Tensile behaviour of nonwoven structures: comparison with experimental results
- 419 Downloads
- 8 Citations
Abstract
Nonwoven structures have been recently explored for numerous novel applications ranging from composites to scaffolds. The tensile property of nonwovens is a pre-requisite and indeed, one of the main parameters to determine their performance for such applications. In the first part, a modified micromechanical model describing the tensile behaviour of thermally bonded nonwovens was proposed by incorporating the effect of fibre re-orientation during the deformation (Rawal et al., J Mater Sci 45:2274, 2010). In this study, an attempt has been made to compare the theoretical and experimental stress–strain curves of thermally bonded and spunbonded nonwoven structures. These theoretical findings have been obtained from the most popular analytical tensile models of nonwovens available in the literature in addition to our modified tensile model. Poisson’s ratio has also been determined experimentally in order to predict the stress–strain behaviour of nonwoven, and its relationship with longitudinal strain has clearly distinguished between the randomly and preferentially orientated types of structures. In thermally bonded nonwovens, the tensile strength in various test directions is computed through pull-out stress and a comparison is made with the experimental results.
Keywords
Fibre Orientation Fibre Stress Longitudinal Strain Test Direction Strain BehaviourNotes
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the companies, i.e. Libeltex BVBA and Colbond for providing thermally bonded and spunbonded nonwoven samples, respectively.
References
- 1.Lukić S, Jovanić P (2004) Mater Lett 58:439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Patnaik A, Tejyan S, Rawal A (accepted) Soil erosion behaviour of needlepunched nonwoven reinforced composites. Res J Text ApparGoogle Scholar
- 3.Engelmayr GC, Sacks MS (2006) J Biomech Eng 128:610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Backer S, Petterson DR (1960) Text Res J 30:704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Hearle JWS, Stevenson PJ (1963) Text Res J 33:877Google Scholar
- 6.Hearle JWS, Stevenson PJ (1964) Text Res J 34:181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Bais-Singh S, Goswami BC (1995) J Text Inst 86:271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Kim HS (2004) Fibers Polym 5:139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.van Wyk CM (1946) J Text Inst 37:T285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Komori T, Makishima K (1977) Text Res J 47:13Google Scholar
- 11.Komori T, Makishima K (1978) Text Res J 48:309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Pan N (1993) Text Res J 63:336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Pan N, Chen J, Seo M, Backer S (1997) Text Res J 67:907Google Scholar
- 14.Mueller DH, Kochmann M (2004) Int Nonwovens J 13:56Google Scholar
- 15.Limem S, Warner SB (2005) Text Res J 75:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Hou X, Acar M, Silberschmidt VV (2009) Comput Mater Sci 46:700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Demirci E, Acar M, Pourdeyhimi, B, Silberschmidt VV (in press) Comput Mater Sci. doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci02:039
- 18.Hou X, Acar M, Silberschmidt VV (in press) Comput Mater Sci. doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2010.03.009
- 19.Rawal A, Priyadarshi A, Lomov SV, Ngo T, Verpoest I, Vankerrebrouck J (2010) J Mater Sci 45:2274. doi: 10.1007/s10853-009-4152-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Pan N (1993) J Text Inst 84:472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Jones RM (1975) Mechanics of composite materials. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 22.Rawal A, Lomov SV, Ngo T, Verpoest I, Vankerrebrouck J (2007) Text Res J 77:417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Rawal A, Lomov SV, Verpoest I (2008) J Text Inst 99:235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Rawal A (2006) J Ind Text 36:133CrossRefGoogle Scholar