Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Natural Fibre Composites Review-Composites B
Natural Fibre Composites Review-Composites B
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247152260
CITATIONS
READS
305
2,594
4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Harry Ku
Hao Wang
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Mohan Trada
University of Southern Queensland
25 PUBLICATIONS 386 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 15 March 2010
Received in revised form 19 November 2010
Accepted 8 January 2011
Available online 15 January 2011
Keywords:
A. Polymer-matrix composites (PMCs)
B. Mechanical properties
D. Mechanical testing
E. Compression moulding
a b s t r a c t
This paper is a review on the tensile properties of natural ber reinforced polymer composites. Natural
bers have recently become attractive to researchers, engineers and scientists as an alternative reinforcement for ber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites. Due to their low cost, fairly good mechanical properties, high specic strength, non-abrasive, eco-friendly and bio-degradability characteristics, they are
exploited as a replacement for the conventional ber, such as glass, aramid and carbon. The tensile properties of natural ber reinforce polymers (both thermoplastics and thermosets) are mainly inuenced by
the interfacial adhesion between the matrix and the bers. Several chemical modications are employed
to improve the interfacial matrixber bonding resulting in the enhancement of tensile properties of the
composites. In general, the tensile strengths of the natural ber reinforced polymer composites increase
with ber content, up to a maximum or optimum value, the value will then drop. However, the Youngs
modulus of the natural ber reinforced polymer composites increase with increasing ber loading. Khoathane et al. [1] found that the tensile strength and Youngs modulus of composites reinforced with
bleached hemp bers increased incredibly with increasing ber loading. Mathematical modelling was
also mentioned. It was discovered that the rule of mixture (ROM) predicted and experimental tensile
strength of different natural bers reinforced HDPE composites were very close to each other. Halpin
Tsai equation was found to be the most effective equation in predicting the Youngs modulus of composites containing different types of natural bers.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
A ber reinforced polymer (FRP) is a composite material consisting of a polymer matrix imbedded with high-strength bers,
such as glass, aramid and carbon [2]. Generally, polymer can be
classied into two classes, thermoplastics and thermosettings.
Thermoplastic materials currently dominate, as matrices for biobers; the most commonly used thermoplastics for this purpose
are polypropylene (PP), polyethylene, and poly vinyl chloride
(PVC); while phenolic, epoxy and polyester resins are the most
commonly used thermosetting matrices [3]. In the recent decades,
natural bers as an alternative reinforcement in polymer composites have attracted the attention of many researchers and scientists
due to their advantages over conventional glass and carbon bers
[4]. These natural bers include ax, hemp, jute, sisal, kenaf, coir,
kapok, banana, henequen and many others [5]. The various advantages of natural bers over man-made glass and carbon bers are
low cost, low density, comparable specic tensile properties,
non-abrasive to the equipments, non-irritation to the skin, reduced
energy consumption, less health risk, renewability, recyclability
and bio-degradability [3]. These composites materials are suitably
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 31 445 2485; fax: +61 31 446 9556.
E-mail address: ku@usq.edu.au (H. Ku).
1359-8368/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.01.010
857
2. Tensile properties
Generally, the tensile properties of composites are markedly
improved by adding bers to a polymer matrix since bers have
much higher strength and stiffness values than those of the matrices as shown in Tables 13 [3,8].
Consider the tensile strength of S-glass from Table 1, and that of
polypropylene (PP) from Table 2 and that of polyester resin from
Table 3, it can be found that the tensile strength of the ber
(S-glass) is 75150 times higher than those of the matrices (PP
and polyester resin). It can also be found that the Youngs modulus
of the ber (S-glass) is 80160 times higher than those of the
matrices (PP and polyester resin) [38].
In general, higher ber content is desired for the purpose of
achieving high performance of short ber reinforced polymer composites (SFRP) [7]. It is often observed that the presence of ber or
other reinforcement in the polymeric matrix raises the composite
strength and modulus [5]. Therefore, the effect of ber content
on the tensile properties of ber reinforced composites is of particular interest and signicance for many researchers [7].
Nonwoven mats from hemp and polypropylene bers in various
proportions are mixed and hot pressed to make composite materials. The effect of hemp ber content and anisotropy are examined
on the basis of tensile properties of the resultant composite
materials. The tensile strength, with bers in the perpendicular
direction, tended to decrease with increasing hemp ber content
(a maximum decrease of 34% at 70% of hemp) as depicted in
Fig. 1. Whereas, the tensile strength, with bers in the parallel
direction, showed a different trend and a maximum value was
found with increasing ber loading. It was found that the tensile
strength of composites with bers in the perpendicular direction
was 20 40% lower than those of composites with bers in parallel
direction. Since the bers lay perpendicular to the direction of load,
they cannot act as load bearing elements in the composite matrix
structure but become potential defects which could cause failure.
As expected, better tensile properties are found in the specimens
cut from the composite sheets parallel to the direction of carding
as depicted in Fig. 1 [9].
In general, the Youngs modulus of the composite materials increase with an increase in ber content, reaching a maximum value at 50% hemp ber loading and then decreasing slightly at
70% hemp ber content. The Youngs modulus was almost two
and a half times higher at 50% hemp ber loading than at 0% ber
content, i.e. pure PP as depicted in Fig. 2 [9].
Fig. 3 illustrated the tensile strength of 20-mesh hardwood, 40mesh hardwood, ax and rice hull bers reinforced HDPE composites. Li et al. [5] reported that ax ber content from 10% to 30% by
mass was mixed with high-density polyethylene (HDPE) by extrusion and injection moulding to produce bio-composites. The re-
Table 1
Properties of selected natural and manmade bers [adapted from 3, 8].
Fiber
Density (g/cm3)
Elongation (%)
Refs.
Cotton
Jute
Flax
Hemp
Kenaf
Ramie
Sisal
Coir
Softwood kraft pulp
E-glass
S-glass
Aramid (Std.)
Carbon (Std. PAN-based)
1.51.6
1.3
1.5
1.47
1.45
N/A
1.5
1.2
1.5
2.5
2.5
1.4
1.4
7.08.0
1.51.8
2.73.2
240
1.6
3.63.8
2.02.5
30
4.4
0.5
2.8
3.33.7
1.41.8
400
393773
5001500
690
930
400938
511635
593
1000
20003500
4570
30003150
4000
5.512.6
26.5
27.6
70
53
61.4128
9.422
4.06.0
40
70
86
63.067.0
230240
[6,7]
[6]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[8]
[8]
[9]
[9]
[9]
[9]
[9]
[9]
858
Table 2
Properties of typical thermoplastic polymers used in natural ber composite fabrication [adapted from 3, 8].
Property
3
Density (g/cm )
Water absorption-24 h (%)
Tg (C)
Tm (C)
Heat deection Temp (C)
Coefcient of thermal expansion (mm/mm/C 105)
Tensile strength (MPa)
Elastic modulus (GPa)
Elongation (%)
Izod impact strength (J/m)
a
PPa
LDPE
HDPE
PS
Nylon 6
Nylon 6,6
0.8990.920
0.010.02
10 to 230
160176
5063
6.813.5
2641.4
0.951.77
15700
21.4267
0.9100.925
<0.015
125
105116
3250
10
4078
0.0550.38
90800
>854
0.940.96
0.010.2
133 to 1000
120140
4360
1213
14.538
0.41.5
2.0130
26.71068
10.41.06
0.030.10
N/A
1101350
Max. 220
68
2569
450
12.5
1.1
1.121.14
1.31.8
48
215
5680
88.86
4379
2.9
20150
42.7160
1.131.15
1.01.6
80
250269
7590
7.29
12.494
2.53.9
35>300
16654
PP = polypropylene, LDPE = low density polyethylene, HDPE = high-density polyethylene and PS = polystyrene.
Table 3
Properties of typical thermoset polymers used in natural ber composites [adapted
from 3, 8].
Property
Polyester
resin
Vinyl ester
resin
Epoxy
Density (g/cm3)
Elastic modulus (GPa)
Tensile strength (MPa)
Compressive strength (MPa)
1.21.5
24.5
4090
90250
1.21.4
3.13.8
6983
100
Elongation (%)
Cure shrinkage (%)
Water absorption
(24 h@20 C)
Izod impact strength (J/m)
2
48
0.10.3
47
N/A
0.1
1.11.4
36
35100
100
200
16
12
0.10.4
0.153.2
2.5
0.3
859
Fig. 4. Tensile elongation of bio-composites vs. ber mass concentration [adapted from 5].
Fig. 5. Youngs modulus of 20-mesh hardwood, 40-mesh hardwood, ax and rice hull bre reinforced HDPE composites with bre loadings of 040% vol. [adapted from 5, 10
and 11].
120
140
100
120
Elongation (%)
160
100
80
60
40
80
60
40
20
20
0
0
0
10
15
20
10
15
20
Fig. 6. The effect of ber content on the tensile strength of micro winceyette ber
reinforced thermoplastic corn starch composites [adapted from 12].
Fig. 7. The effect of ber content on the elongation of micro winceyette ber
reinforced thermoplastic corn starch composites [adapted from 12].
860
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
Fig. 8. The effect of ber contents on the energy at break of micro winceyette ber
reinforced thermoplastic corn starch composites [adapted from 12].
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Fig. 10. The effect of ber contents on tensile strength of bleached hemp ber
reinforced PP1 composites [adapted from 1].
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
861
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
kenaf
Jute
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
kenaf
Jute
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Fiber untreated
0
30
35
40
45
50
862
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Fiber untreated
0
30
35
40
45
50
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
100/0/0
85/0/15
80/5/15
70/0/30
65/5/30
Formulation
Untreated fiber
Bleached fiber
Fig. 16. Effect of coupling agent concentration on tensile strength of PP composites with 10% w/t coir bre [adapted from 19].
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
100/0/0
85/0/15
80/5/15
70/0/30
65/5/30
Formulation
Untreated fiber
Bleached fiber
Fig. 17. Effect of coupling agent concentration on Youngs modulus of PP composites with 10 w/t% coir bre [adapted from 19].
863
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
2% NaOH teatment
2%+5%NaOH treatment
Fig. 18. Effect of surface modication on tensile strength of PBS/jute bio-composites with different bre loading [adapted from 20].
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
2% NaOH teatment
2%+5%NaOH treatment
Fig. 19. Effect of surface modication on tensile modulus of PBS/jute bio-composites with different bre loading [adapted from 20].
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
2% NaOH teatment
2%+5%NaOH treatment
Fig. 20. Effect of surface modication on breaking elongation of PBS/jute bio-composites with different bre loading [adapted from 20].
tensile strength and modulus as shown in Figs. 23 and 24 respectively [19]. The strength reduction observed with high MAPP
C-L (sodium
chlorite
treated
biocomposite)
A-L (aryclic
treated
biocomposite)
P-L
(potassium
biocomposite)
S-L (silane
treated
biocomposite)
N-L (alkali
treated
biocomposite)
U-L (untreated
biocomposite)
14.4
14.2
14
13.8
13.6
13.4
13.2
13
12.8
LLDPE
864
C-H (sodium
chlorite
treated
biocomposite)
A-H (aryclic
treated
biocomposite)
P-H
(potassium
biocomposite)
S-H (silane
treated
biocomposite)
N-H (alkali
treated
biocomposite)
U-H
(untreated
biocomposite)
20.6
20.4
20.2
20
19.8
19.6
19.4
19.2
19
18.8
HDPE
Fig. 21. Tensile strength of LLDPE and bre-LLPDE bio-composites after surface modications [adapted from 14].
35
30
25
0 wt% MAPP
20
5 wt% MAPP
15
10 wt% MAPP
10
5
0
neat
3 wt%
corn
5 wt%
corn
7 wt%
corn
9 wt%
corn
Fig. 23. Effects of MAPP loading on tensile strength of corn chaff bre reinforced PP composites [adapted from 19].
865
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0 wt% MAPP
5 wt% MAPP
10 wt% MAPP
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
neat
Fig. 24. Effects of MAPP loading on tensile modulus of corn chaff bre reinforced PP composites [adapted from 19].
60
50
40
30
Tensile strength (MPa)
20
10
0
0
3.3
3.25
3.2
3.15
Tensile modulus (GPa)
3.1
3.05
3
0
866
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Twin screw extrusion
Compression molding
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
867
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
MD
CD
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Pressure (bars)
Fig. 28. Tensile modulus of natural ber mat (hemp and kenaf) reinforced acrylic composites in machine direction (MD) and cross direction (CD) under varying pressures
[adapted from 25].
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
0
10
12
14
Time (min)
Fig. 29. Tensile strength of melting mixing of PP/sisal composites with varying mixing times; bre content 30%, bre length 10 mm [adapted from 27].
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
0
10
12
14
Time (min)
Fig. 30. Tensile modulus of melting mixing of PP/sisal composites with varying mixing times; bre content 30%, bre length 10 mm [adapted from 27].
868
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Temperature ( C)
Fig. 31. Tensile strength of melting mixing of PP/sisal composites with varying mixing temperatures; bre content 30%, bre length 10 mm [adapted from 27].
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
3. Mathematical modelling
Facca et al. exploited a micromechanical model which was a
semi-empirical modication of the rule of mixtures (ROM)
strength Eq. (10):
r1U rFU 1
lC
V F rM 1 V F ; l P lC
2l
l
d
r1U asi V F
l
W T
rM 1 V F ; l 6 lC
2
WT
where r1U, a, si, rM , l, lC, VF, d, W, T are composite tensile strength,
the clustering parameter, interfacial shear strength, maximum
stress evaluated at the peak composite strength, ber length, critical ber length, ber volume fraction, cylindrical ber diameter,
rectangular ber width, rectangular ber thickness, respectively.
All of the above-mentioned parameters are available from literature to predict the tensile strength of HDPE reinforced with a variety of natural bers (hemp, hardwood our and rice hulls) and
synthetic (E-glass) bers [10].
Note that, the direction of short ber is assumed to be perfectly
aligned and ber curvature is negligible. Also, experimental approaches are required to determine the interfacial shear strength
(si) of the ber; either ber pullout or fragmentation test can be
used. Figs. 3337 showed the predicted and experimental tensile
strength of different natural ber reinforced HDPE composites
[10]. It was found that for most cases the tensile strength of the
predicted and experimental results were at par. It can be argued
that Eqs. (1)(3) gave a good prediction of the experimental results
except those shown in Fig. 37, where, the experimental tensile
strength of HDPE composites reinforced with rice hulls bers initially increased to a maximum value of 24.88 MPa at 5 vol.% of rice
hulls ber; it then gradually dropped to a minimum value of
17.11 MPa at 40 vol.% of ller. On the other hand, the predicted
tensile strength of the composites initially decreased to a minimum value of 21.78 MPa at 5 vol.% of rice hulls ber; it then gradually increased to a maximum value of 28.78 MPa at 25 vol.% of
ller before dropping back to 24.11 MPa at 40 vol.% of ller [10].
Facca et al. also found that the increase by weight of natural
short bers like hemp, hardwood, rice hulls in high-density polyethylene manufactured by twin-screw brabender mixer compounding and compression moulding, increased the tensile
modulus of all composites [11]. Again, in order to reduce cost
869
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Fig. 33. Predicted and experimental tensile strengths of HDPE composite reinforced with hemp bers between ber loadings of 1060 wt.% [adapted from 10].
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Fig. 34. Predicted and experimental tensile strengths of HDPE composites reinforced with E-glass bers between ber loadings of 1060 wt.% [adapted from 10].
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Fig. 35. Predicted and experimental tensile strengths of HDPE composites reinforced with 20-mesh hardwood bers between ber loadings of 1060 wt.% [adapted from 10].
where EF, VF, EM and VM are the moduli and volume fractions of the
ber and matrix respectively.
(2) Inverse/transverse rule of mixtures (IROM) [11]:
E
(1) Rule of mixture (ROM) [11]:
E EF V F EM V M
EF EM
V M EF V F EM
where EF, VF, EM and VM are the moduli and volume fractions of the
ber and matrix respectively.
870
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Fig. 36. Predicted and experimental tensile strengths of HDPE composite reinforced with 40-mesh hardwood bers between ber loadings of 1060 wt.% [adapted from 10].
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Fig. 37. Predicted and experimental tensile strength of HDPE composites reinforced with rice hulls bers between ber loadings of 1060 wt.% [adapted from 10].
1 ngV F
E EM
1 gV F
EF =EM 1
EF =EM n
n2
L
L
or n 2
T
D
E EF 1
tanhg2L
g2L
V F EM V M
10
3
5
E1 E2
8
8
Ei EM
1 ni gi V F
EF =EM 1
; gi
;
EF =EM ni
1 gi V F
11
871
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Rule of Mixture
Halpin Tsai
Nairn shear-lag
Mendels et al.
Fig. 38. Youngs modulus of HDPE composites containing E-glass bers [adapted from 11].
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Rule of Mixture
Halpin Tsai
Nairn shear-lag
Mendels et al.
Fig. 39. Youngs modulus of HDPE composites containing hardwood A [adapted from 11].
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Rule of Mixture
Halpin Tsai
Nairn shear-lag
Mendels et al.
Fig. 40. Youngs modulus of HDPE composites containing hemp bers [adapted from 11].
872
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Rule of Mixture
Halpin Tsai
Nairn shear-lag
Mendels et al.
Fig. 41. Youngs modulus of HDPE composites containing hardwood B [adapted from 11].
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Rule of Mixture
Halpin Tsai
Nairn shear-lag
Mendels et al.
Fig. 42. Youngs modulus of HDPE composites containing rice hulls [adapted from 11].
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
kenaf
Prediction
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
silkworm silk, chicken feather and spider silk have also been used
and the trend should go on. Those bers, both animal- and
plant-based have provided useful solutions for new materials
development, in the eld of material science and engineering.
Natural bers are indeed renewable resources that can be grown
and made within a short period of time, in which the supply can
be unlimited as compared with traditional glass and carbon bers
873
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Jute
Prediction
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70