Verification of Testing Machines levels. Fibers with diameters up to 250 3 10-6 m are covered
E 6 Terminology Relating to Methods of Mechanical Test- by this test method. Very short fibers (including whiskers) call
ing for specialized test techniques (1)3 and are not covered by this
E 1382 Test Methods for Determining Average Grain Size test method. This test method may also be useful in the initial
Using Semiautomatic and Automatic Image Analysis screening of candidate fibers for applications in polymer, metal
or ceramic matrix composites, and quality control purposes.
3. Terminology Because of their nature, ceramic fibers do not have a unique
3.1 Definitions: strength, but rather, a distribution of strengths. In most cases
3.1.1 bundle—a collection of parallel fibers. Synonym, tow. when the strength of the fibers is controlled by one population
3.1.2 mounting tab—a thin paper, cardboard, compliant of flaws, the distribution of fiber strengths can be described
metal, or plastic strip with a center hole or longitudinal slot of using a two-parameter Weibull distribution, although other
fixed gage length. The mounting tab should be appropriately distributions have also been suggested (2,3). This test method
designed to be self-aligning if possible, and as thin as practi- constitutes a methodology to obtain the strength of a single
cable to minimize fiber misalignment. fiber. For the purpose of determining the parameters of the
distribution of fiber strengths it is recommended to follow this
test method in conjunction with Practice C 1239.
1
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C28 on
Advanced Ceramics and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee C28.07 on 6. Interferences
Ceramic Matrix Composites.
Current edition approved Aug. 1, 2008. Published September 2008. Originally 6.1 The test environment may have an influence on the
approved in 2003. Last previous edition approved in 2004 as C 1557 – 03´1. measured tensile strength of fibers. In particular, the behavior
2
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contact ASTM Customer Service at [email protected]. For Annual Book of ASTM
3
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of
the ASTM website. this standard.

Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.

1
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Apr 16 09:56:23 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Laurentian University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C 1557 – 03 (2008)
of fibers susceptible to slow crack growth fracture will be test specimen. Although studies of the effect of fiber misalign-
strongly influenced by test environment and testing rate (4). ment on the tensile strength of fibers have not been reported,
Testing to evaluate the maximum strength potential of a fiber the axis of the fiber shall be coaxial with the line of action of
should be conducted in inert environments or at sufficiently the testing machine within d, to prevent spurious bending
rapid testing rates, or both, so as to minimize slow crack strains and/or stress concentrations:
growth effects. Conversely, testing can be conducted in envi- lo
ronments and testing modes and rates representative of service d # 50 (1)
conditions to evaluate the strength of fibers under those
conditions. where:
6.2 Fractures that initiate outside the gage section of a fiber d = the tolerance, m, and
may be due to factors such as stress concentrations, extraneous lo = the fiber gage length, m.
stresses introduced by gripping, or strength-limiting features in 7.2 Mounting Tabs—Typical mounting tabs for test speci-
the microstructure of the specimen. Such non-gage section mens are shown in Fig. 3. Alternative methods of specimen
fractures constitute invalid tests. When using active gripping mounting may be used, or none at all (that is, the fiber may be
systems, insufficient pressure can lead to slippage, while too directly mounted into the grips). A simple but effective
much pressure can cause local fracture in the gripping area. approach for making mounting tabs with repeatable dimen-
6.3 Torsional strains may reduce the magnitude of the sions consists in printing the mounting tab pattern onto
tensile strength (5). Caution must be exercised when mounting cardboard file folders using a laser printer. As illustrated in Fig.
the fibers to avoid twisting the fibers. 3, holes can be obtained using a three-hole punch. Fig. 3 shows
6.4 Many fibers are very sensitive to surface damage. a typical specimen mounting method. The mounting tabs are
Therefore, any contact with the fiber in the gage length should gripped or connected to the load train (for example, by pin and
be avoided (4,6). clevis) so that the test specimen is aligned axially along the line
of action of the test machine.
7. Apparatus 7.2.1 When gripping large diameter fibers using an active
7.1 The apparatus described herein consists of a tensile set of grips without tabs, the grip facing material in contact
testing machine with one actuator (cross-head) that operates in with the test specimen must be of appropriate compliance to
a controllable manner, a gripping system and a load cell. Fig. allow for a firm, non-slipping grip on the fiber. At the same
1 and Fig. 2 show a picture and schematic of such a system. time, the grip facing material must prevent crushing, scoring or
7.1.1 Testing Machine—The testing machine shall be in other damage to the test specimen that would lead to inaccurate
conformance with Practice E 4. The failure forces shall be results. Large diameter fibers (diameter > 50 3 10-6 m) can
accurate within 61 % at any force within the selected force also be mounted inside hypodermic needles filled with an
range of the testing machine as defined in Practice E 4. To adhesive (7). This is a good alternative to avoid crushing the
determine the appropriate capacity of the load cell, the follow- fiber if pneumatic/hydraulic/mechanical grips were to be used.
ing table lists the range of strength and diameter values of The adhesive must be sufficiently strong to withstand the
representative glass, graphite, organic and ceramic fibers. gripping process, and prevent fiber “pull-out” during testing.
7.1.2 Grips—The gripping system shall be of such design 7.3 Data Acquisition—At a minimum, autographic records
that axial alignment of the fiber along the line of action of the of applied force and cross-head displacement versus time shall
machine shall be easily accomplished without damaging the be obtained. Either analog chart recorders or digital data

FIG. 1 Typical Fiber Tester

2
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Apr 16 09:56:23 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Laurentian University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C 1557 – 03 (2008)

FIG. 2

TABLE 1 Room Temperature Tensile Strength of Fibers (25 3 containing these fragments for later fractographic reconstruc-
10-3 m Gage Length) tion and analysis is highly recommended. For example,
Fiber Diameter, m Strength, Pa vacuum grease has been used successfully to dampen the fiber
CVD-SiC 50-150 3 10 -6
2-3.5 3 109 during failure and capture the fragments. In this case, vacuum
polymer-derived SiC 10-18 3 10-6 2-3.5 3 109 grease is applied in the gage section of the fiber so that the
sol-gel derived oxide 1-20 3 10-6 1-3 3 109
single-crystal oxide 70-250 3 10-6 1.5-3.5 3 109 former does not bear any force. An appropriate solvent can be
graphite 1-15 3 10-6 1-6 3 109 used afterwards to remove the vacuum grease.
glass 1-250 x3 10-6 1-4 3 109
aramid 12-20 3 10-6 2-4 3 109 9. Procedure
9.1 Test Specimen Mounting:
acquisition systems may be used for this purpose although a 9.1.1 Randomly choose, and carefully separate, a suitable
digital record is recommended for ease of later data analysis. single-fiber specimen from the bundle or fiber spool. The total
Ideally, an analog chart recorder or plotter shall be used in length of the specimen should be sufficiently long (at least 1.5
conjunction with the digital data acquisition system to provide times longer than the gage length) to allow for convenient
an immediate record of the test as a supplement to the digital handling and gripping. Handle the test specimen at its ends and
record. Recording devices must be accurate to 6 1 % of full avoid touching it in the test gage length.
scale and shall have a minimum data acquisition rate of 10 Hz NOTE 1—Because the strength of fibers is statistical in nature, the
with a response of 50 Hz deemed more than sufficient. magnitude of the strength will depend on the dimensions of the fiber being
evaluated. In composite material applications, the gage length of the fiber
8. Precautionary Statement
is usually of the order of several fiber diameters, but it has been customary
8.1 During the conduct of this test method, the possibility of to test fibers with a gage length of 25.4 3 10-3 m. However, other gage
flying fragments of broken fibers may be high. Means for lengths can be used as long as they are practical, and in either case, the

3
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Apr 16 09:56:23 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Laurentian University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C 1557 – 03 (2008)

FIG. 3 Mounting Tab

value of the gage length must be reported. 9.7 Position the cross-head so that the other tab grip area
9.1.2 When Using Tabs: may be grasped as in 9.6. Check the axial specimen alignment
using whatever methods have been established, as described in
9.1.2.1 A mounting tab (Fig. 3) may be used for specimen 7.1.2.
mounting. Center the test specimen over the tab using the
9.8 If using tabs, with the mounting tab un-strained, cut both
printed pattern with one end taped to the tab.
sides of the tab very carefully at mid-gage as shown in Fig. 4.
9.1.2.2 Tape the opposite end of the test specimen to the tab Alternatively, the sides of the tab can be burned using a
exercising care to prevent fiber twisting. It has been found that soldering iron, for example. If the fiber is damaged, then it
the tensile strength of fibers decreases significantly with must be discarded.
increasing torsional strain (5). 9.9 Initiate the data recording followed by the operation of
9.1.2.3 Carefully place a small amount of suitable adhesive the test machine until fiber failure. Record both the cross-head
(for example, epoxy, red sealing wax) at the marks on the displacement and force, and strain if applicable.
mounting tab that define the gage length, and bond the fiber to 9.10 Recover the fracture surfaces and measure the cross-
the mounting tab. sectional area of a plane normal to the axis of the fiber at the
9.1.2.4 Determine the gage length to the nearest 6 5 3 10-4 fracture location or in the vicinity of the fracture location.
m or 61 % of the gage length, whichever is smaller. Determine the fiber cross-sectional area using with a linear
9.2 Optical Strain Flags—If optical flags are to be used for spatial resolution of 1.0 % of the fiber diameter or better, using
strain measurement, they may be attached directly to the fibers laser diffraction techniques (8-11), or an image analysis system
at this time, using a suitable adhesive or other attachment in combination with a reflected light microscope or a scanning
method. Note that this may not be possible with small-diameter electron microscope (12) (see Test Methods E 1382). Note that
fibers (d < 5 3 10-6 m). in practice, a reflected white light microscope can provide a
maximum resolution of 0.5 3 10-6 m and therefore its use may
9.3 Test Modes and Rates—The test shall be conducted
be impractical when measuring the cross-sectional area of
under a constant cross-head displacement rate. Rates of testing small diameter fibers. Because stiff fibers tend to shatter upon
must be sufficiently rapid to obtain the maximum possible failure, it is recommended to capture the fiber fragments using
strength at fracture within 30 s. The user may try as an initial vacuum grease, because vacuum grease is an effective medium
value a test rate of 8 3 10-6 m/s. However, rates other than to dampen the energy released by the fiber upon fracture. The
those recommended here may be used to evaluate rate effects. user of this standard should be aware that the need to recover
In all cases the test mode and rate must be reported. the fracture surfaces of the fiber to determine the fiber
9.4 Ensure that the machine is calibrated and in equilibrium cross-sectional area is consistent with the need to do fractog-
(no drift). raphy to identify the strength-limiting flaws for the proper
9.5 Set the cross-head and data recorder speeds to provide a estimation of the parameters of the distribution of fiber
test time to specimen fracture within 30 s. strengths.
9.6 Grasp a mounted test specimen in one of the two tab NOTE 2—The user of this standard test method must be aware that the
grip areas (or pin load one end of the mounting tab). Zero the diameter of many ceramic fibers varies not only among fibers in a bundle,
load cell. but also along the length of each fiber (13-16). It has been customary to

4
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Apr 16 09:56:23 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Laurentian University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C 1557 – 03 (2008)

FIG. 4 Cutting Sides of Tab

determine individual fiber strength values using the average cross- Dl = the elongation of the gage length, m, and
sectional area of a group of fibers. However, it has been demonstrated that l = the gage length, m.
this procedure leads to significant errors both in the determination of the
actual fiber strength and in the estimates of the parameters of the 10.2.1 Direct Measurement of Elongation—Direct measure-
distribution of fiber strengths (17-19). ment of the specimen elongation (in the gage section) is
NOTE 3—When the fiber diameter varies along its length and the achieved by monitoring the displacement of the flags attached
diameter of a fiber is measured before the fiber is tested, there is a risk that to the fiber.
the measurement will be obtained at a location of the fiber that doesn’t
coincide with the failure location. Monte Carlo simulations have been 10.2.2 Indirect Measurement of Elongation—In the absence
carried out to estimate the magnitude of the error in the determination of of a direct measurement of specimen elongation, the actual
the tensile strength of a fiber when the value of the cross-sectional area specimen elongation in the gage length can be determined by
used for the calculation of strength doesn’t correspond to that of the subtracting the displacement associated with the system com-
fracture plane. The results of these simulations have shown that the pliance from the total cross-head displacement (21).
magnitude of the error increases with the degree of variability of the fiber
diameter along its length (20) (see Appendix X1).
10.2.2.1 System Compliance—The system compliance must
NOTE 4—Therefore, it is necessary to determine the cross-sectional area be determined experimentally for a given test machine, grip-
of the fiber on a plane perpendicular to the axis of the fiber at the location ping system and fiber type. The system compliance is deter-
of failure, or in the vicinity of the failure location, after performing the mined as follows:
mechanical test, and use that value of the cross-sectional area for the 10.2.2.2 Perform tensile tests according to the procedures
determination of the fiber strength.
given in 9.1-9.10 on single fiber specimens with various
10. Calculations different gage lengths. Test specimens with at least three
different gage lengths, and perform at least, three tests for each
10.1 Tensile Strength—Calculate the tensile strength of the
value of the gage length.
fiber as follows:
10.2.2.3 For each test, obtain the force versus cross-head
F
T5A (2) displacement curve, and determine the inverse of the slope of
the initial linear region of the force versus cross-head displace-
where: ment curve in m/N. (See Fig. 5.)
T = tensile strength, Pa, (1) Note that the recorded cross-head displacement is:
F = force to failure, N, and DL 5 Dl 1 CSF (4)
A = fiber cross-sectional area at fracture plane (normal to
fiber axis), m2. where:
10.2 Strain—Calculate the tensile strain of the fiber as DL = recorded cross-head displacement, m,
follows: CS = system compliance, m/N, and
Dl Dl = elongation of the specimen gage length, m.
´5 l (3) (2) For the fiber, using Eq 3:
o
s F Dl
where: ´ 5 E 5 EA 5 l (5)
o

5
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Apr 16 09:56:23 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Laurentian University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C 1557 – 03 (2008)

FIG. 5 Typical Load versus Cross-head Displacement Curve

where: 11.1.1 Complete identification of the test specimen, includ-

s = tensile stress, Pa, and ing material type, source, manufacturer’s name and code or
E = fiber Young’s modulus, Pa. batch number, previous history, etc.,
(3) The combination of Eq 4 and 5 yields: 11.1.2 Method of selecting specimen,
DL Dl lo
11.1.3 Method of mounting the test specimen,
F 5 F 1 CS 5 EA 1 CS (6) 11.1.4 Fiber cross-sectional area including method of deter-
mination,
(4) Therefore, a plot of (DL/F) (that is, the inverse of the 11.1.5 Specimen gage length,
slope of the force versus cross-head displacement curves) 11.1.6 System compliance, if required,
versus (lo/A), will yield a straight line with constant slope of 11.1.7 Test machine parameters; cross-head speed, speed of
(1/E) and intercept CS which is the value of the system data collection, load cell used, gripping method,
compliance. (See Fig. 6.) 11.1.8 Method used for determination of gage length elon-
10.2.2.4 From Eq 4, determine the actual elongation of the gation,
gage section of the specimen as follows: 11.1.9 The force to failure,
Dl 5 DL 2 CSF (7) 11.1.10 Tensile strength,
11.1.11 Young’s modulus, if measured,
10.3 Young’s Modulus—Determine the fiber Young’s modu-
11.1.12 Ambient conditions of test room (temperature and
lus from the slope of the linear region of the stress-strain curve.
relative humidity), and
If strain was not measured directly, the fiber Young’s modulus
11.1.13 Date of test.
can be obtained from the process used to calculate the system’s
compliance according to 10.2.2.1-10.2.2.3. 12. Precision and Bias
12.1 Because of the lack of a wide database, no definitive
11. Report statement can be made at this time concerning the precision
11.1 The report shall include the following: and bias of this test method.

6
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Apr 16 09:56:23 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Laurentian University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C 1557 – 03 (2008)

FIG. 6 Method for Determining the System Compliance

APPENDIX

(Nonmandatory Information)

X1.

X1.1 To estimate the magnitude of the error in the where:

determination of fiber strength when using a value of the fiber so = the characteristic strength associated with a volume of
diameter different from that at the fracture plane, a Monte the fiber of magnitude,
Carlo simulation was performed. The diagram shown in Fig.
~pf2olo!
X1.1 summarizes the process. (X1.2)
4

X1.2 Let us consider a fiber of length l that belongs to a and:

collection of fibers with strengths that are distributed according Pfi = the probability of failure associated with the tensile
to a two-parameter Weibull distribution. Let us assume that the stress si.
diameter of this fiber varies randomly along its length and that
the diameter profile can be described by a mean value (fm)and X1.3 Let us find the force needed to break the fiber by
standard deviation (fsd). Fig. X1.2 shows profiles of such taking the product of the minimum of the n strengths and the
fibers. Let us subdivide the fiber into n segments each of length cross-sectional area of the fracture plane (that is, the cross-
lo, diameter fi and strength si. The strength of each segment is sectional area of the section with the smallest strength). Let us
calculated according to Eq X1.1. define the “modified strength” as the ratio of the breaking force
and the cross-sectional area of the fiber at a location that is
1

si 5 s o SS D
lo fo
l fi
2
ln
1
~1 2 Pfi! D m
(X1.1)
selected randomly among the n segments, and that may or may
not coincide with the fracture plane. Following this procedure

7
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Apr 16 09:56:23 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Laurentian University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C 1557 – 03 (2008)

FIG. X1.1 Schematic of Monte Carlo Simulation

NOTE—Calculations were carried out for a fiber that is 25 3 10-3 m long and 15 3 10-6 m in diameter. Radial and axial scales are not the same in these
diagrams.
FIG. X1.2 Fiber Profiles Illustrating Variability of Fiber Diameter Along its Length

results are presented in Fig. X1.3 for the magnitude of the error Weibull modulus (which are typical of many ceramic fibers)
in the determination of the fiber strength, for various values of were used in the simulations. The error bars correspond to the
the variability of the diameter along the fiber length. Values of largest and smallest values of the errors resulting from 1000
15 3 10-6 m for the average fiber diameter and 5 for the repetitions.

8
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Apr 16 09:56:23 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Laurentian University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C 1557 – 03 (2008)

NOTE—Diameter variability values are in 1 3 10-6 m for a fiber with 15 3 10-6 m diameter.
FIG. X1.3 Error in Determination of Fiber Strength as a Function of Variability in Fiber Diameter (fsd) Along the Length of the Fiber

REFERENCES

(1) Petrovic, J. J., Milewski, J. V., Rohr, D. L., and Gac, F. D., “Tensile Materials Science, 25, 1990, pp. 4694-4698.
Mechanical-Properties of SiC Whiskers,” Journal of Materials Sci- (9) Krucinska, I., and Stypka, T., “Direct Measurement of the Axial
ence, 20, 4, 1985, pp. 1167-1177. Poisson’s Ratio of Single Carbon Fibers,” Composites Sci. Tech., Vol
(2) Phani, K. K., “A New Modified Weibull Distribution Function for the 41, 1991, pp. 1-12.
Evaluation of the Strength of Silicon Carbide and Alumina Fibers,” (10) Giannelli, D., “Single Filament Diameter Measurement System
Journal of Materials Science, 23, 1988, pp. 2424-2428. Based on Laser Diffraction,” Proceedings of the 22nd International
(3) Gurvich, M. R., DiBenedetto, A. T., and Ranade, S. V., “A New SAMPE Technical Conference, November 6-8, 1990, pp. 546-553.
Statistical Distribution for Characterizing the Random Strength of (11) Tzeng, S. S., “Structure and Property Relationships in Carbon
Brittle Materials,” Journal of Materials Science, 32, 1997, pp. 2559- Fibers,” Ph.D. Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY,
2564. December 1992.
(4) Kotchick, D. M., and Tressler, R. E., “Surface Damage and Environ-
(12) Wilson, D. M., “Statistical Tensile Strength of Nexterl y610 and
mental Effects on the Strain Rate Sensitivity of the Strength of
Nextely 720 Fibers,” Journal of Materials Science, 32, 1997, pp.
Sapphire and Silicon Carbide Filaments,” Journal of Materials Sci-
2535-2542.
ence, 10, 22, 1975, pp. 608-612.
(5) Fukunaga, H., and Goda, K., “Tensile Strength of Nicalony SiC Fibers (13) Lissart, N., and Lamon, J., “Statistical Analysis of Failure of SiC
Subjected to Torsional Strain,” Journal of Materials Science Letters, Fibers in the Presence of Bimodal Flaw Populations,” Journal of
10, 1991, pp. 179-180. Materials Science, 32, 22, 1997, pp. 6107-6117.
(6) Kotchick, M., Hink, R. C., and Tressler, R. E., “Gage Length and (14) Morimoto, T., Goering, J., and Schneider, H., “A New Method for
Surface Damage Effects on the Strength Distributions of Silicon Measuring Diameter Distribution Along Ceramic Fibers,” Ceram.
carbide and Sapphire Filaments,” Journal of Composite Materials, Vol Eng. Sci. Proc., 19, 3, 1998, pp. 47-54.
9, 1975, pp. 327-336. (15) Youngblood, G. E., Eiholzer, C. R., Lewinsohn, C. A., Jones, R. H.,
(7) McHenry, K. D., and Tressler, R. E., “Elevated Temperature Strength Hasegawa, A., and Kohyama, A., “Fiber Diameter Variation-Sample
of Silicon Carbide-on-Carbon Filaments,” Journal of Composite Preparation and Analysis,” Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc., 20, 3, 1999, pp.
Materials, Vol 9, 1975, pp. 73-76. 481-486.
(8) Li, C-T, Tietz, J., “Improved Accuracy of the Laser Diffraction (16) Tanaka, T., Nakayama, H., Sakaida, A., and Horikawa, N., “Estima-
Technique for Diameter Measurement of Small Fibers,“ Journal of tion of Tensile Strength Distribution for Carbon Fiber with Diameter

9
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Apr 16 09:56:23 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Laurentian University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C 1557 – 03 (2008)
Variation Along Fiber,” Materials Science Research International, Strength from Means and Standard Deviations of Failure Loads and
Vol. 5, No. 2, 1999, pp. 90-97. Fiber Diameters,” J. Am. Ceram. Society, 83, 3, 2001, pp. 588-592.
(17) Lara-Curzio, E., and Russ, C., “On the Relationship Between the (20) Lara-Curzio, E., and Garcia, D., “Strength Statistics of Fiber
Parameters of the Distributions of Fiber Diameters, Breaking Loads Bundles: The Effect of Fiber Diameter Variation Along and Among
and Fiber Strengths,” J. Materials Science Letters, 18, 24, 1999, pp. Fibers, on the Determination of the Parameters of Distribution of
2041-2044.
Fiber Strengths,” Ceram. Eng. and Sci. Proc., 22, 3, 2001, pp.
(18) Lara-Curzio, E., and Russ, C. M., “Why it is Necessary to Determine
363-370.
Each Fiber Diameter When Estimating the Parameters of the Distri-
bution of Fiber Strengths,” Ceram. Eng. and Sci. Proc., 20, 1999, pp. (21) Li, C-T, and Tietz, J., “Improvement in Fiber Testing of High-
681-688. Modulus Single-Filament Materials,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., Vol 68, No.
(19) Parthasarathy, T. A., “Extraction of Weibull Parameters of Fiber 8, 1985, pp. C202-C204.

ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.

This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.

This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or [email protected] (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org).

10
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Apr 16 09:56:23 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
Laurentian University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.