Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 89–95 | Cite as

Fracture mechanism of plant fibres

  • E. C. McLaughlin
  • R. A. Tait
Papers
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper, which describes work from an extensive study of various plant species, is aimed at presenting the best common physical description of the mechanism of failure in tension of cellulose-based fibres. A correlation coefficient of r=0.69 was observed between the mean tensile strengths and Young's moduli of fibres extracted from leaves, stems, and other miscellaneous sources. This observation is attributed to increases in Young's modulus and tensile strength with decreasing microfibril angle and increasing cellulose content. A cylindrical cell model was applied to the mean tensile strengths of fibres preconditioned at 24 to 27° C and 60% relative humidity. A modification of the resulting expression was used to produce the best correlation coefficient of r=0.89 between predicted and measured mean tensile strengths. However, the importance of cellulose content for strength which is presently illustrated for various plant species is not reflected in terms of mean fracture strain, which was increased by increasing microfibril angle showing why high works of fracture can be obtained from different species.

Keywords

Polymer Cellulose Plant Species Relative Humidity Tensile Strength 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Jeronimides, Leiden Botanical Series No. 3 (1976) p. 253.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. C. Mclaughlin and R. A. Tait, J. Mater. Sci. 14 (1979) 998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. J. Rebenfeld, J. Pot. Sci. C. 9 (1965) 91.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. H. Page, F. El-Hosseiny, K. Winkler and R. Bain, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association — Meetings of the Technical Section, August (1972) T198.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. R. G. Treloar, Physics Today, December (1977) 23.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Frey-Wyssling, “The Plant Cell Wall” (Gebrüder Bornbraegar, Berlin, 1976) p. 217.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Grant, “A Laboratory Handbook of Pulp and Paper Manufacture”, 2nd Edn (Edward Arnold, London, 1961) p. 131.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. D. Preston, “The Molecular Architecture of Plant Cell Walls” (Chapman and Hall, London, 1952) pp. 40, 120.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Holliday, “Composite Materials”, (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1966) p. 486.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. E. Mark, “Cell Wall Mechanics of Tracheids” (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1967) p. 107.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. D. Preston, “The Physical Biology of Plant Cell Walls” (Chapman and Hall, London, 1974) p. 376.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. E. Mark, “Cell Wall Mechanics of Tracheids” (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1967) p. 144.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. S. Srinivasan, Quart. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 4 (2) (1941) 222.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. R. G. Treloar, Polymer 1 (1960) 290.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. A. Jawson, P. P. Gillis and R. E. Mark, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 306 (1968) 389.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd. 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. C. McLaughlin
    • 1
  • R. A. Tait
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of the West Indies (UWI)Kingston 7, JamaicaW. Indies
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations